Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thryduulf (talk | contribs) at 15:32, 20 July 2024 (→Proposed motion on historical elections: Reply re CT/APL). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:32, 20 July 2024 by Thryduulf (talk | contribs) (→Proposed motion on historical elections: Reply re CT/APL)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Shortcuts
What this page is for:
This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for:
To request arbitration, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Archives

Index 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, 52


This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Misplaced Pages 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 Durova

Original announcement

This is really digging back deep. Well before my time, though when I first became an admin I read through a lot of old ArbCom cases so I was prepared for AE. No complaint about the modifications, to be sure. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I'm somewhat curious as to why this even came up. For those interested, it's just a restatement from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2 (which was also an awful mess of a case). Apparently James Forrester authored the version that got agreement within the committee; there were various proposals at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Workshop. The principle was much more controversial in the Durova case because of the perception that the committee was shooting the messenger. Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
@Mackensen: And I thought I was the retired institutional memory. You do know that by showing up on this page after all these years, you're now required to run for the Committee again? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Does ArbCom need to file another motion to amend Hkelkar 2 then? Really I think the point of this motion was to send a message that copyrights aren't the primary reason not to disclose private information, and correcting the historical record was a side effect of the way that was done, not the actual point, so no. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad that is flummery! Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
The reason that his came up is that the 2007 principle is mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Harassment. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Citing Misplaced Pages:Copyrights was always something of a cheat. It is and was legally accurate, but it was standing in for the lack of a policy governing the real issue. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Proposed decision#Private correspondence, particularly 2.2. There was certainly a very strong norm that you shouldn't post the contents of a private email (I was guilty of that once, well before that case), separate from the question of outing someone's real name or email address. The committees of that period were cautious about going beyond existing policies, but (as I recall) we didn't want that genie getting out of the bottle, especially since a copy-pasted email wasn't usable as evidence. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Case Closed on 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 22:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Was this the longest between changes to a case? 16 years and a half could be some kind of record. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@Andrybak You made me curious, and it is the record holder by just under 5 months from Eastern Europe. See User:Thryduulf/Arbitartion amendments after a decade for the list of 41 cases that have been amended 10 or more years after being closed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Wow, you really did the homework there. Just Step Sideways 18:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? You do realise, don't you, that many of our articles quote private correspondence that's been published by third parties through reliable sources, much of it long after the author's death without the possibility of permission? This would forbid us from quoting The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti (published 1928, so PD-US), because the authors haven't permitted them to be quoted in encyclopedia articles. For an extreme example, see Lachish letters. If something reaches the public domain, it's old enough that permission is almost impossible to obtain (given the most-of-a-century-PMA requirements of most copyright regimes) and old enough that it's basically guaranteed not to matter to anyone, since the author's long dead. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Nyttend. While we generally shouldn't be the publishing house for private correspondence, there are clearly notable exceptions that need to be clarified. If a US Secretary of State emails a friend that "policy XYZ needs to change. What can you do to help us?". It may have been intended to be private, but that email is subject to public records requests and is indeed in the public domain. It gets dicier when something is emailed to the Secretary of State. Was it private or not? Let's consider the wider implications before we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Buffs (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
From context of the Durova case, the situations described by Nyttend and Buffs are clearly not the target of this motion. At some point, we should probably just say "come on, everyone knows what we mean", and not further fiddle with wording. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Resignation of Barkeep49 from ArbCom

Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Suspension of Beeblebrox

Original announcement
  • I am disappointed that rather than taking a moment to rethink what needed to be confidential and what can be public to get an easy win by providing the community transparency into the 2021 letter by publishing as much of it as is possible, the committee has decided to just close it with the motion. I am curious if the committee will at least release the vote for that decision as I know what it stood at when I resigned but obviously don't know how it shifted after my resignation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    I tend to agree, I believe by publishing my response I was able to demonstrate that it could be redacted in such a way as to not release any confidential material, and the community could see for themselves and decide if they thought the committee's characterization of it was accurate. I'm not going to pursue it any further though. It isn't any sort of a secret that I do not fully agree with most arbs regarding what should and should not be held as absolutely confidential. Just Step Sideways 21:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    I appreciate you writing this. In some ways I don't think it will do as much as an unredacted version could - for instance I think one of the things listed in the letter is something you 100% didn't do but also was/am in favor of redacting that name none-the-less - but that it will still provide important information now and in the future about what happened here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    Developments have meant that an update will be posted to this announcement soon. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Release of the 2021 letter to Just Step Sideways

Original announcement
  • I hope that the letter's publication will allow others in the Community to come to their own conclusions regarding the motion passed above. I don't believe that I can be too specific on why the announcements were made separately (I wish that they were together too), but the important thing is that it was published. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    Well I appreciate the transparency and I imagine I'm not alone in that regard. Just Step Sideways 00:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ...I'll be honest, any communication which begins "I'm writing to you on behalf of the rest of the committee" and ends "For the Arbitration Committee" seems fairly formal to me, but what do I know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    Can't remember the last time I saw any kind of "formal warning" in any context whose main operating provision was "Can you please be really really careful". That seems like a pretty informal standard to me, and much more of a request than a warning. Maybe if y'all had asked them to be super duper careful, it'd have been more formal? Anyway, the conclusion the release is making me draw here is that I cannot fathom why so much energy was expended fighting against this outcome. Other conclusions too, but pretty sure I'd get in trouble for WP:ASPERSIONS if I stated them.⇒SWATJester 23:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    Can't remember the last time I saw any kind of "formal warning" in any context whose main operating provision was "Can you please be really really careful" This was my point as well, I mentioned it indirectly at the ARCA thread. Just Step Sideways 00:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, I got that same impression when I read this passage as well - Can you please be really really careful, it does sound informal and kinda juvenile, I prefer your "super duper careful", sounds more grown-up. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    Totes watch yourself, bro! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you to the committee for releasing this. Even with the redactions, it helps with understanding where the committee was coming from and why JSS interpreted the message the way he did. I can understand why some committee members would oppose making it public, but I think better understanding both the (then) committee’s perspective and JSS’s is a good thing. Hopefully this can all be put to rest now. 28bytes (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, the basis of my oppose vote was that the original ARCA thread seemed to have been resolved—as in we had a clearly passing motion. My understanding (which may not have been entirely correct) was that we would post this as part of the ARCA thread, so I was not keen on continuing a thread looked resolved. I have no objection to posting this letter here at ACN in addition to the enacted motion. Maxim (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    That was also largely the basis for my abstention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    I get that too, when I was pressing it for it earlier the matter was not resolved and I thought it would shed some light for the broader community. Doing it now still does that, but only after it would have made an actual difference. Just Step Sideways 19:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Not a great look, especially for those who voted for the original motion with the formal warning verbiage and against releasing this correspondence. The best that can be said about the committee enacting the original language was that they were unaware of the elements that constitute a 'formal warning' in employment law or similar contexts. It's harder to excuse the recent hemming and hawing about JSS's formal request. While I still don't think it was the best way forward for JSS, I get the sentiment behind the appeal, and the final release of the redacted text entirely supports JSS's contention that the communication that was construed by the committee as a formal warning, was, in fact, not unequivocally a formal warning. If it was a warning, it was a particularly poor one in that the individual being warned reasonably (in my estimation, of course) did not understand it as such.
Further, If there was no response from the committee to JSS's taking issue with parts of the missive, that would be another failure of the committee: a warning disputed by the recipient need be investigated, considered, and reissued unequivocally, with or without refinement, in order to actually count as a warning; a disputed warning not refined or reiterated implies that the dispute had merit and the matter was dropped without further action pending. All of this perspective is from that of U.S. employment law, under which I have participated as both the sender and recipient of performance feedback. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Even in just the everyday understandings of the word, you'd think that if something was a warning it would mention consequences ("if you do X, then Y might happen") and if it was a formal warning it would include the word "warning". The committee were hamming it up a bit there.
That said, this is the 2024 committee reviewing the wording used by the 2023 committee in citing a message sent by the 2021 committee. I don't know how many members those years have in common but it's understandable that they had difficulty toeing to a consistent line. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, the message talks about the recipient needing to avoid a "risk" to the committee, so that looks like it is encompassed within the ordinary meaning of warning: "telling somebody that something bad or unpleasant may happen in the future so that they can try to avoid it." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The risk thing is kinda ironic given how this whole situation has gone down over the past several months. It is frustrating to see how less than two weeks ago, members of the Committee were telling JSS that it was a clear cut case of a formal warning, only to see the actual email and be baffled about why they were defending it as such. I don't even feel confident that it can be claimed to be a warning. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
As I indicated, it seems to me it is a warning with reference to the risk, nor am I alone in thinking, 'be careful' is also standard part of a warning ("really, really" might not be but its obvious purpose is emphasis on being careful, and "please" may be too much courtesy, but the words of warning are still there). I also view any objection over "formal" as not well made, as the committee adopted and sent the message in its official capacity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • One take-away lesson here is that if the "warning" had been written more sternly, it might have actually caused a change in behavior that would have avoided a suspension and multiple appeal requests. By trying to be nice and using kid gloves for one of its own ("Can you please be really really careful"), the 2021 committee failed to prevent disruption, and so here we are, 3 years later, still talking about it. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think this is reasonable criticism of both the 2021 and 2023 committees -- Guerillero 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
    I completely concur Buffs (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed motion on historical elections

