Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests
| 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 |
Use of permalinks to comments
editRegarding this comment: now that permalinks to individual comments are readily accessible via the timestamp of signed comments, should the guidance on linking to evidence be updated to accommodate this approach? isaacl (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- The issue is more of permanence than ease of locating the diff in question; for example I cannot link to this edit (Special:Diff/1298460109) at WP:BN because the section has been archived; there is a popup that tells me the comment is now at Archive 51 but I do not know if all editors have that enabled or if it will always work (or in some cases, it disappears before I notice it). Granted, if a discussion has been archived at the time of presenting evidence, then sure, it should be acceptable, but if we are saying "you can use timestamp links unless the page has not been archived because it will not work after archiving" that gets a little too into the weeds. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I thought that the timestamp link provided a link using the "Special:GoToComment" prefix (e.g. Special:GoToComment/c-Xaosflux-20250702165400-2FA Checking), but it seems it doesn't. With the "Special:GoToComment" prefix, though, the link goes directly to the archived ___location. isaacl (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Statement removed
editToBeFree, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Definition of “Community Reviewed content
editFunny. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia. However, I cannot be accepted unless I have done so once in 30 days as long as I have 500 contributions. Catch 22 ? 2604:2D80:5805:7000:DC57:167E:1A50:2534 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Why do you think ethnopolitical hellhole topic areas are good places to learn how to edit? Find articles that aren't on the topic areas in this list. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)