Talk:Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia)

A few comments

"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)

Well actually the reliable sources says Jimmy is a member of the committee, so I'm struggling with an Original Research v. Verifiability issue. Still thinking on it.

And it isn't 10 in a row, its just that I found the sources before I wrote the content, so they are sitting there waiting for me to build sentences around them; WP:DEADLINE and all. MBisanz ^talk 20:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're a deadline. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Psh, you know quite better. Celestial events could occur that deadline you. Or, even better, the power goes out. Whichever outcome will be beneficial to the project. Keegan^talk 07:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

zomg stalker. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:43, 11 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. Syn 01:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Some older sources

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

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)

I have some of them already and most of the others just have the term "arbitration" in it without actually talking about the Committee. The only one I didn't have is the Newsmax Media one, and reading their Wiki article, I'm not sure I want to include it in an article that will already have an immense amount of scrutiny. MBisanz ^talk 05:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This has an article

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)

Check out the "FAQ" above. It addresses your concerns, I think. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really :) It does not explain how it meets notability requirements. A few passing mentions of it in Wikipedia-related news articles does not make a significant amount of coverage. Aiken ♫ 19:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of saying other shit exists, care to explain why the child in Africa needs to know about Michael Snow (attorney)? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they do. But as you say, other shit exists :) Seriously, something cobbled together from a bunch of news articles which mention it in a couple sentences at most does not meet notability requirements. Aiken ♫ 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're aware of just how many articles on the English Wikipedia that's true of. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am; one by one :) Some are obviously notable, but brief mentions don't make notability. Aiken ♫ 21:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, and despite my reservations about the likelihood of this article to be used as a coatrack for people who have a chip on their shoulders about ArbCom, there is little doubt that ArbCom is notable enough by our own criteria; it has been examined in some depth in at least a number of peer-reviewed papers for one. — Coren ^(talk) 22:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Behavioral disputes only

The Arbitration Committee (also known as ArbCom) of the English Wikipedia website is a panel of editors that imposes binding rulings with regard to disputes between other editors of the online encyclopedia.

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)

Northern Ireland

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)

Arbitration Committee History

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)

At the moment, there is only a tranche alpha and tranche beta, but I think you're correct, there was once a tranche gamma. Hopefully, the chart below explains how it works, but essentially the arbitrators serve 2 years, and half of them are up for re-election in any given year. PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Could someone from the arbitration committee look into this?

[8]--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate decision

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)

26th reference links to incorrect page

Please change reference to point to correct page on "Blog Wikipedysty"(in Polish). Monniasza talk 18:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not on the good page

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.