This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() |
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2021. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 September 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | On 12 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. The result of the discussion was moved to Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia). |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Decisions are appealed to Jimmy Wales"
Is that accurate? I thought it was the opposite nowadays. Is this a verifiability versus truth issue?
And, is it really necessary to use inline references like that? Ten in a row, seriously? I'm inclined to put them in a bulleted list at the bottom of the page. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
For that specific sentence, I'd reword it to state that at one point, decisions were appealed to (or by?) Jimmy. This leave it open ended on purpose until there is a source to say he no longer does, or continues to appeal, etc. But since this is still in userspace, we don't need to be as picky. Sy n 01:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Might just be good for color; I didn't look too close. There are a surprising number of sources on this and it's a wonder no one did this before. rootology ( C)( T) 01:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, what? Naval-gazing, I think. I checked the sources over; discounting the self-references, not a single one discusses the committee in depth; all are passing mentions of it, such as in the Scientology case, and Essjay. The brief mentions are its (basic) purpose and how many members there are. The topic is simply not notable enough for inclusion. Aiken ♫ 19:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The cited source doesn't discuss the ArbCom in-depth, and fails to the mention the ArbCom's limitation to behavioral disputes. The first sentence in its current form creates the impression that the ArbCom passes binding rulings on content disputes, which it doesn't. Imho the word "behavioral" should be added for accuracy's sake. -- 87.79.131.231 ( talk) 09:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a mention of the ongoing arbitration enforcement regarding Northern Ireland in this article, which was about the Senkaku Islands dispute, which was another the arbitration case that the author didnt mention. John Vandenberg ( chat) 10:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
What was "Tranche Gamma" and "Tranche Beta"? I saw a reference to them in an article about an ARBCOM election in 2006. I can't find any explanation of what they are/were when I did a search of Wikipedia. They seem to be related to ARBCOM but this article is light on history. 69.125.134.86 ( talk) 17:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
[8]-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 23:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Mark Bernstein's blog article has been picked up by Alex Hern in the Guardian, and subsequently Gawker, progressively misrepresenting the current status of the decision to "Arbcom has purged 5 editors". Berstein's post was based on the original draft at the beginning of the voting process, and the overall outcome has naturally moved considerably since then. Just removed an unsourced POV comment about it, and suggest that it's not worth mentioning on this page until the decision is made final. 87.81.224.193 ( talk) 13:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It's been picked up by Addicting Info as well. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/01/24/wikipedia-declares-war-on-women-gives-anti-feminist-males-control-over-gender-and-sexuality-entries/ 74.110.109.119 ( talk) 17:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Please change reference to point to correct page on "Blog Wikipedysty"(in Polish). Monniasza talk 18:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello.
I've trouble with the French Wikipedia. Abusive block. I've just been blocked for using the discussion page as improvement suggestions for articles. For a month, without warning. That's an abuse, and I have no mean to contact the "comité d'arbitrage" on the page.
I want to make an appeal against the mod abusing of their tools, without having the courtesy to communicate with users on their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 ( talk) 07:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Members of the Committee are appointed by Wales either in person or email following advisory elections; Wales generally chooses to appoint arbitrators who were among those who received the most votes
. That isn't how it works at the moment - surely we can find a more recent source? --
Aquillion (
talk)
03:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear editors on this page,
I was digging into the process of ArbCom creation and I would like to suggest we include WP:FRAM crisis as a part of ArbCom, and WMF.
This case is (at least one of) the case(s) that sets precedent of power boundary between WMF and ArbCom, similar to Marbury v Madison case that draws the boundary of US Federal Exec branch and judicial branch, and establishes the power of judicial review. I'd like to ask for editor's opinions before go ahead and suggest any edit.
@ Dreamy Jazz:, @ Nick Moyes: to invite you to join the discussion from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Question:_learn_the_process_that_ArbCom_is_established.
