Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests
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 notice that my username is being tossed around in the Lightbreather case. If someone is added like that after the fact, when does the filing clock start or restart?
Also, let me express my amazement that the same system that will piss and moan endlessly if a username is used, however innocently, at ANI without notification will see no problem with discussing someone in the Star Chamber without letting them know. WTG, Wiki! Qwirkle (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
It's generally the responsibility of who first mention editors to notify them. I apologize that this did not happen to you.
Arbitration cases are eligible to be opened 48 hours after they were filed and 24 hours they reach net-4 to be accepted. Adding a party doesn't reset the 48 hour clock, but the 24 hour timer hasn't even begun to tick. If you need a reasonable time extension, I'm sure the Committee will accommodate that. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply- @Qwirkle As the user who first mentioned you, I'd like to apologize. This is my first time participating in the preliminary statement part of an ARBCOM case, and I didn't know if users had to be notified if they were not listed as parties. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
Hi,
I would like to know why my recent request for arbitration was removed.
In what way was it premature?
Thank You!
Oceanbed347 (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- The request was malformed and there was no evidence that it has been brought before the community for review of the alleged behavioral issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Hi,
- I did include the ANI link.
- If my request was malformed what steps do I need to take to correct it. What should I do?
- Thank You!
- Oceanbed347 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
Itook it to ANI. Unfortunately they dismissed it as a content issue.
You actually requested to withdraw as you had it open as a content dispute at DRN, If the two disputes are mutually exclusive, I would like to close/withdraw this case. You then made a few edits to DRN in the next couple days, and nothing about it in the six months since. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply- Hi,
- Thank you for your reply.
- The ANI had already dismissed it prior to me requesting to withdraw it. As for the "few edits" at the DRN, I was given the option of going for an RfC. I initially agreed but later changed my mind as I thought it would be better to wait for the local consensus to change(through more editors joining the discussion, instead of just 2).
- I do not believe I did anything wrong. I took all the necessary(Talk page, DRN, ANI) steps before coming here. If my submission was rejected because it failed to meet the standards required, then I do not have any problem with it.
- However, I also believe that there should be some impartiality when it comes to enforcing the rules. The Talk page discussion might require a closer look but the comment on the Urdu page does not. It is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules. I have seen new editors being warned just for mentioning another user in the edit summary. There is no reason why the comment on the Urdu page should not warrant at least a stern warning. Otherwise the message that the arbitration committee is sending is that 1. Racist comments targeting another groups religion/ethnicity/nationality is fine and is allowed by the rules or 2. Once you become established the rules no longer apply to you. Please remove that comment.
- Thank You!
- Oceanbed347 (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
As the discussion about a case request should be focused on assisting the arbitrators in deciding how the request should be handled, could all commenters (including arbitrators) hold off on speculating what might happen if a case is opened? I appreciate that whether it's said or not, people may have already formed impressions in their minds regarding possible outcomes. I feel it's important, though, to strive to not to get locked into certain assumptions, and I think this is more easily accomplished when there aren't speculative comments based on extrapolation. Past statistics shouldn't affect the decisions for this specific request, whether it is to raise a motion, open a case, or take some other action. isaacl (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply