Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Add topic
Active discussions

ARB ShortcutsEdit

Prompted by Jehochman's removal of a proposal for a "gravedancing" shortcut yesterday I have replaced and deleted all ARB shortcuts which target individuals. Those remaining should (if I haven't missed any) all point to :

  • an ArbCom procedure, policy, or administrative page; or
  • a topic area or article which has been the subject of arbitration.

Cabayi (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Like Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


Clarification requestEdit

WP:ARBDEL - Lugnuts topic banned: This remedy supersedes his December 2021 community topic ban. - Should the Arbcom imposed topic ban ever be lifted, is the community topic ban immediately reinstated, or does it lapse? This is not clear from the ruling. IMvHO, it should be immediately reinstated. This is because the community imposed it, and the community should decide on its lifting. Were it to lapse, in effect ARBCOM is overriding a community decision, which I'm sure is not its intention. Can we have some written ruling on this issue please? Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Appeals of arbcom sanctions are done at WP:ARCA and very much include community input. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
We're also talking 2 appeals from now. Lugnuts would need to get unbanned before, realistically, they could ask to have their topic ban repealed. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: I'm not appealing the sanction imposed. I'm sure ARBCOM made the correct decision and I have no wish to oppose any decision reached in the case. I'll post at ARCA if that is what is really needed, but I think a clarification can be made pretty easily, maybe by replacing "supercedes" with "suspends"? Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
If you do I will vote against it. I think it's unfair to ask an appellant to jump through two hoops. So there are times where ArbCom will say "let's ask the community" instead of deciding which is fine while other times ArbCom makes its own decision. If the community thinks ArbCom got it wrong at that moment it can reimpose something but I have a hard time believing that ArbCom would accept an appeal that had so much opposition that consensus to re-impose it could happen. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I was not suggesting that this discussion needs to go to ARCA, rather that if and when Lugnuts was in a position to appeal the topic ban, that is where the discussion would take place and there would be community input, therefore there is no danger of the committee blindly overriding the community's will or consensus. This is not a new or novel thing for the committee to do, established processes have handled it fine and I see no need to change the language of the decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I've made my concerns known, and ARBCOM is aware of them. We'll let the matter rest there. Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Articles within scope of multiple discretionary sanction topicsEdit

Where articles are within the scope of two or more discretionary sanction topics, they get multiple separate and largely duplicative banners. See for example Talk:Alex Jones which has DS banners for BLP, US Politics and Covid-19. This wastes space, contributes to banner overload and (based on my reaction to that talk page) less likely to read. Would the committee have any objection to a single template listing multiple topics for situations like this? I don't have the skill to develop one myself, but there is no point anybody who does spending any time working doing so if you aren't happy with the idea. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I will likely have some thoughts when it's executed - particularly with the design if there is a page restriction - but I have no problem with the concept. Curious what other arbs say. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a great idea. A lot of our templates and documentation needs updates. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I think this is a useful idea. As an admin looking for a current status when I see some disruption, it's more efficient to see "just one box, with a list of details" as opposed to seeing one box and then having to keep looking to see if there are more. It also intrinsically keeps all such details together (automatic organization) even when there are lots of other boxes. We already do this for wikiproject-tags ({{WikiProject banner shell}}) and afd-history ({{Old XfD multi}}) on talkpages and cleanup-tags ({{Multiple issues}}) on articles. DMacks (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Good idea! Avoiding repetition of the boilerplate part of the messages to ensure the meat of the messages is less concealed can only be for the good. Cabayi (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)