Hosta

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, 50 51

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

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 Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks  Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
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.

Original announcement

Yes, of course I am very much up for some of this. Let's get yon PAID bastids nigh. ——Serial Number 54129 17:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really necessary, sir? Couldn't we just give them a good tongue-lashing and drop them off at m:Steward requests/Global? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

Original announcement

Congrats! Thanks for volunteering. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FFF :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

• I get the desire to be explicit, but this seems overly complicated. They're banned. But they're not really banned. And here's a bunch of ways that they could be banned if they violate their non-ban. And it all goes away in a year anyway. Wouldn't it have been simpler to just say, "Warned against disruptive use of BLAR"? RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @RoySmith: There's actually precedent for this sort of remedy. OET included a remedy to this exact effect. (It wound up being unsuspended very shortly after the case.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If they were warned against disruptive use of BLAR it would still take a majority vote of the committee to institute a topic ban. The intent here was to make such a topic ban a fairly "low cost" thing to implement should there be further disruption. Admittedly at the cost of some complexity on the motion. And if there is no disruption the threat of sanction goes away in a year which seems fair to TPH. We've passed I think 3 or so of these "suspended bans" in my time on the committee so it's not completely without precedent, though we have made the bar slightly higher than any uninvolved admin which is what I think it was in those cases. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So this is basically parole/a suspended sentence equivalent, right? FortunateSons (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]