Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
What this page is for: 
This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for: 
To request arbitration, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Time for an early election?[edit]

The IceWhizz ban was decided by five Wikipedians. Given that the full strength ArbCom should be fifteen, it sees a good idea to move the elections forward to as-soon-as-practicable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC).

According to WP:ACE2019, the community election RFC just closed. One of the larger issues this was to establish better emergency election protocols. The current interim election policy required the normal election to be followed which would have been nearly identical to the current ACE2019 timeline. Mkdw talk 22:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the "decided by five Wikipedians " comes from. I count the Ice Whizz decision as 6 nill with two arbs not voting, presumably if the first six were split four two the decision would have been delayed until more Arbs had voted. I have no knowledge of IceWhizz or the case, but I'm not convinced that closing a case when it is 6 nill is a reason why we need to bring the next arb elections forward, especially as they are due so soon anyway. ϢereSpielChequers 10:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers, It was 5-0 with 3 not voting at posting, Opabinia voted belatedly. Otherwise, I agree with your assessment. WormTT(talk) 10:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. I hadn't realised that the committee was down to 8 members of whom only 6 were active. At that point there is a risk that you have a decision where the committee is split 2, 2, 2, 2 - two inactive, two each way and two recused. I'm happy that a committee of 8 accepts a 5 nil decision, I just hope we don't get a divisive close call before the next election. ϢereSpielChequers 11:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that if there was a non-urgent matter on which they were truly split 50:50 it would be deferred until the new committee is in place. In an urgent situation I suppose Jimbo could be asked to cast a deciding vote. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Fyi, the normal election process is already well underway. It is following the timetable created by the community, which Arbcom does not have the authority to modify. And yes, going forward we have new brand new procedures in place for interim elections, so this should not happen again. But I do not think we should or can fairly de-legitimize Arbcom because of all the resignations. These folks are still appointed by the community and have the full mandate of Arbcom authority. I don’t see why them doing their job is a problem. It’s not their fault every one else has quit. ~Swarm~ {sting} 15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case commencing[edit]

Original announcement
  • Pure peanut gallery comment: fourth time the charm. Seriously... this kind of stuff is why very few envy the Arbitrators their 'job' Good luck figuring this one out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, the complexity of ARBPIA was one reason why it never interested me an area as an editor and that becomes 1000x more true as a potential admin work area. I'm not sure if I have enough 0s to add on to add it as an area for Arbitrator consideration. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed[edit]

Original announcement
  • Welcome to the team. Very excited to see these appointments Face-smile.svg TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks to the organizers and the new functionaries for their offer to serve. –xenotalk 15:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder why the community feedback was so dead this year. When I looked over years past it seemed like there was always a lot more participation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I think after last year's contentious it was restructured in a way that made it less like a vote and thus tamped things down overall which seems productive to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Not a complaint, just an observation. I do think last year got more than a bit out of hand. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I gave what feedback I had via email on the functionaries list; I saw no reason to make those thoughts public, especially because this wasn't a !vote, and so there was no reason to attempt to persuade anyone. I suspect others felt the same. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I think previously there was more publicity for the consultation stage at WP:AN and the admin's newsletter (and sometimes also the Signpost). Not so much this year. It may be something to consider in the future - watchers of the admin noticeboards are probably well placed to offer opinions (as long as they don't opine too much). Also, thanks and congratulations/sympathies to everyone. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations everyone! Face-smile.svg --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It's interesting to learn that a requirement for Checkuser is to have a username composed only of letters and numbers, but no full words. (Just kidding!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No need to be kidding there, I was most impressed by it myself; MPS1992 (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems suspicious. Probably some cabal rule. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    I think it's because they're actually the same person. Someone should run a CU on the lot of them just to be safe. ("who checkusers the checkusers?") creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 16:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Who ombuds the ombudsmen? ;) Is ombud a verb? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure whether you were serious when you labelled this a "legit question" in your edit summary, but I am. Have they been any more effective since the commission's most recent report, which states they closed only two of the fourteen cases brought to them? There's no first-half-of-2019 report at all. —Cryptic 22:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I hadn't been serious (it applied to my verb query), but I would be interested to read the report if one can be found. I'll have a look through your linked one now. If a new one hasn't been posted that's probably a point for a new discussion topic somewhere. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Shortest average username for CU of any year? SQLQuery me! 00:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Private Cases RfC Timing[edit]

