Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:36, 22 March 2024

Shortcuts

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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

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.

Mschwartz1 granted extended confirmed for the purpose of participating in arbitration

Original announcement

Sorry, but why has an account created today and with zero edits been given this permission, and why has it been announced publicly like this? Giant Snowman 22:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the second question is almost certainly because people keep demanding as much transparency from arbcom as possible so they are being as transparent about it as possible, to keep discussion of it in one place (here) and to avoid well-meaning but uninformed editors unilaterally removing it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee was contacted privately by an organisation requesting a case and we told them to go through the on-wiki dispute resolution processes. This is the account their representative created, which needed an exception to the existing restriction in the Palestine–Israel topic area to be able to post it. As Thryduulf says, it was announced publicly to increase transparency and to hopefully reduce issues down the line. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I have more questions than answers now... Giant Snowman 09:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman. It may just be a coincidence that this report (The Bias Against Israel On Wikipedia) was published this week. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may or may not be a coincidence. I can say the conversation with us that led to this grant has been going on since early February. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until such point that the user needs to edit through extended-confirmed protection, it should be sufficient to permit the user to make edits related to the case; if such need is expected, a decision can be made to give the technical right when the need arises. Animal lover |666| 17:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By definition non-Extended-Confirmed users are not allowed to post anywhere other than article talk pages to make edit requests related to topics under ECR. Thus, to file a case request they must be granted Extended Confirmed status. It could potentially be reasonable to have a BANEX-type exemption for Arb-specific business such as ARC or ARCA requests, but that is a matter for ARCA/ARM to deal with. Primefac (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong but my thoughts go straight to POV pushing with this. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 17:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to Mschwartz1 suddenly jumping into article editing, that was not the purpose of granting the user right and it would immediately be revoked were that the case. It was granted to post and participate at ARC. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not article editing, but given the nature of this topic area there are many groups who have their preferred way of how events are covered. Arbitration seems like a nuclear option to me. I do recognize that there is plenty I don’t know, but this in my instinct, seems like it would just be an attempt to use arbitration to get their preferred picture of events on Wikipedia. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 17:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so if the account is used to edit any ECR articles, can any admins either remove the right or block them from editing in the main space until the stated need for the EC right no longer present? – robertsky (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Speaking in an individual capacity) I suppose, though notifying us or the clerks would be good. I hope that in such a situation, a warning or a nudge would be sufficient for them to stop editing said protected page(s). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About that article claiming anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia, I don't know whether or not that's something that is influencing ArbCom, but I'm having flashbacks to the paper that influenced the Polish Holocaust case. I don't want us to get in a position where outside advocates learn that they can get a knee-jerk reaction when they have an issue with our content. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the new paper actually devotes a section to the paper from the earlier case, and treats that paper very approvingly. No wonder I'm having flashbacks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't read this new paper so I can say with confidence it's not influenced any of my decision. I also was not aware of the paper before this discussion so if it's influenced others it hasn't been mentioned. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So this is an shared organizational account, and its contributions are not going to be associated with an individual? (c.f. WP:NOSHARING). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure seems to be the case. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 18:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not. The committee made clear that the account should only be operated by a single individual. So if it does turn into a shared account that can be handled as we handle any account which violates NOSHARING. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note. Is this someone that is expected to only make contributions that reflect their own personal ideas? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-sarcastic or anti-committee comment) It is good to see the committee uphold the principal that alternate accounts created for short-term security reasons are welcomed; e.g., in case of discovery by the *checks notes* Islamic Revolutionary Guard, which has been described by the CFR as 'paramilitary'[1], and whose leaders are one of a select global elite liable for CIA assassination[2], whose members have a penchant for mass human rights violations,[3][4] and willingness to manipulate your favorite crowd-sourced enclopedia to those ends.[5][6]. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 18:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is an alternative account it would be a surprise to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite the salient point. I said the committee has upheld the principal, etc., which it was unable to do officially on another occasion. Whether it's a role account or an individual one for the same purpose of security seems of less consequence than the principal. The cttee should be congratulated on now promulgating this principle. Unlike some editors whose refusal to do so suggests an insularity so behemothic, it's a wonder to behold. ——Serial Number 54129 19:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that any definitive conclusions should be drawn from this grant of extended-confirmed; I don't envisage the Committee routinely doing so again. Maybe I'm missing something, but alternative accounts for privacy are allowed, if discouraged. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming the committee is aware that granting extended-confirmed to a user before they are otherwise eligible breaks autopromotion of that user when they actually become eligible? stwalkerster (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the committee is aware but I am after the last time we did this. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was/am aware too. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What of WP:PAID and such? If the account is here to act on behalf of an organisation, surely it would require disclosure? – 2804:F1...60:5FC0 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but not necessarily. It will depend the organisation, the relationship between them and that organisation, and in what capacity they are editing. Regardless, given that they haven't made any edits yet, we can be certain they haven't violated that policy up to now. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PAID only applies to editing; any account with 0 edits is, by definition, not in violation. If this account only edits within the ArbCom case, then a prominent statement to that effect within the ArbCom statement is enough (the beginning of the statement, and the end of the primary statement before any replies, are each necessarily prominent enough). And the information that ArbCom gave the community doesn't tell us if this person is actually paid - in some organizations it may be reasonable to volunteer, in which case PAID is irrelevant. I trust that ArbCom knows this person's actual relationship with the organization, and will ensure proper disclosure if/when necessary. Animal lover |666| 09:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 *What of [[WP:PAID]] and such? If the account is here to act on behalf of an organisation, surely it would require disclosure? &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:809E:DF01:2923:B13E:B260:5FC0|2804:F1...60:5FC0]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:809E:DF01:2923:B13E:B260:5FC0|talk]]) 00:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 *:Possibly, but not necessarily. It will depend the organisation, the relationship between them and that organisation, and in what capacity they are editing. Regardless, given that they haven't made any edits yet, we can be certain they haven't violated that policy up to now. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
-*::PAID only applies to editing; any account with 0 edits is, by definition, not in violation. If this account only edits within the ArbCom case, then a prominent statement to that effect within the ArbCom statement is enough (the beginning of the statement, and the end of the primary statement before any replies, are each necessarily prominent enough). And the information that ArbCom gave the community doesn't tell us if this person is actually paid - in some organizations it may be reasonable to volunteer, in which case PAID is irrelevant. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666|&#124;666&#124;]] 09:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
+*::PAID only applies to editing; any account with 0 edits is, by definition, not in violation. If this account only edits within the ArbCom case, then a prominent statement to that effect within the ArbCom statement is enough (the beginning of the statement, and the end of the primary statement before any replies, are each necessarily prominent enough). And the information that ArbCom gave the community doesn't tell us if this person is actually paid - in some organizations it may be reasonable to volunteer, in which case PAID is irrelevant. I trust that ArbCom knows this person's actual relationship with the organization, and will ensure proper disclosure if/when necessary. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666|&#124;666&#124;]] 09:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)