Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 20

Can we please reformat ARCA to use lvl-2 headers for cases rather than lvl-3? A page with only one lvl-2 header makes the header rather useless. (No page should ever have only one lvl-2 header.) Also, the lvl-2 header says the same thing as the lvl-1 header (the page title), making it further useless. If every case request was a separate lvl-2 (instead of a lvl-3), it would be much easier to read on mobile (right now it's kind of impossible to read on mobile because you have to scroll past ALL of the cases to get to the one you want). And you'd be able to collapse the individual ARCAs in the V-22 TOC (currently, can't be done). PS: in reality, what renders as a level-2 header is actually a level-1 header (which, I believe, shouldn't be used at all), and what renders as level-3 headers are actually level-2 headers (the headings of the individual ARCAs), but the point is that the page renders it as one level-2 followed by multiple level-3, and so the request is to reformat the page to remove the level-1 header, so the level-2 headers will actually render as level-2. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case (ARC), /Clarification and Amendment (ARCA), /Motions (ARM), and /Enforcement (AE) each have one level-1 header so that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests (RFAR), which transcludes each of those subpages, will have those four level-1 sections.

:However, those level-1 headers could be included only at RFAR rather than at the subpages, such as by putting them in <includeonly> tags. That is already done for AE.

:That would certainly make it easier to navigate on mobile, since mobile only collapses the highest level of section headers on a page. But this would also remove the header from desktop, and people may find the header useful to the extent "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment and Clarification" and "Requests for amendment and clarification" are a bit different. (I don't believe {{tl|If mobile}} would work; the hidden level-1 header would still prevent level-2 headers from being collapsible.)

:A {{tl|Fake heading}} could be put there instead to preserve the current appearance on desktop—

::= Requests for clarification and amendment ={{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}

:—though it wouldn't show up in the table of contents. SilverLocust 💬 08:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks, @SilverLocust, the edit you made fixed the problem for me. Now I can comment at many more ARCAs--hey, wait, why did you self-revert? 😄 Levivich (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

:::Sounds more like cause for an arbitrator to revert the change. 😁 I don't have any substantive input on requests (since clerks do not participate substantively in arbitration decisions), so there is less reason for me to read everything once I'm fairly sure an edit isn't disruptive. SilverLocust 💬 16:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

:I agree this was annoying while I was on the committee. Izno (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Motion 2b says 'all participants in a discussions". Valereee (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

:{{fixed}}, thanks. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This is about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Mooning the jury. BUTT was recently linked in a discussion I had with another editor and I couldn't help but think that maybe we could have a better section name/shortcut than that. It's possible I'm making much ado about nothing but figured I'd at least bring this up to see if others agree. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

:I'm also not saying to get rid of a shortcut that has historically been used but to maybe come up with an alternative one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

:Perhaps an advertised shortcut isn't really necessary? I don't like creating more all-caps jargon, plus honestly this concept applies broadly to all discussions, not just arbitration. Editors shouldn't be trying to garner support from others by showing flagrant disrespect towards them. So Wikipedia:Don't moon the jury would be a better redirection target in any case. (The 33 uses of the shortcut in question is a small enough number that the links could be updated to point directly to the arbitration guide.) isaacl (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

::I just think that the whole point could be made without invoking graphic imagery (mooning). It's essentially a section about being on your best behaviour and not WP:BOOMERANGing yourself at ArbCom. It's possible I'm overthinking this but seeing the shortcut WP:BUTT directed at someone else really made me think how unprofessional that must look to a newbie, especially in the literal guide to arbitration. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

:::Yes, I understood your initial point. I think in addition, no advertised shortcut is needed, and if the current shortcut were to be kept as a redirect, another page would be a better target.

