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 |
Missing Declined Case Request
editThere appears to be a missing entry in the list of declined cases in the first quarter of 2024. DTParker2000 filed a request for arbitration about Rio Grande 223 on 19 March 2024 that was declined on 20 March 2024, but it isn't listed in the list of cases. (So, yes, they are making the same frivolous request again three months later.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see that the second Rio Grande 223 is now listed in the list of declined ArbCom cases. The first Rio Grande 223 is still not listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have added this to the declined cases list. Thanks for raising it. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see that the second Rio Grande 223 is now listed in the list of declined ArbCom cases. The first Rio Grande 223 is still not listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Anachronist
editHasn't this case request been at 6 declines from among 10 active arbs for more than 24 hours? Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Addition of parties to a clarification request by someone other than the person who opened that clarification request
editI noted in the Noleander discussion that this edit appears to be non-standard. Is this something that is OK, or should this be reverted by a clerk? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's not OK and have added instructions to the template to make clear it shouldn't be done in the future. There's been some private discussion about what to do in this instance. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)