Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Searching for cases

The main ArbCom page needs a search field, to quickly access case history. Can someone well-versed in the case archival system please add that feature? — JFG ^talk 08:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen the search options at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Without having seen this comment, I added a direct link to the index in the hatnote at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee the other day, and it is also linked in Template:ArbCom sidebar. Perhaps a link could also be added (along with one to the noticeboard) to Template:ArbComOpenTasks? Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

e-cigs discretionary sanctions

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles authorised discretionary sanctions for the e-cigs topic area, and [[1]] at least includes a note about them (in the middle of a sea of notices, but that's a separate issue). However, unless I'm being blind, they aren't included in the list at WP:DSTOPICS. I'm guessing this is just a simple oversight (as Wikiblame suggests they've never been listed) but figured it was better to check before adding them (especially as I don't want to accidentally get anything out of sync). Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Thryduulf, I somehow missed this message. I actually noticed this myself a couple weeks ago - I was chatting to Bradv about it since he made the edit that introduced the list to the DS template, and he was saying the prose list isn't synced with the template for some reason. I (also) didn't want to go mucking about in a template I don't fully know how to operate, so I left it to him to fix when he has the chance. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Arbitration Committee/Emailnotice

AGK (talk · contribs) has added extra material at User:Arbitration Committee/Emailnotice (the talk page redirects here). This extra material is also being shown to editors requesting oversight, via Special:EmailUser/Oversight, and I think it's confusing to show it there. If someone with admin permissions agrees, could they replace the redirect User:Oversight/Emailnotice with a copy of the parts that are relevant to oversight? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, but none of that is quite right for Oversight. I'm not good at writing this sort of short and focused notice though, so I'll tag Risker who is better than me and also flag it up on the Functionary's email list. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello John of Reading - thanks for sharing your observation and thanks for the ping, Thryduulf. I've edited the User:Oversight/Emailnotice to reflect information specific to the use of the Oversight "email this user" link, which should be more helpful. We may make some further tweaks if required based on discussion on the Functionaries mailing list. Risker (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Is the harassment RFC waiting on specific event(s)?

I'm looking forward to the Fram-ordered RFC on harassment, and wondering whether it's being held for a specific reason or whether it can go ahead? I have quite a lot I'd like to say about both organized and systemic harassment and how the community, admins, Committee, and Foundation tend to handle both. I hope that the scope is broad enough to cover Swarm's specific concerns about the harassment-related findings in that case and in general.

Furthermore, is merely a clerk-run RFC really appropriate for an issue of this magnitude? The Working Group established by the Palestine-Israel articles case seemed profoundly productive and effective to me, and I think it's a shame the working group approach never was tried again. I suggest that the general issue of harassment is wide-ranging enough to be more amenable to such an approach. EllenCT (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Does

the ArbCom bother with acknowledgement letters/emails? Or, does the last iteration of OmbCom, seem attractive? ∯WBG^converse 15:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, we need to get better at acknowledgments. I, personally, am absolutely rubbish at them. Generally, I believe the committee has been doing ok at keeping up with mail, but I assume we've missed one of yours? I'll look for it. Worm^TT(talk) 09:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Noted and thanks for your acknowledgement of my email; I look forward to a timely disposal of the issue ..... ∯WBG^converse 14:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe / Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct of arbitrators

Joe Roe has asked me to refrain from posting to their talk page and from triggering event notifications in their name. I was attempting to dialogue with Joe Roe regarding their interpretation of WP:COI and their application of it in regards to a recent RfA and attendant discussions. Although Joe Roe never indicated they were speaking in an arbitration capacity, I do feel that they remain accountable to reasonable inquiry on their participation, as an arbitrator’s contributions to any discussion of policy is generally seen to carry more weight and given deference. Accordingly, if a community member feels that an arbitration committee member is misreading, or misapplying policy, they are permitted to inquire with that committee member to resolve any potential misunderstandings on either side (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct of arbitrators). If Joe Roe does not wish to engage with the community on their understanding and application of this topic, I respectfully submit that they should resign from the committee without delay. Failing that, I reserve the right to continue to hold Joe Roe accountable to the arbitrator conduct guidelines unless instructed to do otherwise by the entire committee or a community-imposed restriction. I assume Joe Roe is watching this page, however if someone feels they should be notified please do so. –xeno^talk 14:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: it is because you have become absolutely overly invested in this RfA, and "even" arbitrators are entitled not to be badgered on their own talk; likewise WP:NOBAN is available to all and not limited by office. Incidentally, please see pots, kettels and their respective qualities of blackness. ——SerialNumber54129 14:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the essay, I will review it with an open mind. I’m here inquiring about policy. That you feel this all turns on the result of a single RfA and not all candidacies indicates to me you do not appreciate the concern I am raising or my reasons for doing so. –xeno^talk 14:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think conflating an entire field of study with a specific employer is an error that is rather preposterous (I supported the RfA, btw — not sure where that places me in this dispute). El_C 14:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)