Original announcement

Without divulging anything private, is ArbCom able to tell the community what led to this motion? Remembering the HiP case, where ArbCom made themselves the filing party based largely on an offsite publication, I think the community has a legitimate interest in why ArbCom appears to be self-initiating another case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

As stated in the motion, we received evidence of alleged harassment and canvassing in relation to the topic area. There appeared to be an onwiki axis as well as gradations of conduct alleged, so we felt that a case was a better vehicle to examine the issues than a singular motion. -- Guerillero 20:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. With respect to "historical elections", can you say anything about which elections, or even which nation, these were in? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The evidence that we were given seems to mostly have to do with the results of elections displayed on Misplaced Pages (tabulations, maps, infoboxes, political parties, etc.) from c. 1800 until present day. There have been no allegations that the dispute involves policy or politics. Some of this overlaps with WP:CT/CID and WP:CT/APL, but not all of it and not in the way those cases bubbled up. AN(I) had a few cracks at the issue and weren't able to resolve things. -- Guerillero 21:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Just a note @Guerillero:, WP:CT/APL is a redlink, so the meaning of your comment may be lost. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I presume APL refers to "Anti-Semitism in Poland" (per WP:ARBAPL) but there is no contentious topic designation specifically for that topic area as it is encompassed by Eastern Europe (WP:CT/EE). Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks again. It sounds to me like this might be related to this, and there was additionally some private evidence of harassment and canvassing, and I guess it might be awkward for editor(s) who felt harassed to come forward publicly as the filing party. As a generalization, I think ArbCom making yourselves the filing party should be a last resort, but I also want to support ArbCom coming to the aid of editors who feel harassed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Seconding this. I see ArbCom initiating a case on its own initiative where harassment is a factor as basically a John Doe filing with less likelihood of figuring out just who the Doe is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, while on the outside this certainly looks the same as HJP in terms of ArbCom initiating, I want to underscore the received evidence of alleged harassment and canvassing bit of this all. The parallel I saw from the evidence was much more akin to the Tropical Cyclone case than HJP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Pleasingly proactive, this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, there is a very similarly-named case from 2006: Election (which was focused on the 2004 United States presidential election). You may need to expand the name a bit, to something like Problems with elections articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 21:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

"Historical elections" works perfectly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 22:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)