Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
Requests for arbitration
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brahmaguptas Multan connection | 23 April 2016 | {{{votes}}} |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) | Motion | (orig. case) | 26 July 2024 |
| Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) | Motion | (orig. case) | 17 August 2024 |
| Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | none | (orig. case) | 8 September 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Brahmaguptas Multan connection
Initiated by Xinjao (talk) at 12:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Xinjao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by Xinjao
I added reference to Multan as the residence of historical figure, Brahmagupta. Party2 removed the reference citing the lack of a source. I added a source, a book by an Indian author. It appeared that he accepted the source at first but then later removed the reference again.
Statement by Kautilya3
This is evidently a content dispute that doesn't belong here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon
If this were a Third Opinion request or a request for moderated dispute resolution, it would be declined because there has been inadequate talk page discussion. There has been inadequate talk page discussion and there has been no attempt to use any content resolution procedure, as as Third Opinion, moderated dispute resolution, formal mediation, or a Request for Comments. Also, ArbCom is for conduct disputes that the community cannot deal with. (Also, if there is a conduct dispute, it has already been arbitrated, and ends with Arbitration Enforcement.) I see no claims of conduct dispute, let alone any efforts to deal with a conduct dispute. This case should be declined and the filing party should be admonished for wasting time.
Statement by Mz7
Have we ever considered allowing arbitrators to unilaterally decline obviously premature requests? Or perhaps requiring an ANI discussion prior to an arbitration request for disputes not involving administrators (since this is supposed to be the court of last resort for such matters)? We seem to be getting a lot of premature requests, and I feel like shortening the process would save some time and hopefully get disputes resolved more quickly, rather than waiting to get to a majority. Mz7 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- @L235: Ah, thanks for clarifying. I don't think this request is deliberately "frivolous" or "meaningless" more than it is one user who is simply inexperienced with the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. We shouldn't be admonishing these users, but counseling them on how we do things. With that being said, time and efficiency are also important, and I think we can give advice to these users without having to wait for 8 inevitable oppose votes. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- @Mz7: Arbs can already unilaterally decline cases under Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#When_to_take_action, "Regarding frivolous or meaningless cases". Oftentimes (e.g. here), for whatever reason, they choose not to use that procedure (which is simply instructing a clerk to remove a case request under that section). (We've not received any instructions or other mail wrt this case request, and far be it from us clerks to question the wisdom of arbs.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Brahmaguptas Multan connection: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/10/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- Decline as a. premature and b. a content dispute. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Decline per Salvio. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Decline per Salvio. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Decline - content dispute with no attempted dispute resolution. Keilana (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Decline per all above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Decline kelapstick(bainuu) 22:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Decline per all above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I'm late to this party. Accept. I'm kidding: decline and will y'all PLEASE try to work stuff out among yourselves. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Decline as above. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Decline Courcelles (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)