:::Your followup explanation sounds like you'd want to modify the actual text, though, to avoid certain imagery. Is that the case? (Maybe something about thumbing your nose at others would convey the same concept.) isaacl (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I was unsure about the usefulness or the target and then that got me thinking about the text itself. So I wanted to bring up both. I'm sorry if I'm being confusing. Let me know if you need me to clarify anything further. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

:::::I have removed the shortcut link, mainly on "professionalism" grounds as discussed. No comment (at this time) on the actual content/wording concerns. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Hello {{u|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: {{tqb|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 {{tq|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)

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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_for_Homeostasis07_on_Wikipediocracy] 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)

{{od}}I linked to WPO posts directly in an active arbitration case last year, in two of my four submissions (link). These were not deemed worthy of summarizing, though (don't ask). El_C 20:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

:The times I have seen where such links have been removed, they are usually also suppressed, usually not because of the exact post linked to but because there was content elsewhere in the same thread that, if posted here instead of there, would violate WP:OUTING (as opposed to doxxing, which is not at all the same thing as violating our local outing policy despite some using the terms interchangeably), and linking to it in effect does post it here. This is of course made difficult/hazy by the extrememe length of many WPO threads. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Inquiring minds want to know. jp×g🗯️ 10:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:Uh, in this case the case continues, since more is involved than one editor. And if it isn't then I'm sure a motion would suffice. The wheels of God grind slow, but they grind exceeding small. SerialNumber54129 11:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

::It's only about more than one editor insofar as those that have been excusing his behaviour and derailing discussions are culpable. TarnishedPath^talk 12:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:::We are in agreement. SerialNumber54129 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:As a general rule, if a subject at the centre of a case gets 86'd or pulls a "you can't fire me I quit", and there are no matters in controversy that don't involve that editor and their behaviour, then the case generally gets closed as moot. This also includes 172 exits (i.e. administrators going on Wikibreak/quitting the project to dodge an Arbitration that jeopardises their tools). See K1, Orthogonal, Wareware, ESZ{{efn|Which also lays out the rationale for why admins evading Arbitration lose the mop anyway}}, Ed Poor{{efn|name="cloud"|Involved misuse of advanced permissions, which would be willingly surrendered}}, JarlaxleArtemis 2, R. fiend{{efn|name=cloud}}, Kingofmann, Noloop{{efn|Both major parties left the picture during the case}}, A Nobody{{efn|Effectively closed shortly after it was held in abeyance, formally closed over a decade later}}, Rodhullandemu, SchuminWeb{{efn|name="admin"|172 exit}}, Media Viewer RfC{{efn|name=cloud}}, Toddst1{{efn|name=admin}}, Technical 13, Neelix{{efn|name=cloud}}, Andrevan{{efn|name=cloud}}, Alex Shih{{efn|name=admin}}, Carlossuarez46{{efn|name=admin}}, and Mzajac{{efn|name=admin}}. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

::That is quite a pile of precedent, but we also don't know the extent of what has been emailed to the committee, the number of commenters saying they have sent something in suggests there is a considerable volume of it, not all related to LB. I don't envy them the task of sorting all that out. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:::There is also the possibility that, if the CBAN does go thru (as is likely to happen, if I'm grokking the discussion right) that ArbCom steps in to endorse it, which would turn it into an Arbitration siteban and limit his ability to appeal it. I can see this happening if the private evidence is extensive enough that any public unban discussion would be problematic from a privacy or victimisation standpoint; see also Rp2006's recent ban endorsements. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If possible, an indeffed/cbanned editor should be allowed to continue to participate in a case request & (if accepted) arbcom case. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:I think they could maybe submit evidence via email or their talk page, but given the sheer strength of the consensus for a cban that's about it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

::ArbCom can always pass an injunction (assuming a case is accepted) unblocking them but banning them from everything but the Arbitration and their user talk page. They've done so before. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:::If I'm being comletely honest, the strength of the "evidence" he presented yesterday suggests that his particpation would not be helpful, incuding to himself, but yeah, they could do that if he asked for it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

{{yo|Jéské Couriano}} I'm not familiar with the term "172 exit" -- is that just another term for "resigned under a cloud"? Where does the reference come from? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:Can disregard, I believe I've figured it out (it appears to be a reference to when User:172 did it). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

::Correct; more specifically it's a reference to 172's second ArbCom case, which was basically the first time an admin "quit the project" to avoid scrutiny of his tool use and which lays out the de facto reasoning for deopping anyone else who "quits the project" in the face of an ArbCom case that would endanger those tools. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

