Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Wikipedia. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.

This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist.

Shortcuts:
Please click here to file an arbitration case Please click here for a guide to arbitration
WT:RFAR subpages

WT:RFAR archives (2004-2009):
123456789
1011121314151617
181920212223END

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration subpages

Various archives (2004-2011):
122.12.22.32.43
4AE1AE2ARM1ARM2


Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009-):
1233A45789

Archive of prior proceedings

CasesMotionsDeclined case requests


Request to unhat/fix up the MarkBernstein AE[edit]

Bishonen had hatted the AE I had placed against Mark on the basis of using a non-remedy as the actionable item, and I admit, that was my bad. I asked Bishonen on his talk page about unhatting it so that I can fix the actionable item (noting that Mark has been topic-banned though lifted from GG before), but Bishonen did not see the immediate relevance of this and suggested I open discussion here, so I am following up on that. (see [1])

After reviewing a bit more, I believe the sanction I should be filing the AE under is under the discretionary section of the GG findings, which codified the existing community sanctions, which include "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor that edits pages related to the Gamergate controversy, if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.", of which specifically I am concerned on Mark for "expected standards of behavior". As such, I am requesting if the AE can be unhatted so that I can fix, in the case listing, the sanction to be enforced. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Did you intend to file this at WP:ARCA? Normally, closures are appealed at the admins' noticeboard. An appeal on AN will get a lot more eyes on it than here, this isn't a particularly heavily watched talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen suggested here after I commented on their page, but also did suggest AN. (I realize this was my mistake in the filing and not Bishonen, so I felt considering it an admin issue to be overkill). If that is the recommended place, I will do that instead. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As necessary, this request should be considered closed. I took to AN as suggested, it was discussed and closed there at my request. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Arbitration Enforcement header[edit]

On July 1, 2015, the header on the Arbitration Enforcement page was changed to include the text of a motion passed in 2014 to update the procedure for discretionary sanctions (note the text explicitly states the provisions do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the Arbitration Committee). However, the earlier text was based on a motion passed in 2010 that was not solely limited to discretionary sanctions. Accordingly, I do not believe the 2014 motion completely supersedes the 2010 motion. Can the procedure in the header be clarified accordingly? isaacl (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2014 updated procedure for appeals and modifications completely supersedes the previous version, and (unlike the prior one) applies to both arbitration enforcement and discretionary sanctions. This was done deliberately to get the procedures into sync and avoid confusion.  Roger Davies talk 05:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you clarify, then, the following paragraph in the updated Appeals and modification section:
3. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
Which provisions are being referred to? Only the immediately preceding notes 1 and 2? isaacl (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Filing a Case - Template is Confusing - How do I enter CASENAME[edit]

The template for filing an arbitration request is confusing. In particular, at the very top, it says to provide a neutral name for the case. But below there, it says not to enter anything in the case header. Do I enter the case name in CASENAME = , or do I ignore that because it says not to enter anything there? That is the most confusing aspect, but other than that, the instructions about specifying the parties are also confusing. 20:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You forgot to sign, Robert McClenon. But I don't blame you for being confused. I just noticed the unfortunate User:Kharkiv07's hitherto unsuccessful attempts to file a case in the page history and took a look at the template we're told to use for the purpose. What a monster! It used to be simple enough to file a new case! Is that frightening template obligatory? I have no idea how to use it. Bishonen | talk 21:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC).
Thank you agreeing that the template is confusing. It appears not that I forgot to sign, but that I signed incorrectly with the wrong number of tildes. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Would somebody like to answer my question (is using the template obligatory)? I hope it's not, but the way it's phrased on the RFAR page implies it is: "To make an arbitration case request: Click here to file a new request", and the "click here" takes you to straight to the template. I realize new users may need a template (whereas people like me are probably more comfortable with the popular method of copying what someone else did), but that template is least of all suited for new users. Anybody? Roger? L235? Bishonen | talk 09:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
There has been some recent discussion of this at WT:AC/C; Bishonen, to answer your first question, if it looks and feels the same as the template, you can use it - but the onus is on you to make sure everything is correct on the case request. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed the preload. People entering things in the "subject/headline" box (and generating a superfluous section header) used to be an actual problem, but MediaWiki was updated to allow us to hide the "subject/headline" box, and the link just needs to be updated to take advantage of that. T. Canens (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

New evidence for pseudoscience[edit]

Would a clerk please review the history at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. Should that page be edited now (WP:ARBPS closed in December 2006)? I will notify the user, but clarification here would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The edits have been reverted and it appears that you've discussed the situation with the editor so I don't think the action will be repeated. Thank you for taking that action. And you are correct, if an editor wants to revisit a closed arbitration case, they should post a request at WP:ARCA. Liz Read! Talk! 11:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Bot archiving[edit]

Hey! The archival bot for this page archived a request that was still open- I thought it would be pretty uncontroversial to unarchive it, but MONGO is insisting that the request stay off this page. What is the appropriate avenue for me to solve this conduct problem? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

To clarify- this is occurring on the Arbitration Enforcement Requests page. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The bot auto archives if no comments are made after a set period of time...so that's where your complaint needs to be. Ask to have the length of time extended as to when the bot does the archiving. I assume you had no further comments to make on the matter anyway, right?--MONGO 09:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The request was awaiting an admin close- these requests shouldn't be archived without one. Here is an example of manual unarchiving where the bot has made a mistake. Why do you assert that the bot is the arbiter of whether a request has been resolved or not? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess whoever set the bot archive parameter felt that 4-5 days and no comments means it has no resolution and should get archived. Instead of assuming I'm doing something wrong, why not ask one of the admins who did comment if they wish to pursue the issue further.--MONGO 10:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
PeterTheGreat...you sure have an unhealthy obsession with DHeyward, and there has been administrators that have agreed that you have previously HOUNDED DHeyward to various pages...that is against policy. Frankly, you're efforts to see sanctions brought against this editor seem to stop at nothing and I think the best solution is an interaction ban between yourself and DHeyward.--MONGO 10:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Going to ask one of the commenting admins to either close the AE request or unarchive it for further review.--MONGO 11:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)