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


Comments in My Section[edit]

Two editors in good faith added comments in my section in which I endorsed formal mediation for the No Gun Ri massacre request. Since threaded comments are not permitted in Arb requests, will a clerk please move their comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears that L235 took care of this request on Tuesday. Just wanted to note that this question was addressed. Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Evidence/preliminary comments[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence

The evidence page for this case is already extremely large due to all the preliminary comments that have been copied there. Most however are comments relating to whether or not Malik's desysop was level 1, level 2 or neither, and whether it should be reversed. They are procedural comments, not substantive evidence about behaviour in the P-I topic area. I'm not sure it makes sense to copy every comment to that section, might I suggest that this practice be modified so that:

  1. (first preference) It is left to users to decide whether or not they want to base their evidence on their preliminary comments before the case was opened; or
  2. (second preference) The clerk opening the case actually considers the substance of the preliminary comments and whether they contain evidence that should be copied to that page (likely to be unduly onerous for the clerks).

In the meantime, I have removed my premilinary comments from the evidence page, which I presume I am at liberty to do. WJBscribe (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@WJBscribe: Thanks for bringing this up. I've clarified that users may remove their own preliminary statements if they so choose; are you asking for any other action? Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)