{{notelist-talk}}

One arb has said {{tq|People adding and removing parties to this case outside of procedures is cringe}}. Is there actually a rule or procedure for who can or cannot add or remove parties while a case is still a request? Obviously once there is a full case that's a matter for the arbs to decide but at a glance I'm not seeing any guidance on how it works during the request phase. Not 100% sure it is needed as I don't recall this being a common issue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:Personally I feel it falls under {{section link|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration|Responding to requests}}: {{tq|If you are named as an involved party in a request for an arbitration case, or if you feel you must respond to any request or to comments made by others in any request, then you may make a statement on the case page. ... If you must respond to some statement by another editor on the arbitration request, then you must do so in your own section.}} Editors aren't supposed to change what others have written. Clerks and arbitrators can do so, and so they can be asked to revise the list of parties. isaacl (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

::See this short thread from July. At Template:Arbitration amendment request and Template:Arbitration clarification request, a <!-- hidden note --> was added to clarify this in July, but it hadn't been added to Template:Arbitration case request until now.

::While there doesn't seem to be a rule saying so, choosing the name and parties for a case request are matters for the user filing the request. Except for clerks or arbs, others generally shouldn't be editing the case request. (However, I'd tend to think that adding oneself as a proposed party is presumptively okay.) SilverLocust 💬 19:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Thanks for that, that seems entirely reasonable. I do agree that the adding and removing that has been going on is unecessary, but there's been a lot of unecessary crap around this whole topic, so not super surprising. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

::::I was hoping one of the arbitrators would point out that changing other people's edits is not standard practice, rather than just cringing, especially as it was discussed in July... isaacl (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::That's a fair point. It may not be obvious to those less familiar with the process that the list of parties is "someone else's edit" but I don't think that was the issue in this particular case. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:Changing tack slightly, can someone clarify what difference being named as a party at this stage of the proceedings makes? Given that it is far from clear to me (and from the look of it, quite a few other people) what this case is actually supposed to be about, it would seem rather premature to expect an exhaustive list of possible parties. Are we expected to request that individuals be added onto the list on the offchance that their behaviour might be relevant? I could certainly name individuals now who I consider might be relevant to the discussion if it goes in one particular direction, but that involves speculation on my behalf. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

::The filter of a case is required to provide a list of proposed parties, with themselves included as a party regardless of their prior involvement. So the current list is very much a rough draft. If and when it's clear that a case will be accepted, the committee will have a discussion (on the mailing list, usually) regarding the drafting arbs, the defined scope of the case, and who is officially included as a party, which is entirely their decision and could include persons not currently listed and could omit some that are. So, at the end of the day it isn't that big of a deal who is and is not on it currently. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

::While on the committee I worked on (and the committee adopted) a guide for parties to a case. Here's what the guide says about parties. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:::From the guide linked above: {{tq|Parties are the editors who the Arbitration Committee has identified as having an important role in the dispute the committee is examining.}} I think this may be at the root of the problem we've seen, discussed above, with people messing around with the list. The 'parties' weren't 'identified by the committee', they were instead listed by one particular individual, the filer. This use of the same terminology comes across (whether intended or not) as an attempt to preempt ArbCom, and to define the scope of later discussions. If there is going to be some sort of 'provisional parties' list, it should be labelled as such, and a better mechanism for constructing it needs to be found than leaving it to the filer, and/or anyone and everyone adding and subtracting to it at will. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

::::{{tqq| If there is going to be some sort of 'provisional parties' list, it should be labelled as such}} Like, "Proposed Parties"? Levivich (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::I'd suggest adding between the bolded section (which is as reasonably named) and the list of proposed parties: Unless otherwise indicated, the parties below were listed by the filer of this case. If a case moves forward, the Arbitration Committee will determine the actual parties. This would hopefully both make clear where it came from and make clear that only arbs/clerks should be adding others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::That would certainly address some of my concerns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::I added a hidden-text note based on Barkeep's suggestion. SilverLocust 💬 18:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Since it appears that this case may be going somewhere, can I have a word limit extension please? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:Bump. If I'm not asking in the right place here, where should I be asking? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

::I said I needed one on the case page and nobody seemed to notice, so then I posted a bolded request for one and it was granted extremely quickly. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

::This page is an entirely fine place to put an extension request, this time it just took longer than usual to get an answer. SilverLocust 💬 18:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

{{hat}}

{{Moved discussion from|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Marine_69-71|2=SilverLocust 💬 00:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)}}

{{u|JPxG}} says just above that "Someone said the filer has been following Tony around to give him a hard time -- not in a position to aggressively fact-check this at the moment -- but very lame if true." That may be the lamest statement I've seen on this page. "Someone said", really? Dig it out. "Not in a position to aggressively fact-check"? Wait until you are. How is it acceptable to attack a non-admin for a rumor which the admin speaker can't even remember where they read? Bishonen | tålk 09:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC).

