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)

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)

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)

If you feel it's absolutely necessary because you have 100% unquestionable, completely unequivocal evidence that the accusations being made have no basis whatsoever and have run out of word count to present it, you can ask the clerks for more space... but remember, an Arbitration request is specifically not the place to hash out every accusation and counter-accusation; that's for the case itself. If someone is making like five different points as to why you did something wrong, and you feel the need to reply to every single one of those points individually because they're each at-a-glance convincing enough that the arbitrators will likely otherwise choose to accept... then, sorry, they probably do need to accept, because hashing out all those claims and counter-claims is going to require its own case. If you can dismiss the entire case against you in one sentence then you don't need 500 words for it; and if someone is just glaringly making unfounded insinuations or the like, the arbs will see that without you needing to point it out, they're all highly-experienced editors. In the request phase, all the arbs are really looking for are basically "are accusations being made that at least pass a basic sniff test and are serious enough to require our attention" and "is this beyond the community's ability to solve." Massive point-by-point rebuttals aren't going to help with that. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the first time Im around in these proceedings so Im unsure how nuances work. In other situations I would say there is a purpose for this or for that. But considering the current case and how many arbitrators are responding, my initial concerns during the blocking process are simply reinforced and as such I'm not sure if nuances are really just nuances or defects in the design. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:18, 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)

Question to arbitrators

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)