Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

About an AFC/R request[edit]

I have been requested to redirect WP:ARBDEL to a specific case. Should I accept it? Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

( Peanut gallery comment) I don't recall a logical WP:ARB... shortcut redirect to an arbcom case being controversial, but if it was then it could be dealt with in the usual way (informal discussion, RfD, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think we need a shortcut for every case.... Izno (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the shortcuts are generally for cases that are widely cited after they are complete, usually in the context of WP:ACDS. As this is a case about the actions of individual editors it doesn't seem needed, but since it has already been created... meh. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox Yeah. I saw WP:ARBEURO, that’s why. Do you want me to ask for U1? NotReallySoroka (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since it already exists, we might as well just leave it be. Primefac (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this discussion about shortcuts in general and for this specific case where L235 and I have weighed in. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who gets to place a Talk page ACDS notice?[edit]

I see where it says at WP:ACDS#Page restrictions that admins can impose protection, restrictions, and so on, but where does it say who gets to place a notice at an article Talk page identifying the topic as potentially subject to such restrictions, even if they have not been placed yet? There are any number of such ACDS notices on pages that don't (yet?) have any logged restrictions, and it's helpful to know when pages are subject to ACDS.

For example: Talk:Conversion therapy contains {{ArbComPseudoscience}}, which displays the Pseudo-science banner. This was placed in September 2013 (diff) and that seems right to me; the user who added it is not an admin (at least, not now). I see nothing on the ACDS page stating who can place such a TP banner, and under what conditions. I believe that Talk:Conversion therapy should also have {{Ds/talk notice|gg}} placed, and so, probably, should Talk:John Money (and a lot of other pages I'm aware of). Where do I go to see what the requirements are for placing the Ds talk notice, and whether as a non-admin I can place it? Did I miss part of the page that describes this? If not, can we add some text about this? Is it just a matter of any editor making a BOLD edit to add a Ds talk notice of their choice, and then it's up to consensus? Somehow, that seems too loosey-goosey as far as subjecting something to ArbCom sanctions that didn't pass through ArbCom, but otoh, ArbCom isn't going to review 6.7M pages, either. So, what's the procedure here? Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ds/talk notice says "Anyone may place a discretionary sanctions talk page notice." It links to this prior discussion, similar but not identical, with an OP that I respect a lot. There's a good case to be made for more clear guidance at WP:ACDS, but this does mean you can go ahead and tag those two pages, both of which are definitely in the GG/GAS topic area. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The talk notice is purely informational in nature, so unlike other parts of DS, it does not carry a sanction or action that only an admin is allowed to take. I would support any editor adding it to the talk page of an article covered under the DS, as long as it's being done in good faith (i.e. no edit warring over whether to add it). I think using WP:BRD would be a good process to add the banner. Whether an article is covered is more difficult to ascertain in edge cases, but in cases where there is disagreement that cannot be resolved ARCA can be used to resolve this as described on the template documentation page. Hopefully that answers your question. Other clerks / the arbs may have other opinions, and this is just my thoughts (not a statement from the committee). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would largely agree with this advice. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What Dreamy says is also my understanding. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in the last discussion you started (see link from Firefangledfeathers), as per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § aware.alert, anyone can place notices on pages that fall within a topic area for which the use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized. If someone contests a decision whether a page falls within scope of a topic area, the interested participants should have a discussion. If it can't be resolved within the community, a request for clarification from the arbitration committee can be made. isaacl (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section you link to refers to "alerts" placed on editor talk pages, not notices placed on article talk pages. As far as I can tell, Mathglot is correct that the ACDS page does not comment on who can place article talk page notices. I think the only section that comes close to the topic is §Page restrictions, which just says that admins must place a notice when adding a page restriction (e.g. 1RR). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although the name of the section is "Alerts", the first sentence is Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. (The subsequent sentence describes what qualifies as a formal notification to a specific editor.) I discussed page restrictions in the previous discussion; however a page in a topic area for which discretionary sanctions has been authorized is not yet under an editing restriction, until an administrator actually imposes one at their discretion. isaacl (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that deciding to enact a page-specific restriction under DS is something that can only be done by admins. So anyone (with the caveats above) may put a DS notice on a talk page, but only an admin can, for example, declare that 1RR applies to the page as a DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second half was clear; it was the first part I was asking about, which now appears to be answered in a way agreeing with your assumption. Thanks, all! (And particularly to Firefangledfeathers, for pointing out that forgetful OP Face-wink.svg.) Mathglot (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness and alerts[edit]

If an editor acknowledges on a talk page the awareness of discretionary sanctions why would that not suffice for being aware sanctions exist? If that makes sense it would seem that an addition to the "Awareness and alerts" section might seem logical,
  • "#7)- An editor is deemed aware of discretionary sanctions if the editor mentions this on any talk page comments." -- Otr500 (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Otr500 yeah awareness is a mess. I've talked more about what I think awareness should be here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: I 100% agree with the comments you mentioned especially as being a "system that needs change". I typically just do not edit in such areas and rarely even comment. I am less worried about specifically mentioned restrictions but generally stay clear of subjects that are under the added "broadly construed", or other such vague wording, that has at least two issues that I would just rather leave alone. Hopefully, at some point the template issue can be looked at. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]