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 |
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)
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.
This case request is resolved by motion as follows:
Sri Lanka, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.
Enacted – firefly ( t · c ) 14:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing was declined. In that amendment request, I raised concerns about TenPoundHammer's blank-and-redirects (BLARs) and asked whether to request a BLAR topic ban in a separate amendment request. I did not receive an answer to that question. @ Guerillero: ( link), @ Firefly: ( link), and @ Aoidh: ( link) mentioned concerns about the redirect in opposing the relaxing of the topic ban, while @ Primefac: ( link) had "no major concerns" about the redirects. Did the Arbitration Committee consider the BLAR topic ban request and decide against it? I would like advice about whether to file a separate amendment request for the BLAR topic ban. I considered asking the community to review the redirect issue but have not because this is a conduct dispute that previously reached arbitration. Cunard ( talk) 22:02, 20 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 |
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)
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.
This case request is resolved by motion as follows:
Sri Lanka, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.
Enacted – firefly ( t · c ) 14:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing was declined. In that amendment request, I raised concerns about TenPoundHammer's blank-and-redirects (BLARs) and asked whether to request a BLAR topic ban in a separate amendment request. I did not receive an answer to that question. @ Guerillero: ( link), @ Firefly: ( link), and @ Aoidh: ( link) mentioned concerns about the redirect in opposing the relaxing of the topic ban, while @ Primefac: ( link) had "no major concerns" about the redirects. Did the Arbitration Committee consider the BLAR topic ban request and decide against it? I would like advice about whether to file a separate amendment request for the BLAR topic ban. I considered asking the community to review the redirect issue but have not because this is a conduct dispute that previously reached arbitration. Cunard ( talk) 22:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)