Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2602:243:2007:9990:fc12:23ed:462:65f4 (talk) at 14:42, 19 April 2023 (→Media mention: link Grabowski). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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.

Arbitration motion regarding Dbachmann

Original announcement
  • I looked over all the decisions in WP:FORCAUSE as far back as 2017. The reasons cited in the arbcom decisions often included specific actions which led to the desysopping, and in a few cases (Rama, Arthur Rubin, Enigmaman, and BrownHairedGirl), for "failing to meet community expectations". This is the only case I've seen, however, which called out "losing the trust or confidence of the community". How much of that is just random variation of wording by different motion authors over the years vs a deliberate recognition of the sentiment expressed by the community at WP:ANI#Desysop Proposal? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Timestamp comparison:
    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a case of ArbCom and the community coming to the same conclusion, perhaps independently, perhaps not; if anything it seems like the ANI thread was informed by the thoughts at the case, not the other way around. I'll note that my vote, which assesses how Dbachmann has lost the community's trust [1], came on April 1, two days before the community request. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As the author of that proposal, I borrowed some wording from old motions, L2 procedure and a few other places. I didn't post it at ANI until April 3rd, but I had been tinkering with the idea in my own userspace a day before the motion was posted at Arbcom.[2] The similarities in wording are probably because we borrowed language from some of the same places. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the replies. This wasn't just an idle question; as I mentioned on ANI, I'd like to see a community recall process happen. I could potentially see the trust issue being one of the distinctions between arbcom and community desysops, with arbcom's remit generally being specific violations of rules, and the community's being more about loss of trust, since figuring out if the community trusts somebody is mostly what WP:RFA is about. I'm not sure such a clean line could actually be drawn, but it's kind of where my head is. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with a community-based desysop process is that any admin who attempts to handle a highly controversial topic, or take any step against a popular user (remember the Fram case?) would be likely to fall victim to it. This would both tend to scare off admins from these areas, and cause us to loose the few who are brave enough to remain there. Letting ArbCom decide based on community discussion reduces these risks. Animal lover |666| 09:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does anyone believe there is any merit to tabling the idea of a community-based desysop at WP:VPP? Or is this an issue of jurisdiction that a community discussion cannot and will not resolve? I, for one, have similar thoughts to Animal lover 666. My main concern is that although we'd call it a "community" de-sysop, the fact is that we will not ever get an unbiased cross-representation of the community at any venue such as WP:ANI. I'm thinking back to the ANI discussion we had for the indeffing of FleurDeOdile. Although that one did end up being resolved at ArbCom, it sickened me to my stomach that there was such a large participation of highly involved editors at the previous venue. Once we go down that route, why even bother with asking administrators to be open to WP:RECALL? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We do need more accountability and review (mostly in areas less severe than desysop) But I'd be worried about an angry mob type process at community recall for such a big decision, as well as desysoping for being willing to handle tough areas. North8000 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who recovered from WP:CDARFC, I can say that working up a proposal for a community-based process is unlikely to be worth the effort. When I did it, way back then, there was a valid case that ArbCom wasn't up to the task. Times have changed, and I believe that the ArbCom of today handles it better than the community could. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe ArbCom has the following advantages:
    1. They are members of the community (unlike the Foundation), and understand its dynamic.
    2. They listen to the community, and generally try to act based on the community's opinion.
    3. They are not bound by any formal consensus, and can decide to disregard any opinion which appears to be overly biased with no legitimate cause. This allows them to deal with an angry mob.
    4. They give the admin being discussed a truely fair opportunity to defend themselves, including where BEANS or privacy issues prevent them from telling everything to the whole world.
    Animal lover |666| 21:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roy Smith, I have a couple of concerns in possibly separating trust issues from rules violations, especially if we were thinking of having an elected community desysop process for rules based violations and an unelected community desysop program for trust based desysops. Firstly we complicate the whole thing by having to decide whether some borderline cases are about trust or about rules (especially as in truth they are usually a mixture of the two), secondly we complicate the whole process by also having the issue of private information. Any case where Private information has to be involved has to go through our elected community desysop process as only the Arbcom members have done whatever WMF legal requires for them to look at such information. But any admin being told that some members of the community don't trust them and want to put them through the desysop process has the option of either disputing whether the case against them is predominately about rules or about trust. Presumably those who want the desysop also have an opportunity to argue as to which route the case should go down. Then both the Admin and their accusers have the opportunity to send some off wiki argument to Arbcom and Arbcom then has to consider the case and that evidence, but only to the point of deciding