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.

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

WT:RFAR archives (2004-2009):

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration subpages

Various archives (2004-2011):

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

Archive of prior proceedings

CasesMotionsDeclined case requests

Amendment request: Waenceslaus[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Waenceslaus at 16:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Waenceslaus arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Longevity topic related articles

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Information about amendment request
  • Longevity topic related articles
  • Kind request of the user Waenceslaus to get un-topic-banned in the field of longevity.

Statement by Waenceslaus[edit]

Greetings, I am a Wikipedian from Poland since June 17, 2014. My main area of interest is the study of extreme longevity. I have been topic banned in August of 2015 on the basis of misunderstanding regarding the consideration of reliability of sources used for the topic related articles. Being unaware of new settings, I reverted a destructive edit which removed a source that has always been considered as reliable and as a result my account was topic-banned for all the longevity related articles. I consider this decision as very unfortunate for the reason that it has been forced too fast so that I didn't have an opportunity neither to say anything in my defense nor explain the position I took. Over the past year of my activity in this area, I have made many constructive edits as seen in my contributions' page. Furthermore, I have created many new articles related in the topic area such as List of Polish supercentenarians, Aleksandra Dranka, List of Czech supercentenarians, List of supercentenarians born in Austria-Hungary, List of supercentenarians born in the Russian Empire, List of supercentenarians from the Nordic countries, List of supercentenarians from Asia, List of supercentenarians of the Caribbean, List of supercentenarians from Oceania, Maria Pogonowska. I believe that I brought much for this branch with my work and I am still willing to contribute further. Therefore my kind plea. Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

This appeal should go elsewhere. The ban was *not* under discretionary sanctions. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895#Topic ban for Waenceslaus.

This was a regular community topic ban imposed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise in August, 2015. It's been entered in WP:RESTRICT. The editor was notified here on user talk. There are discretionary sanctions provided under the Longevity case but FP did not use them. So unless Arbcom thinks there was something abusive here, there is nothing for User:Waenceslaus to appeal in this forum. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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 amendment request or provide additional information.

Waenceslaus: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Waenceslaus: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • Decline as a valid community sanction --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Valid community sanction, that even if we could overturn, I see absolutely no reason why it should be. Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Technically, this is the wrong venue, as appeals of community sanctions should go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case; then again, as far as I'm concerned, there's no point in moving this thread there, since I don't see any reason for us to overturn the sanction. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline. While theoretically we can review community sanctions, we would only overturn them in cases where there were very serious issues. Even if filed properly, there isn't any chance we would overturn this one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Ed Johnston. On the basis that there wasn't anything abusive, decline. NativeForeigner Talk 11:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline per Salvio. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline. LFaraone 21:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Doug Weller (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline per EdJohnston. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Shall I even pile on? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to define scope of arbitration cases[edit]

Three years ago, a discussion was initiated on improving the arbitration process. At that time I proposed that when the arbitration committee accepts a case, it should include a brief statement delineating the scope being reviewed, to ensure that the presented evidence is focused on the intended area of dispute to be resolved. There may be times when the committee would like to keep the scope open-ended, which it can specify in its statement. This would save time for both the participants and the arbitration committee.

Taking the "Arbitration enforcement 2" case as an example: the participants are left guessing what evidence is within scope and is applicable. In addition, it's not clear why the workshop phase has been eliminated: my assumption is that the committee felt that its desired scope for the evidence phase overlapped with the usual purpose for the workshop phase and so the workshop is unnecessary. By writing a short paragraph at the opening of a case outlining its scope, the committee can avoid guesswork and make the process more effective. Can the committee consider modifying its procedures so that a case's scope is described when it is opened? isaacl (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, people present what they think is relevant, and committee decides what they think is relevant - it's not going to change regardless, and there is probably never going to be some code of evidence like a court. Why no workshop for this case? Probably, because there just was a lengthy workshop on the same issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do, rather than requiring more bureaucracy, is just to ask for clarification on the appropriate case talkpage if you are unclear about what the scope is. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is a lot of bureaucracy for the drafting arbitrator to write one to three sentences describing the scope of the case. It's not a question of requiring a code of evidence or anything: it just saves everyone's time by focusing their efforts and avoiding digressions. isaacl (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)