Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Use this page to discuss information on the page (and subpages) attached to this one. This includes limited discussion of the Arbitration Committee itself, as a body. Some things belong on other pages:

requesting arbitration: WP:A/R
discussing finalised decisions of the committee: WT:ACN
discussing pending decisions: find the proceedings page at Template:Casenav
discussing the process of arbitration: WT:A/R

Shortcuts

This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization:

Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018). "The 15 People Who Keep Wikipedia's Editors From Killing Each Other". Wall Street Journal.

More jimbo cleanup?

Under Wikipedia:Arbitration#Prior dispute resolution, we still list "Arbitrate a dispute directly referred to the Arbitration Committee by Jimbo Wales". I assume that's obsolete at this point and it's OK if I remove it? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a valid removal, as WP:ARBPOL says nothing of a sort. It being an information page in this space means it needs nothing other than WP:BOLD action to remove it to start. Izno (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found another one. Izno (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki seems constitutionally unable to stay DRY. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Templating banned users

At WT:BAN, there are some lengthy discussions going on about the community policy for putting visible templates on the user pages of editors who have been community-banned. During these discussions, I've been hearing that ArbCom follows a procedure in which the user page (not talking about the user talk page) of someone banned by ArbCom gets put in a category, but there is not a visible notice shown on the user page. First, is that accurate? Second, if that's true, could someone please point me to where it says that in ArbCom's policies or procedures or motions, as well as to any discussions about the reasoning behind it? It would be helpful if I could see what ArbCom says about that. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Enacting bans and editing restrictions appears to have a line of interest. I don't see anything to indicate an invisible version. Izno (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it has an odd note about only accepting site bans by email. Izno (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Izno. That answers my question. It certainly sounds like I was told something incorrect. The language there is quite clear about always using the "banned user" template, which is indeed a displaying template, and the same one commonly used by the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When the |by= parameter of the {{banned user}} template is set to "the Arbitration Committee" (and looking at the code, I think also "Arbitration Committee"), the template puts the page in the Category:Wikipedia users banned by the Arbitration Committee category, which is a hidden category, and the banner is not displayed. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that explains it! Thanks so much for correcting that. Does anyone know where there was a discussion that led to setting that property for the "by" setting? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The change was implemented in 2016 by Opabinia regalis (with the following two edits making some adjustments), with an edit summary referring to the sandbox. Still looking if I can find a discussion... isaacl (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis opened a discussion that can be seen at Template talk:Banned user/Archive 1 § Suppressing the banner for arbcom bans, but they didn't specify a rationale (presumably "we" referred to the arbitrators). It was discussed briefly at Template talk:Banned user § Suppressing the banner for arbcom bans, take 2, where Opabinia regalis provided an explanation for the arbitration committee-specific category, but nothing regarding the banner beyond personal preference. I don't see anything obvious in the edit summaries for their edits around the time, so maybe there was an off-wiki conversation. isaacl (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Category:Banned Wikipedia users is also a hidden category; the template puts all banned users into it (including those banned by the arbitration committee). isaacl (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the "take 2" discussion to which you linked, the two comments at the end, by KevinL and by Opabinia, do explain what sounds like the rationale. Both Arbs say that they would prefer always making it non-displaying, per the "badge of shame" concern, but that this would be strictly contingent upon always having a reliable log of the action. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KevinL (L235) wasn't an arbitrator in 2016. Opabinia regalis expressed their personal preference without explaining why the change was made for site bans enacted by the arbitration committee. I imagine though there was an off-wiki discussion by the arbitrators at the time, and it was deemed unnecessary. isaacl (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it sounds that way to me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was. It has the "badge of shame" motivation but keeps the template to "ensure we have a list of banned users somewhere and this template/category is the only list" particularly for SPI uses (paraphrasing marks).

I do have to say that it is very useful to have a banner for sock-chasing/checking work. We do have formerly-good-faith-banned users turn bad and fundamentally don't find the "badge of shame" argument to have much if any merit. "Banned means banned", to borrow a phrase. ... not to split the discussion. Izno (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate and agree with those observations. I've been trying to make the case that there are some situations where it's a net benefit to have a visible notice, because the situation is clearly a bad one that needs to be easily tracked, but that this is not the case universally for all banning situations. And it's better to have someone with admin permissions or higher make an informed judgment about whether to visibly tag or not, than simply to insist on a one-size-fits-all policy. But there is clearly some significant pushback from editors who feel it is very important to always tag, no matter what. I agree that it's important to always track, as with that list, but that doesn't have to mean a visible tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Hopefully, you won't need to become involved in this matter but, based on past experience with the other party involved, I doubt if there will be a satisfactory resolution. Please see this message as a "heads up" but, as I have said, it is only fair to give him until the weekend to rectify. I am no longer part of your "community" but I left a lot of work on this site which was based on my own research and I strongly object to it being hi-jacked. Thank you. 2.99.208.127 (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears on the surface to be a content dispute, so you should attempt the other methods of dispute resolution first. Primefac (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, this IP is obviously a community banned user. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Primefac. I have fully explained the issue to the other party and have given him until Monday to resolve it. If he does not do so, I will escalate it. I suggest you tell Mather to mind his own business because a breach of WP:COPY is far more serious than the sort of nitpicking trivialities he indulges in, to the site's detriment. 2.99.208.127 (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, but per WP:DR ArbCom is not the next point for escalation, which was my original point. Primefac (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll leave things alone until Monday morning and then I'll use WP:DR if necessary. Thanks for your help. 2.99.208.127 (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]