Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

What's going on with the ArbCom proceedings template?

It seems to have a non-existent and broken case request. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 22:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

If you mean "Rio Grande 223" then the initiator (DTParker1000) cocked up the section heading when making the filing, but AirshipJungleman29 fixed that and the links in T:ACOT now work correctly. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Missing Declined Case Request

There 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)

Signing comments

@El C and AndyTheGrump: Given that everybody is constrained to edit a section titled "Statement by (username)", which nobody else is allowed to edit, I'm unconvinced that making a fuss about signatures is justified. RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Meh, I wanna see the day without looking through the history. And now they know, for future. They plural — why do you ping just the one user? Also, who cares? El_C 15:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Anachronist

Hasn'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)

Block of Rp2006

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Arbitration Committee assumes the block of Rp2006 (talk · contribs).

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support:

1. A consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE recently decided to block Rp2006 for violations of their topic ban coming immediately after the expiration of ArbCom's 1 month block of them. This is an indefinite block, with the first year being Arbitration Enforcement. Given the private evidence we have, I think it makes sense for ArbCom to assume responsibility for this block. I also would like to see extra scrutiny applied to any unblock request rather than having it go through the typical process if Rp2006 were to apply after a year when the AE part of the block expires. Seraphimblade, the blocking administrator (acting on the AE consensus), has no objections to us doing this. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
2. my personal preference would be to call this a ban and let them appeal in 12 months, but this works too --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
3. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
4. Given that there is private information that should be considered when addressing any future unblock requests. - Aoidh (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
5. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
6. Cabayi (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions

Community discussion

As a note, if this passes I'll tack it onto the remedies list for SCE in my notes as the previous block against Rp2006 was also under that case and based on what I can grok from the AE thread this block was levied for pretty much the same reasons as the previous. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.