References to be considered:
etc. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
As far I could check, the Wikimedia Foundation Inc US Arbitration Committee for the project english Wikipedia possibly can not be seen as arbitration in a legal sense under US Laws. Main points: in general a contract or agreement between parties is needed for a valid arbitration procedure. Do (all) editors have a contract with the Wikimedia Foundation? In general an Arbitration Committee is only allowed to take decisions with consequences that also can be reached by the free will of the impeached person and to which this person did freely agree by contract or agreement. The situation here could be delegated decision making power from Bomis Inc / Wikimedia Foundation Inc to a panel of editors, not arbitration. 2001:16B8:1136:2901:F5AD:A8C5:E337:54B5 ( talk) 21:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there someone who knows what rules exactly do apply for ArbCom? Are they extensely listed somewhere? I did found 22 sets of guidelines, policies, principles, rules that could apply. Do official Wikimedia Foundation Chapters have their own sets of rulings? 2001:16B8:1136:2901:F5AD:A8C5:E337:54B5 ( talk) 21:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
In the header editors are being encouraged to cleanup the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The article needs fixing on cohesion for more reasons. It doesn't talk about an arbitration committee in general, only about corporate arbitration on Wikimedia projects. And than mostly about the english Wikipedia project. I did spend quiet some time to make a first step in cleaning up and reorganising the article. Searched for reliable sources and read them, added some text to explain the Wikimedia project arbitration system, with sources, re-arranged text-blocks. The whole edit was rolled back within a minute without reasoning. It could not be possible that someone did examine the text. Is that ownership conduct? When someone has time, please review the edit and put back what seems good to you. Hopefully the Universal Code of Conduct will protect users from behaviour like that, making Wikipedia more open for a global perspective. 2001:16B8:11D6:C801:C45F:F5FC:11A2:617F ( talk) 21:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The text suggests, this Committee is ruling over all Wikipedia projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Is that correct? When not, the text should mention the score of this Committee, in legal terms it's jurisdiction. 83.135.188.144 ( talk) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
There seems to be a pretty clear consensus to move somewhere, but a large disagreement on where.
|
Arbitration Committee → Wikipedia Arbitration Committee – "Arbitration Committee" is too vague - it can potentially cause confusion as other arbitration committees exist outside of Wikipedia. -- Prodraxis talk contribs 21:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 06:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title.When we have viable natural disambiguation, it's preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Just my two cents, but maybe we should avoid using expressions whose exact meaning is not known by the general public when speaking about ourselves. Thinking about things like "topic-banned" or (maybe) "revert". While the readers will probably get the gist of it, these word do not have the same sense for us as for them. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() |
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2021. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 September 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | On 12 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. The result of the discussion was moved to Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia). |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Decisions are appealed to Jimmy Wales"
Is that accurate? I thought it was the opposite nowadays. Is this a verifiability versus truth issue?
And, is it really necessary to use inline references like that? Ten in a row, seriously? I'm inclined to put them in a bulleted list at the bottom of the page. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
For that specific sentence, I'd reword it to state that at one point, decisions were appealed to (or by?) Jimmy. This leave it open ended on purpose until there is a source to say he no longer does, or continues to appeal, etc. But since this is still in userspace, we don't need to be as picky. Sy n 01:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Might just be good for color; I didn't look too close. There are a surprising number of sources on this and it's a wonder no one did this before. rootology ( C)( T) 01:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, what? Naval-gazing, I think. I checked the sources over; discounting the self-references, not a single one discusses the committee in depth; all are passing mentions of it, such as in the Scientology case, and Essjay. The brief mentions are its (basic) purpose and how many members there are. The topic is simply not notable enough for inclusion. Aiken ♫ 19:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The cited source doesn't discuss the ArbCom in-depth, and fails to the mention the ArbCom's limitation to behavioral disputes. The first sentence in its current form creates the impression that the ArbCom passes binding rulings on content disputes, which it doesn't. Imho the word "behavioral" should be added for accuracy's sake. -- 87.79.131.231 ( talk) 09:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a mention of the ongoing arbitration enforcement regarding Northern Ireland in this article, which was about the Senkaku Islands dispute, which was another the arbitration case that the author didnt mention. John Vandenberg ( chat) 10:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
What was "Tranche Gamma" and "Tranche Beta"? I saw a reference to them in an article about an ARBCOM election in 2006. I can't find any explanation of what they are/were when I did a search of Wikipedia. They seem to be related to ARBCOM but this article is light on history. 69.125.134.86 ( talk) 17:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
[8]-- Maleko Mela ( talk) 23:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Mark Bernstein's blog article has been picked up by Alex Hern in the Guardian, and subsequently Gawker, progressively misrepresenting the current status of the decision to "Arbcom has purged 5 editors". Berstein's post was based on the original draft at the beginning of the voting process, and the overall outcome has naturally moved considerably since then. Just removed an unsourced POV comment about it, and suggest that it's not worth mentioning on this page until the decision is made final. 87.81.224.193 ( talk) 13:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It's been picked up by Addicting Info as well. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/01/24/wikipedia-declares-war-on-women-gives-anti-feminist-males-control-over-gender-and-sexuality-entries/ 74.110.109.119 ( talk) 17:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Please change reference to point to correct page on "Blog Wikipedysty"(in Polish). Monniasza talk 18:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello.
