Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

I need help finding Info

Where can I find requests the Arbitration Committee has agreed with and granted? Lechonero (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests has most of them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Lechonero (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please check policy addition

Please could someone knowledgeable take a look at this and check whether I've described the meanings of 1RR and 0RR correctly. (They were previously defined in an essay rather than in policy, and not very rigorously.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

CU/Oversight election

So, after a month and a half of now fizzled out conversation on the subject, ArbCom has yet to comment as a group on what, if any, action will be taken regarding the "unacceptable result" of the recent elections. I guess I thought that announcing that the result was not acceptable indicated that something was going to be done about it, but to all outward appearances it seems the result is going to be allowed to stand. The RFC on the subject has never been closed either. I don't mean to be pushy, but an up or down answer on whether the result is going to be allowed to stand or if some other action is going to be taken seems to be in order. I just want closure on this thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been the subject of discussion on the arbitrators' mailing list over the last couple of days, and I expect we'll have something solid to announce within a week. Steve Smith (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a relief, I was starting to wonder if this hadn't fallen off the radar altogether. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be lying if I said that our attention to it hasn't been a little intermittent, but it's squarely on our radar now. Assuming that things can be squarely on one's radar. Steve Smith (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that this is still on our radar and progressing forwards. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Logo

It's a stale joke, its inclusion is completely contrary to other similar pages, and it's ugly. Are there reasonable arguments for keeping it at the top of the page? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides that you unilaterally removed it? It's not ugly. It's been there awhile and you're the only one to complain. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It was unilaterally added. WP:BRD is something you're surely familiar with. (Or, if not, we're in the D stage.) I don't think being the single voice of complaint is a valid reason to use such an ugly logo. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's neither here nor there; the decision to use a logo is not generally based on whether there are complaints about it. Your point about the logo being "ugly" is noted, however; if you are so inclined, please create a logo that you find more attractive, and we will consider using it instead. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Kirill. This is a community page. It should follow community standards. The standard is not include overly large and unattractive logos at the top of the page. Is there a reason to make an exception here? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Two reasons come to mind:

1. There are many project-space pages which include logos of various sorts, particularly those associated with groups of Wikipedians; the use of the logo here, while not necessarily standard in the minutiae of formatting, is by no means exceptional in principle.
2. Even if the logo were exceptional, it is a well-established community principle that the Arbitration Committee has authority over the layout and contents of pages related to arbitration.

As I've mentioned, you're certainly welcome to propose an alternative layout if you find this one not to your liking; but I see no justification in either policy or convention for the idea that you should have the authority to force changes on it unilaterally. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The use of such a prominent logo/header does seem to be unusual. By way of comparison, WP:MEDCAB has a logo lower down on the page, and WP:MEDCOM does not appear to have any logo at all. Apparently (from the edit history) at least two arbitrators wish to have the logo retained, and their opinions have significant weight with regard to arbitration pages. Admittedly however, on a basic level, the logo does not seem to fit well, perhaps because such bold logos are highly uncommon. Lewis Windsor (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If there really was nothing more significantly wrong with WP's arbitration system than whether the committee had a big logo on its page, I think we could all be very happy.--Kotniski (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, we haven't heard many complaints recently, but that may be simply because there's no good venue for them. Would it be worthwhile to either (a) open another RFC on the arbitration system or (b) create a more obvious way for people to register their thoughts on it? We're certainly very interested in hearing what people think we should be doing differently; if we don't get feedback, it's difficult for us to improve. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there was a time when quite a lot of people were giving feedback, but it seemed always to be ignored (for example, ArbCom were always promising that a new draft of arbitration policy was just around the corner, but of course it never materialized, and eventually debate just fizzled out).--Kotniski (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The delays in getting a new Arbitration Policy out were largely (though somewhat indirectly) my fault; my resignation from the Committee last year left that effort stranded with nobody really driving it forward, and it has been steadily pushed down the priority list by more pressing issues this year. I will try and get some movement going on it shortly, however; I realize it must be frustrating to see no progress on the matter.

I assume, however, that the delays in producing a new draft are not the only concern people have? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, seeing we're on the subject of concerns people have, there's the checkuser/oversight election thing.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A draft motion is currently being discussed on arbcom-l; we should have something ready for publication within the next few days. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 18:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear! I'm assuming it's not the same sort of "should be ready for publication" that the drafting arbitrator said in the Race and Intelligence case, where IIRC, an approximate date was set 3 times and the expectation was not met on all 3 occasions, leaving the duration of delay to something like a month and a half. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

From experience, that's the sort of length of time I understand ArbCom to mean when they say "a few days". As for concerns, mine are that the arbitration process still doesn't seem to be directed towards solving Wikipedia's problems, just providing a venue for a drama-fest and then handing out prizes for performance. (Though I'm not a regular observer - things may have improved somewhat.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comment has some level of relevance; the case I referred to was directed to arbitration on the basis that it would effectively resolve the dispute (eliminating the drama fest), but the effect of the delay has achieved the opposite (the casepages are still officially a drama fest). I thought that after getting the first two estimations so incredibly wrong, another arbitrator would have taken over by now given: (1) there are apparently no issues with management; (2) that's not what case pages exist for, and, (3) all arbitrators should be up to date with what has been posted in evidence anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Updating Arbitration policy

The latest draft of the proposed update to the Arbitration policy is here with discussion of the draft here. All editors are cordially invited to participate.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you all add Captcha to the emails for safety? 72.148.31.114 (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

This is possibly a dumb question. Is it generally ok to ban one specific user from editing pages previously edited by one particular user, or from reverting this users edits? This just happens on huwiki based on the decisions of the Hungarian Arbitration Committee. I'm curious what is the opinion here about this, and whether this practice is the violation of the three-revert rule for example. Föld-lét (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, just a private answer, not being a member of the Committee) As far as I understand you, the type of ban you describe is quite common (it tends to be called an "interaction ban"). I don't see why it would be in violation of the three-revert rule. In any case Hungarian WP has its own rules and customs, not bound by those of English WP.--Kotniski (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well because some editors may have the right to revert 0 times. I think this is quite simple, isn't it. But anyway, if this practice is common, than I guess there's little to do against it right now. Wikipedia is heading towards less freedom.

Wikipedias have to have something in common at some point, and maybe the fundamental rules is that. Thank you a lot for your answer. Föld-lét (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The three-revert rule (at least, in its English Wikipedia form) isn't intended as giving everyone a right to revert a certain number of times (you can still be warned and blocked for edit-warring if you don't breach 3RR), but rather laying down a bright line, saying that while you may be blocked for all sorts of behaviour, step over this line and it becomes particularly likely you'll get blocked. (I don't agree with the 3RR by the way, partly because of the fundamental but apparently quite reasonable misunderstandings it generates.) --Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)