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

Reduced timeline[edit]

I think cutting the timeline in half may be overdoing it. Perhaps a compromise on 10 days each for each phase would be better if a shortened timeframe is really insisted upon. The holidays means that many people, especially Americans, will be travelling or spending most of their time with their families or on vacation, etc. Also, the exact scope of this case is unclear, the details are still somewhat unclear, the parties and exact focus is unclear, and the issue of the mix of advanced privileges and (disclosed or undisclosed) paid editing is something that people will have many opinions on and may opine/propose at length on. I sent an email to Euryalus detailing why I think cutting the time in half is too short; perhaps he could forward it to the others. Softlavender (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Softlavender. We will follow up with Euryalus, or alternatively you may also send it to the ArbCom mailing list Mkdw talk 18:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the email (I'm out of town for work so apologies for slightly delayed reply). Keen that everyone has a chance to comment and debate; also keen to avoid that mid-case dead zone where everything has been said and we're just running down the clock. How about two weeks evidence, one week for each of workshop and PD? We can always extend it as we go if required, this indicative timeframe would be more of an incentive for people to move it along. In passing, my suggestion is not specific to this case; it's my general view that arbcom case times are too long, and I proposed the same reduction in Joefromrandb. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I do hear you that cases can drag on too long when they (or at least some of them) don't need to. I think what you have proposed (two weeks evidence, one week for the other phases) sounds more optimal. And the option to extend if that becomes relevant (I had forgotten that that has been done before, as on the Wikicology case) gives "wiggle room". Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The factor I've seen causing delays isn't so much the hold times themselves, but that once they are met action is being delayed either off-wiki, or apparently just because no one is ready to work. For example, the current Mister Wiki case request appears to meet criteria for action #1,2,3 - but now is on an indefinite hold cycle pending off-wiki (private mailing list) action. Another recent example of opening delay was in this case where Newyorkbrad mentioned that additional requests to open are no longer needed and it will get started in the next day or two. Exploring the cause of these delays and how to better explain (or eliminate) them could be an opportunity to improve this process. — xaosflux Talk 16:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
To clarify: I and others on this thread so far are neither talking about the time wait to open a case nor the pace of Arbitrators. We are talking about the deadlines for community submissions for (a) evidence (b) workshop and (c) PD. I'm not really sure it's fair to blame (even though I know you are not blaming per se) a group of volunteers with varying life commitments and schedules who have taken on the toughest job on Wikipedia. But maybe you're just saying that it's not the timetable that makes cases long, it's the lag time on the Arbs' end. Softlavender (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Edited to add: As I kind of alluded to above, in terms of the Mister Wiki case, November 23 is Thanksgiving and this is a 5- to 9-day holiday in America (depending on one's employer or employment/school status), and many of the Arbs are Americans, and this also involves cross-country travel and commitments to family. Softlavender (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not placing a 'blame' - just looking at the numbers. If the minimum cycle delay in the opening presents between other phases, then having a shorter minimum will not necessarily help so long as every step has an indefinite hold period at the end of it. — xaosflux Talk 17:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Just a note for the archives of this example - here we are another week later and the example (Mister Wiki) case request is still languishing in the indefinite hold process to even get started, with the closest explanation being from User:Euryalus that the committee can't decide what to call the name of the page?! — xaosflux Talk 14:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Yes, you've pointed out a fairly consistent problem, which is that on any particular decision it is easy to get the views of around 3-4 arbitrators but then incredibly slow to get the input of any others. When there's non-trivial decisions like the scope or direction of a case, you can spend days waiting for those extra couple of opinions before proceeding. This is not an issue with this committee over any others: its been true of every Arbcom since at least 2015. Its the single biggest obstacle to speedy issues resolution. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


How do I go about appealing these unblock conditions from two years ago? I wish to appeal a TBAN, imposed 18 May 2014, but have been told the unblock conditions are an impediment Darkness Shines (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, you would need to submit an amendment request at WP:ARCA. However, it would be very unlikely that they would be lifted given you have recent blocks. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)