|
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. |
| Arbitration talk page archives |
|---|
| WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
| Various archives (2004–2011) |
| Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
| WT:RFAR subpages |
| Archive of prior proceedings |
I respectfully request the arbitrators to allow me to respond to their decline statements before closing the case. Sincerely, -- Thinker78 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per point two of
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration § Deciding of requests, 24 hours need to elapse after net four or a majority are reached before a request can be actioned. As neither of those conditions have been met, you still have time to make replies, though I will note that you have hit your 500 word limit and will need to request an extension.
Primefac (
talk) 20:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I made my request and more than 2 days later I haven't received an answer. I don't know if any clerks are active editors? I mean I know we all are volunteers but still I didn't know there was so much dysfunction at the top level of the dispute resolution process. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
My case was declined. But based on statements by arbitrators
Aoidh, I don't think the block appeals are sufficient attempt at prior dispute resolution
,
Z1720, this should go through a community review
,
User:Barkeep49, This does not strike me as appropriate for ArbCom at this time. This would have been better served by going to AN/ANI
,
User:Firefly, On the block, I'm not sure it's one I personally would have made - absent evidence that Thinker78 had made a habit of restoring such comments against the advice of others
, and the lack of clarity by
User:Moneytrees and
User:CaptainEek regarding the block, I opened the case in a lower instance,
Wikipedia:Administrative action review #Undue 7 day block by ScottishFinnishRadish against Thinker78.
I am being accused of forum shopping but that's not the case. Administrators reportedly are held to high standards of conduct but there has been no definitive determination as to whether the block by ScottishFinnishRadish against me was legitimate or arbitrary. I provided ample evidence regarding arbitrariness. I may have made a procedural mistake in bringing the case to ArbCom but I urge that an objective determination regarding the block by ScottishFinnishRadish is allowed to proceed in a lower instance at this time, for its proper analysis. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I stand by my full comments
This does not strike me as appropriate for ArbCom at this time. This would have been better served by going to AN/ANI. There are two possibilities of what would have happened there. Either the community would agree with the admins, or the community would have disagreed with the admins and established a consensus that policies and guidelines apply in the way Thinker is claiming they do. And then if admins didn't respect that consensus it would be maybe be appropriate for ArbCom. I suspect based on the feedback offered here that if this had gone to a community noticeboard that consensus would have supported the admins.
Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a guideline against editors who seek to use Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs, in contravention of the neutral point of view policy. But I think that Wikipedia also needs an essay about editors who seek to Right Small Wrongs that they think have been done to them. Within the past two weeks, one editor has been banned for an overly persistent campaign to right what they see as a small wrong of a block (for restoring troll posts), and another editor has been indefinitely blocked for an overly persistent campaign to right what they see as a small wrong of the deletion of off-topic material. I need to to file my taxes, and then will be traveling, or I would start the essay. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- What an interesting idea. I look forward to reading your essay.
Barkeep49 (
talk) 16:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
-
User:Barkeep49 - It is in draft at
User:Robert McClenon/Righting Small Wrongs.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 20:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Robert McClenon thanks for the link. I think you've got a really good point here. One observation I would make is that some RSW people think they are actually RGW people. This is especially true for people who feel like they were unfairly blocked. I will also confess that reading this made me want to write a "Right small wrongs" essay of my own which would focus on the spirit of BOLD editing and SOFIXIT but the idea there is very different than the one you're making.
Barkeep49 (
talk) 20:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- User:Barkeep49 - I am about to move it into project space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Robert McClenon thanks for the link. I think you've got a really good point here. One observation I would make is that some RSW people think they are actually RGW people. This is especially true for people who feel like they were unfairly blocked. I will also confess that reading this made me want to write a "Right small wrongs" essay of my own which would focus on the spirit of BOLD editing and SOFIXIT but the idea there is very different than the one you're making.