:Sorry for the confusion -- "lame if true" is here used in the normal sense of conditional statements in the English language (e.g. P {{arrow}} Q, and {{not}}P {{arrow}} {{not}}Q). If it is not true, then it is not lame. jp×g🗯️ 17:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

::To spread nasty rumors by hiding behind "someone said" is not OK, and mansplaining what if means doesn't improve it. Bishonen | tålk 09:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC).

:::I still have no idea what you are talking about "hiding behind" or "spreading", since what I said was a direct reference to another person's comment several paragraphs above mine, on the exact same page. If you want to say that Hammersoft's accusations were "nasty rumors", I have no idea why you would make no mention of their claims, and personally attack me for briefly mentioning them, without saying they were true, or even that I believed they were true. jp×g🗯️ 10:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

{{hab}}

{{od|4}}It wasn't initially clear that you were referring to the Statement by Hammersoft, JPxG, so I have added a link to that section in your statement. With that clarified, I think your and Bishonen's responses to each other are no longer needed, so I've moved them here and hatted them. SilverLocust 💬 00:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Just for my own edification, what does it actually mean for arbcom to accept a case with a particular scope? Is that just general guidance about what you're going to concentrate on, or is it a strict boundary which cannot be crossed, even if things develop in an unexpected direction as the investigation progresses? RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

:The scope of a case is essentially the specific issues (and anything arising from those issues) ArbCom is looking at in a given case. For example, the scope of WTC is the behaviour of members of WP:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones, more specifically their use of Discord to collude in their topic area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

::Obviously the current ArbCom should answer how they see the scope. As a bit of institutional memory, this was formally added early on in my first term. It came in response to feedback that it was hard for community members to know what kind of evidence they should be submitting and that this resulted in all sorts of evidence which wasn't germane to the case. This evidence could be upsetting to the person it was presented about and it could be upsetting to the person who submitted it when it was ignored. So the scope was made a formal part of the process to try and help signal better to everyone. In my experience as a drafter, the scope became irrelevant in terms of the final decision - I went wherever the evidence led. This could be the same scope or a narrower scope. The only times you could say there was a broader scope is when parties would get added, which is why the committees I was on helped formalize a process where parties could be added after the case began if evidence justified it but those parties would still have a reasonable chance to participate in the case without being penalized for being added late. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• I see scope as a natural evolution of our cases. Engineering a scope allows us to target exactly the issue we want to solve. If we didn't have a case scope, then a case could be about anything that parties put forth evidence of, which would derail proceedings. Indeed, we've seen ample examples in the past of parties using cases as general excuses to sling grievances against other editors, which has ultimately been a waste of time and energy. Also, if a scope is too large, it can be hard to pin down exactly what we're doing, and the evidence of parties may pass each other like ships in the night, not ever addressing the same issue. Scope delineates what is relevant, and what isn't, and keeps us focused. That's not to say that we'll never hear evidence outside of our initial scope, but there's going to have to be a good reason. At any rate, we often end up changing a scope as a case goes on. Sometimes the issue isn't as big as we thought it was initially, and we'll drill down on one aspect. Othertimes, we will add new parties as it becomes clear that the misconduct was broader than first thought. TLDR: scope is a soft guideline, which we have a right to change, but which we aim to follow. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought there was not to be discussions between commenters, and that we were to address our comments to the arbcom. Probably personal asides should go on individual talk pages. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:the israel palestine request involves highly contentious material and the longer it asks for comments the more it will degenerate from a structured ask into random turf wars between factions Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have great enthusiasm for the WPO case, as I wrote there, but regarding the procedural close {{u|Hammersoft}} brought up, we also have WP:AC, which seems to say that arbs should be considered inactive if they haven't participated in arbitration in the past week. One of the arbs has only a talk page message in arbspace in the past week; the other has no edits in arbspace (unless we count AE actions as "arbitration"). It seems to me that in the future it would be simpler to just say "an arb that hasn't made any attempt to participate in a particular case request is considered inactive for that part of the process" or something. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:Private activity also counts so if one of those Arbs (which I also thought about and checked on) was active on list we'd have no way of knowing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

