Revision as of 16:05, 29 April 2016 view sourceEdChem (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,226 edits →Brahmaguptas Multan connection: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: 9 declines, not 7← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,350 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{ |
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | ||
{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
{{shortcut|WP:ARC}} | |||
</noinclude> |
</noinclude> | ||
⚫ | <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | ||
{{NOINDEX}} | |||
⚫ | |||
<noinclude> |
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | ||
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
== Brahmaguptas Multan connection == | |||
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 12:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
=== Involved parties === | |||
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
*{{userlinks|Xinjao}}, ''filing party'' | |||
*{{userlinks|Kautilya3}} | |||
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
* | |||
;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
* https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Xinjao#April_2016 | |||
* Link 2 | |||
=== Statement by Xinjao === | |||
I added reference to Multan as the residence of historical figure, ]. Party2 removed the reference citing the lack of a source. I added a source, a book by an Indian author. It appeared that he accepted the source at first but then later removed the reference again. | |||
=== Statement by Kautilya3 === | |||
This is evidently a content dispute that doesn't belong here. -- ] (]) 13:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by Robert McClenon === | |||
If this were a Third Opinion request or a request for ], it would be declined because there has been inadequate talk page discussion. There has been inadequate talk page discussion and there has been no attempt to use any content resolution procedure, as as ], moderated dispute resolution, ], or a ]. Also, ArbCom is for conduct disputes that the community cannot deal with. (Also, if there is a conduct dispute, it has already been arbitrated, and ends with Arbitration Enforcement.) I see no claims of conduct dispute, let alone any efforts to deal with a conduct dispute. This case should be declined and the filing party should be admonished for wasting time. | |||
=== Statement by Mz7 === | |||
Have we ever considered allowing arbitrators to unilaterally decline obviously premature requests? Or perhaps requiring an ANI discussion prior to an arbitration request for disputes not involving administrators (since this is supposed to be the court of last resort for such matters)? We seem to be getting a lot of premature requests, and I feel like shortening the process would save some time and hopefully get disputes resolved more quickly, rather than waiting to get to a majority. ] (]) 18:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|L235}} Ah, thanks for clarifying. I don't think this request is deliberately "frivolous" or "meaningless" more than it is one user who is simply inexperienced with the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution process. We shouldn't be admonishing these users, but counseling them on how we do things. With that being said, time and efficiency are also important, and I think we can give advice to these users without having to wait for 8 inevitable oppose votes. ] (]) 21:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by {Non-party} === | |||
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> | |||
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. | |||
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> | |||
=== Clerk notes === | |||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
*{{re|Mz7}} Arbs can already unilaterally decline cases under ], "Regarding frivolous or meaningless cases". Oftentimes (e.g. here), for whatever reason, they choose not to use that procedure (which is simply instructing a clerk to remove a case request under that section). (We've not received any instructions or other mail wrt this case request, and far be it from us clerks to question the wisdom of arbs.) ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·'''  ] '''·'''  ]) 19:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
=== Brahmaguptas Multan connection: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/9/0/0> === | |||
{{anchor|1=Brahmaguptas Multan connection: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
*'''Decline''' as a. premature and b. a content dispute. ] (]) 14:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' per Salvio. ] (]) 15:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' per Salvio. ] ] 17:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' - content dispute with no attempted dispute resolution. ] (]) 21:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' per all above. ] (]) 21:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
* '''Decline''' ]<sup>(]) </sup> 22:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' per all above. ] (] '''·''' ]) 22:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
*I'm sorry I'm late to this party. '''Accept'''. I'm kidding: '''decline''' and will y'all PLEASE try to work stuff out among yourselves. ] (]) 23:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' as above. ''']''' (]) 00:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open casesCase name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
---|---|---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|