Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Motions)
| 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 |
Abstention for non-votes procedure
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing
[edit]Scottish seems to have messed up the hatting. The entire page is hatted. I don’t know how to fix this ~2025-32358-05 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I habbed the hat, everything look fine now? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah thank you for the swift action ~2025-32358-05 (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)