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

For clarification - you mean endorses or takes over the block? I've no idea what "assuming a block" means. Secretlondon (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Secretlondon: Looking at the block log, the indef was placed as an arbitration enforcement action; my interpretation is that ArbCom took over responsibility for the block. Anyone is free to correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe this also affects the appeals process, meaning that if Rp2006 wishes to appeal the block, then they must appeal directly to ArbCom instead of being able to appeal to AE. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 13:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct; see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction § Assume too. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this is ENVAR as it made no sense to me. Secretlondon (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly sure that the usual syntax is "assumes responsibility for the block". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assumes is clearly usual enough syntax and confusing enough to many that it made the glossary. Fair point that it ought to have been assumes responsibility rather than just assumes. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you just tweak the wording then? "Ought to have been" sounds like it's too late to fix it. But no one could possibly complain if you add "responsibility for" in a half dozen places, and no Arb could possibly complain that that's not what they voted for. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I'd just do it for you, but ... the Arbs don't scare me, but some of the clerks do...) Floquenbeam (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These kinds of changes have, in the past, required revotes even when caught quickly. While I'm saying fair point I can't presume that other arbs agree with me and I personally don't think individual arbs are empowered, even with IAR, to change motions. And what's really the harm here? I get that this cuts both ways except that it doesn't cut against the idea that arbs shouldn't be messing around, as individuals, with committee decisions. The biggest thing I dislike about ArbCom is how much individual autonomy I give up, but that's part of the gig. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't pester you too much about something that doesn't matter terribly much, so no need to reply. I'm not even arguing with you so much as with the Machine. I'm just so diametrically opposed to (what I consider to be) this increasingly Wiki-wide Rules over Simplicity approach I see everywhere, and Rules preventing minor but clear good things because the Rules make it too much hassle. IAR seems like it would apply everywhere. I guess lack of individual autonomy is one of the main reasons I couldn't hack ArbCom myself. I wish there were something similar to WP except like a year old and 1/1000th the size.

You could theoretically change it and say, "Any Arb who disagrees can ask me to change it back." Sorry, I'll stop, and either find something useful to do around here, or go read a book. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's worth the trouble to change passed/past motions, but perhaps an example could be added to the glossary, to help encourage future drafters to use the entire phrase for clarity: "The arbitration committee assumes/takes over responsibility for the block of User:Example." isaacl (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is fairly unusual, isn't it? Rp2006 was blocked as an arbitration enforcement action, as the result of a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. It was already under the authority of the committee. Sanctions under the committee's authority are the committee's remit by definition. What was different about this block that the committee had to resolve by motion to adopt it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is private information about COI editing that should probably be addressed before an unblock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ivan: I explained my vote at the motion. Let me know if you have any questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ivanvector, the block was a 1yr + indef block. After one year, the Arbitration privilege of the block would have fallen off if not for this motion. Not to mention there was a block for pretty much the exact same thing in April which ArbCom took over from AE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]