::Good point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:There are two arbs (Z1720 and HJ Mitchell) who are inactive by that definition, and another (Sdrqaz) about to be so. I find it slightly bothersome that two of those are active on the project, just not on arbitration. You're voted to ArbCom to do an important job. It's the only job that you're expected to do work in on a regular basis (outside of inactivity for admins, which is a far larger period). To be active on the project but not on ArbCom seems like setting aside work for which they were placed to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

::Z1720 already declined, and I wasn't referring to HJ (who also updated his comment a few minutes ago) because he had been active on that page. I was referring to the two arbs listed as active but who haven't commented at all: Sdrqaz (whose only arbing edit in the past week was the "talk page message in arbspace" I mentioned) and ToBeFree (whose last edit to arbspace was October 23 -- the "unless we count AE actions" above, which I would presume not, but maybe I'm wrong). Anyway, not something I want to argue about, but it would be a shame for it to end in a procedural can-kicking due to active-but-inactive arbs rather than at least a formal decline/accept. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:::And in this case if one of those two is inactive then suddenly it opens as a case because 4 would be a majority (9 active arbs - 2 recused arbs = 7 arbs). Which, truthfully, also seems like a weird way to see this case move forward but I suppose no more or less weird than a case with 50% of active arbs voting to open going away. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:::As a post script Sdrqaz has now commented in Arbspace in response to FF's announcement of stepping down and since I've conversed about Arb business with them in the last week have every belief they are active just behind the scenes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

::::{{re|Rhododendrites|Hammersoft}} As Barkeep states, I have been active in Committee business behind the scenes{{snd}}I have sent seventeen emails to the Committee mailing lists in the last week and have voted in our private votes. However, the point about my inactivity in on-wiki Committee business is taken on board and I am sorry for that: it is obvious that I haven't allocated my Wikipedia time appropriately and will rectify that. Yours, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Hammersoft}} and others: I am monitoring the page, reading through comments when I get the chance. I haven't felt the need to comment on anything as others are making arguments much better than I could. If someone has something specific they feel like I need to respond to, feel free to ping me as I may have missed it. Z1720 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::@Sdrqaz I am curious whether you think the WPO case should be accepted or not. Those thinking the case should be accepted think Lightburst's existing ban was insufficient, those thinking the opposite think Lightburst's existing ban solved the matter at hand. If you are neutral, or do not wish to weigh in, that is effectively a decline in this case. I myself have no opinion on the matter. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:::I was aware of, and occasionally looking at, the case request without being sure whether and what to say about it. Saying too much quickly results in calls for recusal independently of whether one is actually needed, saying nothing results in a discussion about inactivity; accepting results in "you wanted this, now find a solution for it" thoughts, declining results in "the others want it and I'm blocking it" thoughts, and I was really in two minds about whether having a case would be beneficial. For me personally, this correctly defaults to a silent decline rather than an abstention, but I guess that's a question of philosophy/policy.
I wasn't aware of this discussion here until today and am always happy about pings. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:FWIW it would make sense to me, for the future, to document somewhere that (a) if an arb is listed as active on a case, they should find the time to either say one thing about the case in the case request or change their status to inactive; or (b) arbs have X days to weigh in, unless they ask for more, and at the end anyone who isn't down with a formal position of accept/decline/recuse/abstain/neutral/whatever else, is considered inactive. This could take the form of the "active in arbitration" part of WP:AC applying to each specific case (i.e. if it's been a week and someone hasn't said anything, they're assumed inactive on that case until they say something). I mean that just makes sense, right? Or are there more complicated behind-the-scenes reasons why an arb might be considered active on a case but decline to weigh in? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