whether the private information makes a sufficient difference to the case that it should be determined by Arbcom, or not. Hard to see how we could add those two processes and have the resulting system be as fair and efficient as the current system. ϢereSpielChequers 19:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it would be an improvement to the process to create a separate subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests for review of administrator conduct, perhaps something like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Administrator conduct? Currently, all desysop requests are funneled through Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but as this case demonstrates, there is occasionally no need to conduct a full arbitration case for issues regarding administrator conduct. The admin conduct review subpage could then be structured to standardize the possible outcomes of such a review: an arb could vote between (1) dismissing the request, (2) summarily warning or admonishing the administrator, (3) WP:LEVEL1 or WP:LEVEL2 emergency desysop, (4) summary desysop (as was done here), (5) "open and suspend case" (e.g. [3]), or (6) open a full arbitration case. Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do we need a new venue to do that? Barkeep49 (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If ArbCom thinks it necessary, I wouldn't oppose it. However, since they can enact motions directly from the case request page, a separate page for this is probably unnecessary bureaucracy. Animal lover |666| 05:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I suppose if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Handling requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools is one of primary responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee as stated in WP:ARBPOL#Scope and responsibilities, and I just think it is strange that ArbCom's procedures technically require us to request a full-blown arbitration case in cases where we merely want to request that an administrator be desysopped. Oftentimes, people like to propose various ideas for a "community-based" desysop process, and one of the main arguments people raise in those discussions is that the full arbitration process is too long and complex and that a more lightweight system is needed. However, as this case demonstrates, ArbCom is perfectly capable of expeditiously desysopping administrators when necessary; the instructions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case don't really make it clear that this is an option, though. Mz7 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom doesn't require it, traditionally arbs on ArbCom have required it. My position on this is admittedly nuanced: I think we can do it without a case, but also would have to see this vary year by year just by who happens to be on the committee (or this year by who happens to be active when the request comes in). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any particular reason why cases that have some actual consequence, eg a desysop, through a motion are declined instead of accepted and resolved by motion? Makes it a bit more difficult to find later. nableezy - 07:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they are simple enough to be resolved without a full case. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests for all declined cases, including ones resolved by motion. Animal lover |666| 08:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some cases are declined and resolved by motion, others are accepted and resolved by motion. Perhaps it would be better to organise the archive into three sections - full case accepted, resolved by motion, declined - rather than just the two? Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a good idea. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to get this change made, you need consensus in an appropriate thread, and a volunteer willing to fix up the existing archives. Animal lover |666| 17:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where exactly would I go to propose this sort of change? Village Pump? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that we are discussing changes to the Arbitration Committee archiving system, it would probably make sense to do so on a talk page for the Arbitration Committee, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the current number of case requests I think having a single archive (which would also necessitate less of a backwards fix) feels like a better solution to this concern than to split the archive further. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion has shifted to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Organizing_archived_case_requests. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media mention

On WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland in the "This Arbcom case has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" box, could the following link please be added:

The podcast is mostly an interview with Jan Grabowski, the professor who was threatened, and a co-author of this article:

  • Jan Grabowski & Shira Klein (2023) Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust, The Journal of Holocaust Research, doi:10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939.

He blames the threat on the Polish government, and thankfully doesn't indicate that Wikipedia had anything to do with it. In the interview he talks at length about how Wikipedia content in the topic gets distorted. He mentions the arb case. He gets a few details wrong about Wikipedia's internal processes, but it is mostly stuff that has been through the wringer before.

I got the podcast link from Hacker News[4] but the accompanying discussion thread is currently empty.

I'm making the request here since the arbitration talk page where it would normally go is itself semi-protected.

Arbcom might want to take a look at the article, though it looks somewhat like a transplant of the same editing dispute we've seen on Wikipedia seemingly forever. In fact the article link should probably be posted to one of the case pages. I'll leave it to the experts to figure out which one.

If it matters, I have nothing to do with this content area or dispute.

Thanks. 2602:243:2007:9990:FC12:23ED:462:65F4 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=1150681242"