I've trouble with the French Wikipedia. Abusive block. I've just been blocked for using the discussion page as improvement suggestions for articles. For a month, without warning. That's an abuse, and I have no mean to contact the "comité d'arbitrage" on the page.
I want to make an appeal against the mod abusing of their tools, without having the courtesy to communicate with users on their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 ( talk) 07:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Members of the Committee are appointed by Wales either in person or email following advisory elections; Wales generally chooses to appoint arbitrators who were among those who received the most votes
. That isn't how it works at the moment - surely we can find a more recent source? --
Aquillion (
talk)
03:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear editors on this page,
I was digging into the process of ArbCom creation and I would like to suggest we include WP:FRAM crisis as a part of ArbCom, and WMF.
This case is (at least one of) the case(s) that sets precedent of power boundary between WMF and ArbCom, similar to Marbury v Madison case that draws the boundary of US Federal Exec branch and judicial branch, and establishes the power of judicial review. I'd like to ask for editor's opinions before go ahead and suggest any edit.
@ Dreamy Jazz:, @ Nick Moyes: to invite you to join the discussion from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Question:_learn_the_process_that_ArbCom_is_established.
References to be considered:
etc. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
As far I could check, the Wikimedia Foundation Inc US Arbitration Committee for the project english Wikipedia possibly can not be seen as arbitration in a legal sense under US Laws. Main points: in general a contract or agreement between parties is needed for a valid arbitration procedure. Do (all) editors have a contract with the Wikimedia Foundation? In general an Arbitration Committee is only allowed to take decisions with consequences that also can be reached by the free will of the impeached person and to which this person did freely agree by contract or agreement. The situation here could be delegated decision making power from Bomis Inc / Wikimedia Foundation Inc to a panel of editors, not arbitration. 2001:16B8:1136:2901:F5AD:A8C5:E337:54B5 ( talk) 21:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there someone who knows what rules exactly do apply for ArbCom? Are they extensely listed somewhere? I did found 22 sets of guidelines, policies, principles, rules that could apply. Do official Wikimedia Foundation Chapters have their own sets of rulings? 2001:16B8:1136:2901:F5AD:A8C5:E337:54B5 ( talk) 21:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
In the header editors are being encouraged to cleanup the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The article needs fixing on cohesion for more reasons. It doesn't talk about an arbitration committee in general, only about corporate arbitration on Wikimedia projects. And than mostly about the english Wikipedia project. I did spend quiet some time to make a first step in cleaning up and reorganising the article. Searched for reliable sources and read them, added some text to explain the Wikimedia project arbitration system, with sources, re-arranged text-blocks. The whole edit was rolled back within a minute without reasoning. It could not be possible that someone did examine the text. Is that ownership conduct? When someone has time, please review the edit and put back what seems good to you. Hopefully the Universal Code of Conduct will protect users from behaviour like that, making Wikipedia more open for a global perspective. 2001:16B8:11D6:C801:C45F:F5FC:11A2:617F ( talk) 21:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The text suggests, this Committee is ruling over all Wikipedia projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Is that correct? When not, the text should mention the score of this Committee, in legal terms it's jurisdiction. 83.135.188.144 ( talk) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
There seems to be a pretty clear consensus to move somewhere, but a large disagreement on where.
|
Arbitration Committee → Wikipedia Arbitration Committee – "Arbitration Committee" is too vague - it can potentially cause confusion as other arbitration committees exist outside of Wikipedia. -- Prodraxis talk contribs 21:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 06:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title.When we have viable natural disambiguation, it's preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Just my two cents, but maybe we should avoid using expressions whose exact meaning is not known by the general public when speaking about ourselves. Thinking about things like "topic-banned" or (maybe) "revert". While the readers will probably get the gist of it, these word do not have the same sense for us as for them. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)