Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Statement removed

ToBeFree, regarding your recent removal and oversight of my statement, please provide further guidance. I am aware of no policy or other reason for the editor interaction evidenced in my statement to be suppressed (for example, clean start or right to vanish). I originally kept the evidence private because other Wikipedians had been detained in Venezuela and livelihoods were endangered, and out of concern for the safety of editors should detentions of Wikipedians in Venezuela escalate. Since engagement has continued at Commons and on es.wikipedia, that concern has diminished with the passage of time. Other than my initial concern for the safety of others, I know of no reason for the connection between the two accounts not to be considered as public evidence; please advise so I will know how or whether to reinstate any portion of my statement. Confusion about the connections between accounts has been obscured because a third account was blocked, and vague answers have impacted discussion of other bans on other noticeboards. I understand concerns for the safety of editors, but for what policy reason do we obscure plain and public on-Wikipedia evidence of overlap between accounts? Also, since I cannot see my suppressed edit, and I am in a hurried and harried place of caregiving and personal grief, I don't know what portion of my statement warranted suppression, so please feel free to email me re anything that cannot be stated publicly. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I think I can disclose that I personally currently do not support keeping the material suppressed. Please direct any questions about the action to the committee as a whole, in private, to arbcom-en@. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, ToBeFree ... I don't have time to follow up this morning, but will do so as soon as I can. One concern is that understanding of the effect of the interaction between accounts impacts a related community ban. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Email sent, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

ToBeFree, I see arb feedback now on the amendment request although email conversation stalled. The history of all accounts -- specifically with respect to image work -- has not been examined in previous cases, either publicly or privately, and it should be considered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

We're working on a reply. Takes a bit to get an email approved through the committee. Sorry for the delay. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, ScottishFinnishRadish ... appreciated, because my time is so stretched, and I understand the constraints. I sent a followup before I saw this which the committee may want to view first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Clarification

This is an informal request in regard to clarifying my topic ban under WP:ARBATC2. I have come across an RM discussion, where the opening of the RM could reasonably be considered disruptive in respect to ARBATC2, and some WP:GRAVEDANCING/personal attacks - though the editors involved are not necessarily CT aware but one editor was a party to the case. Does my ban extend to raising a case regarding such conduct? If not (noting the lack of awareness) should this be raised at ANI or at ARE. If requested, I will identify the discussion and why I consider it an issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Which RM is it? I'll look through it and consider asking editors to focus on content, not contributors (and perhaps offer some advice here). A case request would probably be excessive. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

SilverLocust, please see Talk:1925 tri-state tornado#Requested move 14 September 2025, noting the three previous RMs at Talk:1925 tri-state tornado/Archive 1 since December 2024. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

See also a comment made at [[1]]. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Under the ban exception for "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution", you can ask an admin in a concise message to address attacks or gravedancing directed at you (or a small group of editors that identifiably includes you). If it continues to be an issue after that, you might ask an admin for approval to raise the issue at WP:AE or another relevant venue.

But the exception isn't so broad as to encompass complaints about an RM being brought up again after it had previously failed, as that isn't some misconduct particularized toward you (and most likely wouldn't be actionable in any event).

Also, disruptive use/overuse of ban exceptions may still be sanctioned as ban violations, so be cautious. Consider simply ignoring RMs for as long as you remain topic banned, since (1) it will improve your chances of avoiding new sanctions and of successfully appealing the ban, and (2) it's better not to focus on what you can't affect (cf. Epictetus).

I sent a message to CD. I didn't think other comments merited a similar reminder. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Abstention for non-votes procedure

Clearly something is needed, but I'm struggling to understand why. We had no problems getting 12 votes on FoF and remedies except when those remedies applied to editors, when we sometimes got participation from only 8. Is it possible to discuss why someone who had been participating would simply stop doing so? I feel like if someone doesn't want to support or oppose, why would they also not abstain? It just feels so ...well, like such a straightforward thing. Can't support or oppose? Abstain. This seems to be allowing us to force that to happen when we need to, but why do we need to? Valereee (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• @Valereee: I try to post all of my votes at the same time, but I can perhaps give individual perspective on why your scenario above might happen: some votes are straightforward with evidence that allows me to make a decision quickly. Other votes are complicated, such as when the evidence is weak, there are multiple proposed remedies, or multiple arbitrators give excellent arguments for supporting or opposing. I might delay my votes, and then real life will stop me from being able to devote the appropriate amount of time to feel confident in my votes. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Kind of feel like a jerk for pushing back, but an editor couldn't drop an email to the committee saying "Please mark me abstain for the remainder of the votes in case X, I'm swamped IRL but I know we need to finish this"? And in the meantime the editor in some cases might be making thousands of edits elsewhere? At some point it feels like a definite decision to not participate, and it feels like there has to be a reason for that. Apologies if I'm being an asshole, because that's how I feel right now. Valereee (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Although I agree that ideally, this procedure wouldn't be needed, I do think it's useful to have an optional procedure ready to handle exceptional cases. isaacl (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  • @Valereee: I think there are lots of arbs, both past and present, that would agree with you. I don't think it's a definite decision every time an arb chooses not to participate: real life sometimes does unexpected things. It's also a lot easier to make small edits on-wiki in articles that I enjoy rather than spend 10+ hours going over case information. Arbitrator participation in votes should be a factor in editors casting their votes if the arb chooses to run again in elections, but please also remember that the arbs are volunteers and are sometimes editing to take a break from private arb business. Z1720 (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

    Indeed, back when I was an arb I'd quite often take a break from the complicated drama-laden behavioural stuff at arbcom and do some simple, noncontroversial editing. In my case that was most often at Wiktionary rather than here but simple gnoming tasks also got done. It didn't mean that I wasn't neglecting my job as an arb, rather it was avoiding burnout so I wouldn't neglect it. There were also plenty of times where I could do multiple short tasks that took a few minutes each around real life commitments but wasn't able to dedicate the large block of time required to grok the intricacies of a protracted dispute. Remember also that we do expect arbs to remain part of the community outside arbitration matters. Obviously there are limits, people and do have to actually do the arb work, but it is a balancing act. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

    Totally get it. I set down the tools recently for the second time, and I'd recommend it to anyone doing any of the mopping stuff when you're approaching burnout. Both times I've done it now, I've seen myself increase content creation work immediately. For me it just feels like abstain is kind of part of that. I mean, why not just abstain? Valereee (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

    It does happen, for what it is worth, but sometimes real life gets in the way and someone just goes radio silent. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

    And I agree we need to recognize this is all volunteer work. Valereee (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

    For me, I want arbs to make their ArbCom work their first, but not only, wiki priority. I feel it's generally possible, as an arb, to view others work through this lens (because you know the balance of onlist and onwiki work). But I also acknowledge this might not be the same standard many arbs hold. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)