Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Text of sanctions.user differs from longstanding practice

It's perfectly natural for rules to change over time, and this needs an update. It still says admins may punish editors under discretionary sanctions by issuing punishments "of up to one year in duration." In practice AE admins have been issuing indef blocks for years, but someone being pulled into the discretionary sanctions disciplinary process for the first time probably wouldn't know that. Right now, an indeffed editor not familiar with AE precedents could quite reasonably think either "the admins are ignorant of the rules" or "the admins broke the rules on purpose just to mess with me," and that's not fair to either party.

It is my opinion that having a hard time limit of some kind on punishments is a good match for the way people work and it would be better to change practice to match the rule as written, but the most important thing is that the written rules and actual practice match each other so the uninitiated aren't at too much of a disadvantage. There's far too much distrust in our disciplinary system, and this is an easy fix.

It's my understanding that current practice is "For the first year, any block issued under arbitration enforcement may only be lifted by the admin who placed it or by appeal at AE. All indefinite blocks issued under arbitration enforcement automatically become normal blocks after one year, at which point they may be lifted by any admin through the normal unblock process." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting some wikilinks

Suggest that § Expectations of administrators :

Expectations of administrators

This section was moved to the Arbitration Committee's Procedures page, and so applies to all enforcement decisions, on 21 April 2017

... be changed to ...

Expectations of administrators

This section was moved to the Arbitration Committee's Procedures page, and so applies to all enforcement decisions, on 21 April 2017

... as so ...

<includeonly>==</includeonly>== Expectations of administrators ==<includeonly>==</includeonly>
<span class="mw-poem-indented" style="display: inline-block; margin-inline-start: 1em;">''This section was moved to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures|Arbitration Committee's Procedures page]], and so applies to all enforcement decisions, on [[Special:Permalink/776554125#Standardising_arbitration_enforcement_procedures|21 April 2017]]''

... and that "Arbitration Committee's Procedures page" in § Dismissing an enforcement request be wikilinked similarly.

Additionally, I'd like to suggest some consideration be given to either wikilinking or adding hover text to the acronyms presented in "2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below)." in § Modifications by administrators so as to reduce the need for some readers to scroll back up to the definition section or otherwise seek out further clarification. And perhaps do so as well in other similar incidences where bare acronyms are used. ––A Fellow Editor– 12:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Makes good sense. Fix the potentially confusing word order too: "... page, on 21 April 2017, and so ...".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Second sentence of "What this page is for" in the front matter is redundant

Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but those in the dispute resolution community would be happy to assist. is redundant with the following paragraph, and is technically about what this page is not for, contrary to the title under which it is placed. This actually seems to have been an accidental leftover from before the notice was split into two "sections", as the earliest version in 2008 had essentially the same wording not under the heading "What this page is for". Since it looks like a mistake that just hasn't been noticed, and I don't think I'm missing anything, I could probably get away with removing it myself, but I figured it best to ask here first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You are all incompetent fools and I hope the new batch of Arbs does better

I can't wait until the new batch of arbs gets elected. You have all done such a lousy job these last few months that you are doing nothing but showing the community why they don't need an English Wikipedia arbcom...and they don't. Keep up the lousy work! 138.162.8.58 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)