Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Weird page

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of Betacommand 3. Why is it not linked from here? Right now it's linked only from User talk:Δ. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Undoubtedly because I have made errors. I posted a request for a clerk to assist, and believe they will.[1] My76Strat (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My76strat, we are not going to reopen a case we just closed. The decision has been made. I'm not going to bar you from making the request, but I'm going to say flat out you have a 0% chance of succeeding. SirFozzie (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sir I do understand your position. I am normally familiar with an appeal being filed in a timely proximity to a decision and not so much far removed. I sincerely hope such an appeal has something better than 0% because I rather wish to believe the provision in policy is more than aesthetic. My76Strat (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the clerks to look at this because it is malformed and not really properly listed in any category. I've explained here what I believe the correct procedure is.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify jurisdiction

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities does not include within its scope an appeal from "any editor", specifically an editor in good standing. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions appears indicative that it should. Can this perceived contradiction be clarified or corrected to afford standing to "any editor" upon delineated cause? To be clear, I am more comfortable appealing the decision opposed to requesting a modification. Respectfully submitted - My76Strat (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been informed, quite clearly, that as you are not a blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted user, the course of action in such circumstances is to request an amendment or a clarification, per policy. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

How can I have been informed when I am clearly asking to reconcile the apparent contradiction in policy and that significant element is consistently not addressed? It is worth considering that I postulated my question prior to the post to my talk page. If you are suggesting that I can not ask for this clarification unless it is done on a properly formed request for clarification then I do better understand your comments. My76Strat (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Which "significant element" are you saying is "consistently not addressed"? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that ambiguity. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities requires an editor be blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted to appeal a decision. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions states: "Any editor may ask the Committee to reconsider ..." I am vexed by this apparent contradiction and would appreciate if someone could help me understand what I am missing. My76Strat (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. To appeal you have to be "blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted". Any editor may ask the Committee to reconsider or amend a ruling. They are two different processes. As to you 'postulating your question', I checked the timestamps, though that is irrelevant and not worth persuing. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. I understand the distinction as you have just explained. the issue of timestamps is worth pursuing if it in any way causes you to doubt my sincerity. The question was originally postulated on a deleted contribution, now located here. I would rather you not be distracted that I might tend to embellish. Again, thank you for helping me better understand the intent of these provisions. My76Strat (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Feeler question

Does anyone think that something like "Repeated accusations of homophobia" is sufficiently well defined for a case? I see a long-term dispute and pattern of behavior surrounding that, with the latest incarnation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Who controls the artibration policy?

• We're elected to discharge the duties assigned to us by the community in the arbitration policy... [2]

This comment was made by an Arbitrator in a proposed decision. How long has it been since the community had any control over the arbitration policy? Last time there was a revision I thought it was made pretty clear that only the ArbCom can alter the arbitration policy. Is that incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  04:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The current policy was proposed by Arbcom with community input and ratified by the community in June, 2011. It's all linked from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy for your reading pleasure. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.   Will Beback  talk  05:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)