Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Request to arbitrators

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)

Guide to arbitration word limit proposal

I was trying to post to the talk page of the Guide to Arbitration but it redirects here. I don't know if I should post this proposal here or elsewhere, because the relevant talk page redirects here.

After posting for the first time an arbitration request I realized that some modification is probably in order to the guidance (under Responding to requests) that states,

Each arbitration subpage has its own word count; for requests for an arbitration case, the maximum word count is 500 words, although this can be relaxed, upon request, in the case of parties to the dispute, and especially for the filing party who must usually respond to many comments by the arbitrators

I think there should be a separation between the default word limit for the initial statement and a word limit for responses to other editors, in proportion to the number of editors making comments about the case. Said comments may include sometimes inaccuracies, misinterpretations, lack of proper context, and accusations, which should be able to be addressed by the editor at hand.

As it is, one needs to make a request to the clerks, who may not be available for several hours, hours that the editor could have used to respond to the comments but instead has to wait for even a determination to approve or deny the request. If the request is denied, accusations or inaccuracies that are made in comments by other editors go unaddressed and may be taken as factual when it may not be the case. This situation is certainly not good. It is hard to plan how to use 500 words if one doesn't even know how many responses one is going to need to make. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You shouldn't be rebutting everything someone says contra your position anyway. The word limits are in place for good reason; any rebuttals could be given in the evidence phase if a case is accepted and a case request should ideally be concise in the first place. The KISS principle applies here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 07:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The 500 word limit is there exactly to prevent what you want to do, ie. reply to absolutely everyone. It functions well and has functioned well for many years. Daniel (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Others can write anything they want about an editor, even if it is false, inaccurate, lacks context, misinterpreted, malicious, for the arbitrators to admit as part of the process, without the editor at hand being able to provide a refutation or a correction. I have my doubts about the fairness or appropriateness of such a system that provides more value to random word limits for expediency than to apparently proper procedure. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Publicizing the ArbCom case

Dear arbitrators and clerks. Because ArbCom cases may have Wikipedia wide implications and to attract editors knowledgeable in the respective topic areas related to this arbitration request, I have publicized it in directly related talk pages.[1], [2], [3] My intention is to involve the community at large of related policy pages in order to attract uninvolved editors quality knowledge in said related areas. Also, editors who watch those pages may have an interest in this case related to the topic they regularly watch. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Knowledgeable how? If you mean as witnesses, they've likely already said their piece. If you mean as subject-matter experts, ArbCom explicitly does not adjudicate content disputes. If you mean as arguing that ArbCom should legislate from the bench, that is explicitly out of their remit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 07:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)