Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Crosstalk

I thought there was not to be discussions between commenters, and that we were to address our comments to the arbcom. Probably personal asides should go on individual talk pages. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

the israel palestine request involves highly contentious material and the longer it asks for comments the more it will degenerate from a structured ask into random turf wars between factions Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Clarification of "Someone said"

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Marine 69-71  – SilverLocust 💬 00:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC) JPxG says just above that "Someone said the filer has been following Tony around to give him a hard time -- not in a position to aggressively fact-check this at the moment -- but very lame if true." That may be the lamest statement I've seen on this page. "Someone said", really? Dig it out. "Not in a position to aggressively fact-check"? Wait until you are. How is it acceptable to attack a non-admin for a rumor which the admin speaker can't even remember where they read? Bishonen | tålk 09:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC). Sorry for the confusion -- "lame if true" is here used in the normal sense of conditional statements in the English language (e.g. P → Q, and $\neg$P → $\neg$Q). If it is not true, then it is not lame. jp×g🗯️ 17:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC) To spread nasty rumors by hiding behind "someone said" is not OK, and mansplaining what if means doesn't improve it. Bishonen | tålk 09:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC). I still have no idea what you are talking about "hiding behind" or "spreading", since what I said was a direct reference to another person's comment several paragraphs above mine, on the exact same page. If you want to say that Hammersoft's accusations were "nasty rumors", I have no idea why you would make no mention of their claims, and personally attack me for briefly mentioning them, without saying they were true, or even that I believed they were true. jp×g🗯️ 10:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't initially clear that you were referring to the Statement by Hammersoft, JPxG, so I have added a link to that section in your statement. With that clarified, I think your and Bishonen's responses to each other are no longer needed, so I've moved them here and hatted them. SilverLocust 💬 00:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

What does "scope" mean?

Just for my own edification, what does it actually mean for arbcom to accept a case with a particular scope? Is that just general guidance about what you're going to concentrate on, or is it a strict boundary which cannot be crossed, even if things develop in an unexpected direction as the investigation progresses? RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The scope of a case is essentially the specific issues (and anything arising from those issues) ArbCom is looking at in a given case. For example, the scope of WTC is the behaviour of members of WP:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones, more specifically their use of Discord to collude in their topic area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously the current ArbCom should answer how they see the scope. As a bit of institutional memory, this was formally added early on in my first term. It came in response to feedback that it was hard for community members to know what kind of evidence they should be submitting and that this resulted in all sorts of evidence which wasn't germane to the case. This evidence could be upsetting to the person it was presented about and it could be upsetting to the person who submitted it when it was ignored. So the scope was made a formal part of the process to try and help signal better to everyone. In my experience as a drafter, the scope became irrelevant in terms of the final decision - I went wherever the evidence led. This could be the same scope or a narrower scope. The only times you could say there was a broader scope is when parties would get added, which is why the committees I was on helped formalize a process where parties could be added after the case began if evidence justified it but those parties would still have a reasonable chance to participate in the case without being penalized for being added late. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• I see scope as a natural evolution of our cases. Engineering a scope allows us to target exactly the issue we want to solve. If we didn't have a case scope, then a case could be about anything that parties put forth evidence of, which would derail proceedings. Indeed, we've seen ample examples in the past of parties using cases as general excuses to sling grievances against other editors, which has ultimately been a waste of time and energy. Also, if a scope is too large, it can be hard to pin down exactly what we're doing, and the evidence of parties may pass each other like ships in the night, not ever addressing the same issue. Scope delineates what is relevant, and what isn't, and keeps us focused. That's not to say that we'll never hear evidence outside of our initial scope, but there's going to have to be a good reason. At any rate, we often end up changing a scope as a case goes on. Sometimes the issue isn't as big as we thought it was initially, and we'll drill down on one aspect. Othertimes, we will add new parties as it becomes clear that the misconduct was broader than first thought. TLDR: scope is a soft guideline, which we have a right to change, but which we aim to follow. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

