Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

what happended

how to get arbitration Ipgreenpqg (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Arbitration is a venue of last resort, not of first resort, so it isn't an option for you at this point. Considering you made 23k worth of edit to a template, that BROKE the template, on your very FIRST edit, it isn't surprising that others would disagree. Your 5th edit was this request. At this point, I can't help but question if you are simply trolling, which is my best guess at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

sections

Hello HouseBlaster. Why must my comment be in its own section? It's a reply to some other comment, and almost every comment here has replies in the same section. -- mikeblas (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mikeblas, the instructions at the top of the page explain:

This page is for statements, not discussion. If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section.

Threaded discussions only take place between arbitrators. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly correct, and I will that you can see an example of replying in your own section at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by BilledMammal. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Thing is, the page also says Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. So who knows what's right? -- mikeblas (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That's the placeholder text for a blank section, Statement by {other-editor}; you're expected to replace {other editor} with your name. Schazjmd (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Other editors are supposed to make such comments in their own section. As an official clerk, appointed by the Arbitration Committee itself (verify), I can tell you for a fact that you need to place comments in your own section. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Can comments from Wikipediocracy be linked directly on a request for arbitration case?

Per multiple recent discussions at ANI, I believe it is currently in the community's best interests to disregard the results of the RfC that determined posting links to comments made by Wikipedia users on Wikipediocracy be considered "outing". The website is toxic, which has resulted in doxing, harassment, homophobic slurs, insults, hounding and incivility. If a case is ever made about the conduct of Wikipedia users on Wikipediocracy, such conduct would obviously need to be linked. Can the committee clarify on whether this is possible? It may be a prescient issue in the near future. Kind regards, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You have been informed repeatedly that ArbCom will accept evidence via email where there are privacy issues. What exactly is preventing you from doing so, rather than repeating such allegations while failing to provide the necessary evidence to anyone? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to a public Arb case, i.e., one that is available for all to see. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

For reference, an ongoing discussion as to whether Homeostasis07 should be topic-banned from discussing Wikipediocracy is currently under way.[1] Clearly, this would not include ArbCom, though I would request that if and when ArbCom decides to act, they make it clear that hiding behind supposed privacy concerns while failing to even provide evidence by email to back up the allegations made above is likely to have severe negative consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The entire issue is linked to harassment suffered by Lightburst for several months now. Numerous WPOs have been harassing Lightburst, me, and multiple other users for a very long time. The website has a long history of outing, which is arguably their main claim to fame (Hillsborough disaster Wikipedia posts). Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I hope that ArbCom will see fit to take the above further stonewalling into account if and when any case is being considered. Specific allegations have been made. Multiple requests have been made that the evidence regarding this specific allegation be emailed to ArbCom. Instead, we get yet more unsubstantiated allegations... AndyTheGrump (talk)