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

Yes, of course I am very much up for some of this. Let's get yon PAID bastids nigh. ——Serial Number 54129 17:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really necessary, sir? Couldn't we just give them a good tongue-lashing and drop them off at m:Steward requests/Global? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

Congrats! Thanks for volunteering. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FFF :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

• I get the desire to be explicit, but this seems overly complicated. They're banned. But they're not really banned. And here's a bunch of ways that they could be banned if they violate their non-ban. And it all goes away in a year anyway. Wouldn't it have been simpler to just say, "Warned against disruptive use of BLAR"? RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @RoySmith: There's actually precedent for this sort of remedy. OET included a remedy to this exact effect. (It wound up being unsuspended very shortly after the case.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If they were warned against disruptive use of BLAR it would still take a majority vote of the committee to institute a topic ban. The intent here was to make such a topic ban a fairly "low cost" thing to implement should there be further disruption. Admittedly at the cost of some complexity on the motion. And if there is no disruption the threat of sanction goes away in a year which seems fair to TPH. We've passed I think 3 or so of these "suspended bans" in my time on the committee so it's not completely without precedent, though we have made the bar slightly higher than any uninvolved admin which is what I think it was in those cases. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So this is basically parole/a suspended sentence equivalent, right? FortunateSons (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Makes sense, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm curious why y'all didn't go with the standard "any uninvolved admin" that we usually see. Since any admin can usually impose AE sanctions unilaterally, it seems that, as a result of the disruptive BLARing, TPH has just been given more protection against sanction than any other editor. I'm surprised they weren't just banned (rebanned? I'm unclear) from anything to do with deletion, but at the very least, how come the kid gloves? What am I missing here? (and yes, I know this would have been better brought up at the ARCA, sorry) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because BLARing isn't a contentious topic uninvolved admins wouldn't normally have that authority. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Pppery. I won't go so far as to say that makes sense, but that does explain my mistake. I suppose I just assumed that one of the remedies from the deletion arb case where lots of people got tbanned was that the area was also made a CT. Reminder to self: you are not smart enough to get involved with contentious topics or (looks it up) general sanctions. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who workshopped this idea, my thinking was that in general CT designations prod admin towards action. Which I normally like, just not in this situation. It seems to me that the line between what's considered appropriate and inappropriate BLAR has a wider range of opinion among editors and admins than many other behaviors we sanction editors for. So some form of agreement was an appropriate protection for TPH, ensuring they wouldn't get the topic ban imposed because a single "hardline" admin felt there had been a violation. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]