active vs. inactive

I don't have great enthusiasm for the WPO case, as I wrote there, but regarding the procedural close Hammersoft brought up, we also have WP:AC, which seems to say that arbs should be considered inactive if they haven't participated in arbitration in the past week. One of the arbs has only a talk page message in arbspace in the past week; the other has no edits in arbspace (unless we count AE actions as "arbitration"). It seems to me that in the future it would be simpler to just say "an arb that hasn't made any attempt to participate in a particular case request is considered inactive for that part of the process" or something. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Private activity also counts so if one of those Arbs (which I also thought about and checked on) was active on list we'd have no way of knowing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Good point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There are two arbs (Z1720 and HJ Mitchell) who are inactive by that definition, and another (Sdrqaz) about to be so. I find it slightly bothersome that two of those are active on the project, just not on arbitration. You're voted to ArbCom to do an important job. It's the only job that you're expected to do work in on a regular basis (outside of inactivity for admins, which is a far larger period). To be active on the project but not on ArbCom seems like setting aside work for which they were placed to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Z1720 already declined, and I wasn't referring to HJ (who also updated his comment a few minutes ago) because he had been active on that page. I was referring to the two arbs listed as active but who haven't commented at all: Sdrqaz (whose only arbing edit in the past week was the "talk page message in arbspace" I mentioned) and ToBeFree (whose last edit to arbspace was October 23 -- the "unless we count AE actions" above, which I would presume not, but maybe I'm wrong). Anyway, not something I want to argue about, but it would be a shame for it to end in a procedural can-kicking due to active-but-inactive arbs rather than at least a formal decline/accept. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

And in this case if one of those two is inactive then suddenly it opens as a case because 4 would be a majority (9 active arbs - 2 recused arbs = 7 arbs). Which, truthfully, also seems like a weird way to see this case move forward but I suppose no more or less weird than a case with 50% of active arbs voting to open going away. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

As a post script Sdrqaz has now commented in Arbspace in response to FF's announcement of stepping down and since I've conversed about Arb business with them in the last week have every belief they are active just behind the scenes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites and Hammersoft: As Barkeep states, I have been active in Committee business behind the scenes – I have sent seventeen emails to the Committee mailing lists in the last week and have voted in our private votes. However, the point about my inactivity in on-wiki Committee business is taken on board and I am sorry for that: it is obvious that I haven't allocated my Wikipedia time appropriately and will rectify that. Yours, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: and others: I am monitoring the page, reading through comments when I get the chance. I haven't felt the need to comment on anything as others are making arguments much better than I could. If someone has something specific they feel like I need to respond to, feel free to ping me as I may have missed it. Z1720 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz I am curious whether you think the WPO case should be accepted or not. Those thinking the case should be accepted think Lightburst's existing ban was insufficient, those thinking the opposite think Lightburst's existing ban solved the matter at hand. If you are neutral, or do not wish to weigh in, that is effectively a decline in this case. I myself have no opinion on the matter. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW it would make sense to me, for the future, to document somewhere that (a) if an arb is listed as active on a case, they should find the time to either say one thing about the case in the case request or change their status to inactive; or (b) arbs have X days to weigh in, unless they ask for more, and at the end anyone who isn't down with a formal position of accept/decline/recuse/abstain/neutral/whatever else, is considered inactive. This could take the form of the "active in arbitration" part of WP:AC applying to each specific case (i.e. if it's been a week and someone hasn't said anything, they're assumed inactive on that case until they say something). I mean that just makes sense, right? Or are there more complicated behind-the-scenes reasons why an arb might be considered active on a case but decline to weigh in? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Related to the above discussion, but I'm confused about Special:Diff/1255905950 declining the WPO case. The latest vote totals were <4/3/2> (Accept/decline/recuse). I'm sure I'm just not up to speed on AC process, but how does that become a decline? I'm not complaining, just trying to understand the process better. RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  @RoySmith because clerk procedures say if something hasn't been accepted after 10 days it is declined. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)