Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:53, 13 July 2020

Shortcut

WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

This page is for statements, not discussion.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=967497232"

Hidden categories:

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=43%</noinclude>}}
-== Discussion to prevent overzealous editing was derailed ==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Danielklein|Danielklein]] ([[User talk:Danielklein|talk]]) '''at''' 07:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Danielklein}}, ''filing party''
-*{{userlinks|Danielklein}}
-*{{userlinks|Melcous}}
-;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
-*{{Diff|User talk:Danielklein|967438424|939482135|diff of notification Danielklein}}
-*{{Diff|User talk:Melcous|967438538|967434869|diff of notification Melcous}}
-;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-* [[User talk:Melcous#Victoria COVID-19 updates]]
-=== Statement by Danielklein ===
-I reached out to Melcous to let her know that the edit I made that she reverted had been recreated in spirit a few hours later by another editor, i.e. she should have tried to improve my edit, contact me, or put {{citation needed}} on the edit, not simply delete the edit. I asked her if she could use more Wikipedia guidelines such as [[WP:GOODFAITH]], [[WP:BOLD]], etc. which I see as part of [[WP:COURTESY]]. She was dismissive and not interested. I am concerned that Melcous is very likely to initiate aggressive edit warring in the future. I agree with her criticism of the edit, but I can't agree with her actions when there were so many viable alternatives. I'm not perfect. I make mistakes like anyone, and I hope to learn from them. I also hope to be able to teach others when they make mistakes, but they have to be open to it.
-=== Statement by Danielklein ===
-=== Statement by Melcous ===
-All this is over a single edit. There have been several misunderstandings (in both directions) on my talk page since then, which is unfortunate.
-*Danielklein [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia&type=revision&diff=966986676&oldid=966968527 added this content] and I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_Australia&diff=next&oldid=966986676 reverted] with the edit summary "This is unclear and would need sourcing - "last" implies there will not be any more, but the date is only one day prior." Daniel did not request clarification from me at the time.
-*Another editor added similar content but included a source and clarified the wording by using "ceased" rather than "last" (last could mean "most recent" or "final"; without a source it was unclear). Daniel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melcous&diff=next&oldid=967101447 posted] on my talk page "I see someone else has now made essentially the same edit I originally made." There is no "i.e." in this statement, and to me it reads as reasonably sarcastic, simply pointing out a similar edit made with no explanation of why the need was felt to point this out. I do not see how this can now be characterised as a "Discussion to prevent overzealous editing".
-*I replied with the statement of fact "the difference being they included a source" - including a smiley face, but which yes could also potentially be read as sarcastic. I'm not perfect either, even though daniel apparently wants to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melcous&diff=next&oldid=967430301 put those words] in my mouth.
-*I then received a comment that at the time read as being directing at me saying "Boom! You're wrong!" which completely confused me and led to me asking why and clarifying the difference between the two edits (note, some time later, daniel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melcous&diff=next&oldid=967271937 edited that comment] to include quotation marks, making clear that his intention was to sarcastically quote what he felt ''I'' had been saying by my actions, but this was not at all apparent to me at the time, nor is it a fair characterisation of my original edit summary).
-*And so it has gone on. I tried to end the conversation three times.
-*Now, I am accused of being "dismissive and not interested" apparently meaning I am "very likely to initiate aggressive edit warring in the future", even though daniel agrees with my criticism of his original edit (and I fail to see how a single reversion can be perceived as edit warring).
-*This filing for arbitration seems to me to be an over the top escalation from something that started as completely minor, and, to be frank, a waste of everybody's time. [[User:Melcous|Melcous]] ([[User talk:Melcous|talk]]) 08:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Naypta ===
-...Why is this at arbitration, having never even gone to ANI? [[User:Naypta|Naypta]] ☺ &#124; <small>[[User talk:Naypta|✉ talk page]]</small> &#124; 08:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
-=== Statement by [[User:Reyk]] ===
-It doesn't look as though anyone's even tried the usual dispute resolution venues. There's no need yet to go straight to ArbCom. [[User:Reyk|<b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|<b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b>]]</sub> 09:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Usedtobecool ===
-"... concerned that Melcous is very likely to initiate aggressive edit warring in the future"?!! ArbCom does not do pre-crime, nor is it any editor's parent to tell on them. I suggest the filer withdraw and go to the [[WP:Teahouse|Teahouse]]. '''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]]''' 09:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
-=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
-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 case request or provide additional information.
-<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
-=== Discussion to prevent overzealous editing was derailed: Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-*
-=== Discussion to prevent overzealous editing was derailed: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/0> ===
-{{anchor|1=Discussion to prevent overzealous editing was derailed: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
-*'''decline''' - nowhere near a last-resort dispute. In general, the onus is on the orignal contributor to provide a source to the material they add. The exchange [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Melcous&oldid=967438538#Victoria_COVID-19_updates here] strikes me as a massive overreaction to the original single revert.  [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 11:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Decline'''. I think this can be dismissed as obviously premature. {{u|Danielklein}}, reverting material that was added without a source—or indeed any material added that another editor disagrees with including—is a perfectly normal practice, documented amongst other places at [[WP:BURDEN]] and [[WP:BRD]]. It shouldn't be taken personally. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 11:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' as clearly premature per above. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 13:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per above. –[[User:xeno|<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:#000">talk</sup>]] 15:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' or dismiss as premature. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 15:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' clearly premature. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 15:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)