Barkeep49 (
talk) 20:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
-
User:Barkeep49 - It is in draft at
User:Robert McClenon/Righting Small Wrongs.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 20:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
|
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. |
| Arbitration talk page archives |
|---|
| WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
| Various archives (2004–2011) |
| Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
| WT:RFAR subpages |
| Archive of prior proceedings |
I respectfully request the arbitrators to allow me to respond to their decline statements before closing the case. Sincerely, -- Thinker78 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per point two of
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration § Deciding of requests, 24 hours need to elapse after net four or a majority are reached before a request can be actioned. As neither of those conditions have been met, you still have time to make replies, though I will note that you have hit your 500 word limit and will need to request an extension.
Primefac (
talk) 20:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I made my request and more than 2 days later I haven't received an answer. I don't know if any clerks are active editors? I mean I know we all are volunteers but still I didn't know there was so much dysfunction at the top level of the dispute resolution process. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
My case was declined. But based on statements by arbitrators
Aoidh, I don't think the block appeals are sufficient attempt at prior dispute resolution
,
Z1720, this should go through a community review
,
User:Barkeep49, This does not strike me as appropriate for ArbCom at this time. This would have been better served by going to AN/ANI
,
User:Firefly, On the block, I'm not sure it's one I personally would have made - absent evidence that Thinker78 had made a habit of restoring such comments against the advice of others
, and the lack of clarity by
User:Moneytrees and
User:CaptainEek regarding the block, I opened the case in a lower instance,
Wikipedia:Administrative action review #Undue 7 day block by ScottishFinnishRadish against Thinker78.
I am being accused of forum shopping but that's not the case. Administrators reportedly are held to high standards of conduct but there has been no definitive determination as to whether the block by ScottishFinnishRadish against me was legitimate or arbitrary. I provided ample evidence regarding arbitrariness. I may have made a procedural mistake in bringing the case to ArbCom but I urge that an objective determination regarding the block by ScottishFinnishRadish is allowed to proceed in a lower instance at this time, for its proper analysis. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I stand by my full comments
This does not strike me as appropriate for ArbCom at this time. This would have been better served by going to AN/ANI. There are two possibilities of what would have happened there. Either the community would agree with the admins, or the community would have disagreed with the admins and established a consensus that policies and guidelines apply in the way Thinker is claiming they do. And then if admins didn't respect that consensus it would be maybe be appropriate for ArbCom. I suspect based on the feedback offered here that if this had gone to a community noticeboard that consensus would have supported the admins.
Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a guideline against editors who seek to use Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs, in contravention of the neutral point of view policy. But I think that Wikipedia also needs an essay about editors who seek to Right Small Wrongs that they think have been done to them. Within the past two weeks, one editor has been banned for an overly persistent campaign to right what they see as a small wrong of a block (for restoring troll posts), and another editor has been indefinitely blocked for an overly persistent campaign to right what they see as a small wrong of the deletion of off-topic material. I need to to file my taxes, and then will be traveling, or I would start the essay. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- What an interesting idea. I look forward to reading your essay.
Barkeep49 (
talk) 16:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
-
User:Barkeep49 - It is in draft at
User:Robert McClenon/Righting Small Wrongs.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 20:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Robert McClenon thanks for the link. I think you've got a really good point here. One observation I would make is that some RSW people think they are actually RGW people. This is especially true for people who feel like they were unfairly blocked. I will also confess that reading this made me want to write a "Right small wrongs" essay of my own which would focus on the spirit of BOLD editing and SOFIXIT but the idea there is very different than the one you're making.
Barkeep49 (
talk) 20:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- User:Barkeep49 - I am about to move it into project space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Robert McClenon thanks for the link. I think you've got a really good point here. One observation I would make is that some RSW people think they are actually RGW people. This is especially true for people who feel like they were unfairly blocked. I will also confess that reading this made me want to write a "Right small wrongs" essay of my own which would focus on the spirit of BOLD editing and SOFIXIT but the idea there is very different than the one you're making.
Barkeep49 (
talk) 20:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
-
User:Barkeep49 - It is in draft at
User:Robert McClenon/Righting Small Wrongs.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 20:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)