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

Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived.

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 Discretionary sanctions (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
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 Ryulong[edit]

Original announcement

Noted.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that ArbCom's looking into remedies from older cases moreso than it has in the past so far this year. Is this mainly the result of internal deliberations about retiring old, mainly unused/obsolete sanctions? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one was because I filed a clarification request. They didn't just do this out of thin air.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can find three other modifications of old cases in 2022: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Arbitration motion regarding Scientology, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Arbitration motions regarding discretionary sanctions topics, and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding St Christopher. This one and the first case in my list were straightforward ARCA requests, the second case in my list was a result of WP:DS2021, and the third case was a result of an arbitrator stumbling across a reference to the remedy by chance when doing work unrelated to the arbitration committee. So no evidence of a general desire to review old cases can be seen (unless DS2021 counts), only a few coincidences. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the DS reviews is probably giving a stronger feeling that ArbCom has been looking at old cases, even though it's distinct from the specific modifications Nosebagbear (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano You are correct in noticing that we've cleared out a lot of older cases this year. As part of DS reform, we focused first on finding obsolete sanctions from the past to clear out the clutter and more effectively assess the DS scheme. We're not looking to rehash old cases, just remove ones which are long stale. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about Ryulong? GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about him? He wasn't blocked per this case, just desysopped and admonished. His ban came later, at GamerGate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong in this context is the name of an arbitration case, and the fact that it's also an editor's username is not important to this remedy. So, nothing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DS reform on the horizon![edit]

An individual of Arbis commus hard at work

Have you been stranded in the doldrums of DS? Driftless on the AE sea? Well fear not, for the crows nest has spotted a fast approaching DS reform consultation! That's right: the Arbs stranded on Arb Island have been busy bashing on our coconut typewriters to implement all the feedback we got last year in WP:DS2021. The practical effects are as follows:

• Your feedback has been turned into a series of proposals. Within the next month (and aiming for June 1) we will release an RfC style consultation on these proposals which will run for one month.
• Once the consult is closed, we'll go back to the drafting table to implement feedback, and polish changes.
• Then by sometime in the late summer or fall we'll put up the final draft, to be voted on by the Arbs.
• The drafting team has changed. The inestimable Barkeep49 took the lead last year, for which we are very thankful. Unfortunately, all that work on the coconut typewriter has put him out of action, so myself and Wugapodes will be filling in. Kevin will remain a drafter, for which we are also very thankful. Shoutout to all the work Kevin and Barkeep put into DS reform!

Thank you all for your patience on this matter. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the efficiency might be enhanced by provision of coconut rum? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If ArbCom doesn't want it, I do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]