Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

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 Lowercase sigmabot III.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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.

Original announcement

Original announcement

This is really digging back deep. Well before my time, though when I first became an admin I read through a lot of old ArbCom cases so I was prepared for AE. No complaint about the modifications, to be sure. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I'm somewhat curious as to why this even came up. For those interested, it's just a restatement from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2 (which was also an awful mess of a case). Apparently James Forrester authored the version that got agreement within the committee; there were various proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Workshop. The principle was much more controversial in the Durova case because of the perception that the committee was shooting the messenger. Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: And I thought I was the retired institutional memory. You do know that by showing up on this page after all these years, you're now required to run for the Committee again? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does ArbCom need to file another motion to amend Hkelkar 2 then? Really I think the point of this motion was to send a message that copyrights aren't the primary reason not to disclose private information, and correcting the historical record was a side effect of the way that was done, not the actual point, so no. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad that is flummery! Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that his came up is that the 2007 principle is mentioned at Wikipedia:Harassment. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Wikipedia:Copyrights was always something of a cheat. It is and was legally accurate, but it was standing in for the lack of a policy governing the real issue. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Proposed decision#Private correspondence, particularly 2.2. There was certainly a very strong norm that you shouldn't post the contents of a private email (I was guilty of that once, well before that case), separate from the question of outing someone's real name or email address. The committees of that period were cautious about going beyond existing policies, but (as I recall) we didn't want that genie getting out of the bottle, especially since a copy-pasted email wasn't usable as evidence. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Based. That copyright thing was very silly and it is good for it to be out. jp×g🗯️ 06:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case Closed on 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 22:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Was this the longest between changes to a case? 16 years and a half could be some kind of record. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrybak You made me curious, and it is the record holder by just under 5 months from Eastern Europe. See User:Thryduulf/Arbitartion amendments after a decade for the list of 41 cases that have been amended 10 or more years after being closed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really did the homework there. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

• Thank you for everything Barkeep. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I will miss Barkeep on the Committee, having spoken with him on so many occasions. I still resolutely believe that the Committee is enriched by diverse perspectives; I will miss his thoughts and his work for all of us.
  I wish that we didn't have to disagree so much, but I respect that Barkeep was unfailingly frank with me. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Great loss, for sure! But I take comfort that he will be watching out for us with the U4C stuff, as I don't keep up to date with, but find myself eternally worried about all the stuff that goes on outside of Wikipedia that affects Wikipedia. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand your reasons, but I'm really sad to see you go. You've always seemed to me like the adult in the room. RoySmith (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• thanks for your service o7 ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 🫡 – robertsky (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As long as bar is being kept at some worthwhile establishment, I begrudgingly accept that it won't be at the dive where I have enjoyed their service of late. DMacks (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your service. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you! Perhaps I'll get the opportunity to vote for you in an arbcom election again sometime. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for everything from me too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Nice one Barkeep.Original announcement "Arbcom, now going to hell in a handcart..." 🤪 All aboard! ——Serial Number 54129 08:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ArbCom always feels like it's moments away from going to hell even when things are going well. So my presence or not is unlikely to alter that course. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Barkeep was, in my mind, one of my most trusted colleagues while I served, indeed he was one of the best arbitrators the committee ever had. The committee, and therefore the wider project, will need to work hard to fill this gap. Worm^TT(talk) 10:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These are very kind words that I will not hold you to when someone who is actually one of the best arbs the committee has decides to run again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the same mindset I had. Barkeep gave advocacy a new name and was a frequent consult on odd situations that I could bounce my thoughts off with and get a well rounded response. Will be missed even if my consulting level is low these days. -- Amanda (she/her) 05:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I second everything Worm says. Barkeep's decison is most understandable, but still leaves a big hole in the committee. In the context of a frustrating thread from a few months ago, I had said on the mailing list, mostly but not entirely tongue-in-cheek, that he had been identified as the "chief of ArbCom". I wish Barkeep the best with his endeavours with U4C. Maxim (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These are some very kind words, though I've long thought the committee of equals approach was a strength of ArbCom's. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for being one of the most thoughtful members of Arbcom I've ever dealt with. ~Awilley (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ArbCom will be the worse off for lack of Barkeeps' presence on it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ArbCom (and online committees in general) work best when the members have a variety of viewpoints and can have a frank exchange of views in private but still recognise that each member is trying to do The Right Thing™. Barkeep was the master of that. I'm sorry to see you go but wish you every success with the U4C. Who knows, you might even get time to edit the wiki occasionally! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I have always valued your honesty and integrity, even when we were in disagreement. I also understand that the being an active arb can be exhausting. This is a loss for the committee but hopefully a gain for you personally. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Goodbye Arbkeep, hello U4Ckeep! Thanks for your service. DanCherek (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not happy to see you go, but the U4C is off to a good start with such a level-headed, thoughtful person on board. - Aoidh (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a great loss for ArbCom, but thank you very, very much for your genuinely excellent work. Even when you and I have seen things differently, I have always had the deepest of respect for you as an honest broker, and as one of the best Arbs ever in terms of communicating actively with the community. Let's all belly up to the bar, and raise a glass! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

• I am disappointed that rather than taking a moment to rethink what needed to be confidential and what can be public to get an easy win by providing the community transparency into the 2021 letter by publishing as much of it as is possible, the committee has decided to just close it with the motion. I am curious if the committee will at least release the vote for that decision as I know what it stood at when I resigned but obviously don't know how it shifted after my resignation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I tend to agree, I believe by publishing my response I was able to demonstrate that it could be redacted in such a way as to not release any confidential material, and the community could see for themselves and decide if they thought the committee's characterization of it was accurate. I'm not going to pursue it any further though. It isn't any sort of a secret that I do not fully agree with most arbs regarding what should and should not be held as absolutely confidential. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate you writing this. In some ways I don't think it will do as much as an underacted version could - for instance I think one of the things listed in the letter is something you 100% didn't do but also was/am in favor of redacting that name none-the-less - but that it will still provide important information now and in the future about what happened here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Developments have meant that an update will be posted to this announcement soon. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

• I hope that the letter's publication will allow others in the Community to come to their own conclusions regarding the motion passed above. I don't believe that I can be too specific on why the announcements were made separately (I wish that they were together too), but the important thing is that it was published. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ...I'll be honest, any communication which begins "I'm writing to you on behalf of the rest of the committee" and ends "For the Arbitration Committee" seems fairly formal to me, but what do I know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't remember the last time I saw any kind of "formal warning" in any context whose main operating provision was "Can you please be really really careful". That seems like a pretty informal standard to me, and much more of a request than a warning. Maybe if y'all had asked them to be super duper careful, it'd have been more formal? Anyway, the conclusion the release is making me draw here is that I cannot fathom why so much energy was expended fighting against this outcome. Other conclusions too, but pretty sure I'd get in trouble for WP:ASPERSIONS if I stated them.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]