I was wondering whether the RfC set to be taking place under ARBCOM auspices about private cases et al, is planned to be before or after the ARBCOM elections? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The original plan was to have it as soon as possible. Due to our reduced numbers right now we have not had the time to get it set up. We know how important this RFC will be and how patiently people have been waiting for it. It's something we will have to consider. Mkdw talk 03:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
That's fine - I was just thinking that it would probably not be helpful to have overlapping the elections and tranches - obviously that might impose an 8 week delay (I always forget how long our elections are), but that might be preferable to a non-smooth running discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, this is not fine, especially since we just had another incident that would have been affected by this promised ArbCom RfC. If the current arbitration committee isn't planning to prioritise a straight forward remedy that they have promised to commit to, just say so. It's fine to leave it to the next batch, but non-answers like something we will have to consider while obviously prioritising in some other questionable areas isn't really appropriate, in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, that's a good point with regards to ambiguity. I don't mind them prioritising either clearly imminent issues or, perhaps much more likely, more viably short-term resolvable important issues, but you're probably right that either ARBCOM should launch it or specifically state it's going to be a fun January task. I'm sure we'll get lots of questions for Arb candidates on it, but better that then questions based on a fast-moving discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The most abusive arbitrator in recent memory who consistently demanded accountability from other sysops while lying to the community as a whole and hiding behind the protection of the very privacy policy he broke really has no room to be critiquing the current committee on this. You are not here in good faith, and the entirety of your edits since your hypocrisy was revealed to the community have been actions intentionally set on dividing the English Wikipedia rather than finding common ground. I’m personally tired of it, and I suspect many others are too. Unless you actually have constructive things to add, rather than just attacks on the current committee because you are mad many of its members insisted on holding you accountable, you really should stop commenting on Arbitration pages, Alex. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Going to agree with Tony here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The community can do plenty of work preparing the ground, if it truly feels this is a high priority matter. We could start a pure brainstorming session, for example: no support/oppose voting, just tossing out ideas, and then the community can take these ideas and try to coalesce them into rough proposals. If anyone would like to discuss this further, please let me know. isaacl (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
My offer to help still stands, though we might have very different ideas related to the subject.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
So many directions to investigate, so little time :-) For the reference of others, that conversation can be found within Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 44 § Section break, and was regarding starting a discussion on establishing norms for desired behaviour, so it's a slightly different focus that the discussion I proposed now, which would be about ideas of how to handle situations involving privately-provided evidence. I did start a page laying out my initial thoughts on how to proceed regarding behavioural norms; if anyone is interested in discussing that with me, please let me know, too. isaacl (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Isaacl: - that's a good thought, and I've seen you handle a couple of proposal pages - if you create a page let me know and I'll happily contribute. If I get a free day I can have a read over the FRAM case workshop page and a few relevant bits of WP:FRAMBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
If people would like to start now, then I'd like someone else to take on the role of shepherding discussion (although the other discussions I was trying to start are essentially stillborn, there are still a few more I want to try to initiate). If you're interested and would like to discuss how to proceed further, please let me know. Or just do it! isaacl (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
January would allow for discussion between the community and candidates, and it won't hurt that the majority of arbitrators will have been elected post-Fram.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Just so you know[edit]

You'll likely be seeing this on your doorstep before long. You may want to get a head-start on the reading as it is quite the "tl;dr". — Ched (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Blimey O'Reilly. And people wonder why it's hard work being an arbitrator!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Piece of cake after the T&S/WMF one. — Ched (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
There are a whole lot of sticks that need dropping regarding Portals - or at least there were when I last paid attention to the area about 6 months ago and a quick glance shows some very familiar names. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Just don't shoot the messenger. — Ched (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I know this is going to come across as "WP:POINTy", and I honestly don't mean it to. There really is a question that I'm looking for an answer to. In the following situation:

  • the Committee resolves that <User:A> be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on <User:B>

how many edits must their be between the editors editing the same article? Or is this a case that once editor B has edited an article, then editor A may never edit said article? And please, no snark - I'm not trying to be a jerk, I honestly am looking for an answer. — Ched (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ched, there is no firm restriction on editing the same articles. Instead, the wording at WP:IBAN says that interaction-banned parties are not permitted to undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means. They are also not permitted to refer to each other directly or indirectly, which often applies to edit summaries. – bradv🍁 14:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)