::Arb inactivity is judged as not touching anything arb related for a week, or saying you're inactive. The committee as a whole just does a fantastically terrible job of self-regulating their members who are on The List as active but in reality haven't been seen for a while. There were a few arbs when I was on the committee who made sure to send reminder emails if something was dying in public. Clearly this committee has had a bad time of keeping anyone active, with regular counts of even publicly active-member-days below previous years, on which Barkeep has the stats lying around somewhere. Izno (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Related to the above discussion, but I'm confused about Special:Diff/1255905950 declining the WPO case. The latest vote totals were <4/3/2> (Accept/decline/recuse). I'm sure I'm just not up to speed on AC process, but how does that become a decline? I'm not complaining, just trying to understand the process better. RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• :@RoySmith because clerk procedures say if something hasn't been accepted after 10 days it is declined. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• :Roy, that's why I opened this section -- Hammersoft pointed out the 10-day rule on the case page, and it struck me as kind of shocking to take all the time and energy all these people have put into the case request and flush away everything but the ill will on procedural grounds. Arbs aren't paid and shouldn't be expected to participate in everything, but we do need some clear instructions to avoid such a situation. A possibility for the future: Maybe it's about the definition about "active". The thing that matters most at the request phase is that the arb read it and vote (even if that vote isn't accept or decline), right? So maybe the line is "this is the list of people expected to vote on whether to accept", with the understanding they'd be considered inactive if they don't say anything (after all, "active" for the sake of a given request doesn't mean much if they're only active elsewhere). YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::This is as much problematically "procedural" as the automated removal of unactioned reports at WP:AIV, the automated archival of sections at WP:ANI and WP:ANEW and treating a deletion discussion noone participated in as a successfully proposed deletion. We can call it procedural but I disagree with the implication of this procedure being a problem, or the procedural removal being less valuable than an explicit majority decline. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::In those cases, everyone can participate (or, in some cases, anyone from a large group of people [admins] can jump in if they can see consensus). Here, consensus doesn't matter and no amount of participation or argumentation can overcome the discussion-closing impact of an absent arb. I'm sure there are downsides of another system, and have sympathy for your points above, but I don't see it as similar to those other venues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::::Okay, yes, that's true. And thinking about it again, I think I could agree with defaulting to abstention rather than decline in case of no participation at a case request at all. It might require me to change my way of approaching these cases, but the change would probably be an improvement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::::I mean, we're talking about an iteration of the committee that really seems apathetic. There's a proposed decision that as we speak has been posted for seventeen days, just as long as the WPO case request remained open without being accepted or declined, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_(AE_referral) an ARCA thread] that has been open for eighty four days, with motions to move it forward languishing for a month and half, longer than most ARCA requests are even open. The committee often moves slower than is optimal, but this past year it has been exceptionally slow to act. Tighter standards regarding how an arb is determined to be inactive could possibly help, this is by no means a new issue but it seems particualrly acute right now. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

{{u|Huldra}}, re. your curiosity: Can I draw your attention to the Law of 22 Prairial, as codified by the Committee of Public Safety in 1794. The law made denunciation of one's neighbors the only permissible form of evidence, denied the right of the accused to defend themselves or call witnesses, turned the public court into an in camera committee, and, unsurprisingly allowed for only one sentence{{nbsp}}... presumably an Indef Site Ban... ;) SerialNumber54129 17:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Serial Number 54129}} Hmm, somehow quoting a law from the Reign of Terror doesn't really calm me. And no email from arb.com, as yet, Huldra (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Can an administrator use this to grant more words or remove the word limit from certain discussions? I'm trying to avoid making this another whole thing, so if there's general agreement on it I'd prefer not to open another ARCA. Pinging {{ping|Chess|Selfstudier}} who's discussion made me think of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#c-HJ_Mitchell-20241117163100-Zero0000-20241117063800 HJM seems to think so]. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

:@ScottishFinnishRadish I think yes. ArbCom routinely grants wordlimit extensions on its own pages, so it makes total sense for admins to do so here. I think the idea to remove the word limit from discussions is fine, but that admins will have to be conscientious about doing so. We're not trying to make this too onerous or counterproductive, we're trying to give admins the tools to tamp down problems. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There are many discussions that began before the word limit motion passed. Does the word limit only apply to new discussions, or does it apply to older ones as well? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

:@Chess Imo, per the principle of ex post facto, no it doesn't apply to older ones still ongoing, such discussions would be grandfathered in. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a clerk around -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ACCR&redirect=no Wikipedia:ACCR] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3#Wikipedia:ACCR}} until a consensus is reached. JJP_Master (she/they) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)