The Signpost

Arbitration report

The Tides of March at ARBCOM

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Headbomb and DannyS712

The Tides of March at ARBCOM

While active, the ARBCOM proceedings have been more civil than certain historical events which also occured in March, all things considered.

After a fairly tame February, ARBCOM had a lot on its plate this month. Here are the highlights from March.

Amendment/clarification requests
Case requests
Wikipedia portals are everywhere, including at ARBCOM

Several other case request were made in March, including one that followed the publication of The Signpost's controversial humour article last month (see The Signpost's response in this month's issue), but all were declined as premature.

In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

“Tides”? —Floquenbeam (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Tides of March, a pun on Ides of March. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, I think it's worth avoiding statements that give the impression ArbCom's public workflow represents all (or even a majority) of the work we handle. February was far from tame, I believe. It was just that most of our business occurred off-wiki that month. ~ Rob13Talk 00:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: We don't publicize what you don't publicize. Perhaps ARBCOM could provide notes to The Signpost if there are concerns about reportage. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: I've been writing this month's Arbcom report - anything I've missed? Its at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Arbitration report, and so far I've covered a policy amendment, 2 procedure changes, 2 case rejections, 1 new case, 1 other motion, and 1 new bot currently in trial. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting you can/should report on things that aren't public. All I'm suggesting is that it's worth avoiding statements that suggest this is all we do, or that ArbCom has been particularly busy/idle (since it's impossible to know that). There have been months where are on-wiki workload has been busy while our overall activity has been less than normal, and there have also been months where our on-wiki workload has been basically nil while our overall activity has been extremely high. (That last case often occurs in January, as many long-term banned editors decide to appeal their bans to a new Committee in hopes they'll get a different result.) ~ Rob13Talk 23:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems difficult. ARBCOM won't reveal what it does off-wiki but does not want to appear to be doing little, if anything, based upon what we see on-wiki. We could avoid making statements about "a fairly tame February" but it seems natural to compare this month's activity compared with last month's activity. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's more that we can't say what we're doing off-wiki, in almost all cases. If we could, we would be doing it on-wiki. We could perhaps bring back publishing the number of appeals we get in a month, which I think was done once upon a time. Not a bad idea. But often, the most time consuming things we do definitely can't be disclosed on-wiki in any meaningful way unless you want statements like "We talked about something for an entire 150 email thread, but it was private, so we can't tell you what it was." That seems unhelpful. As for your last statement, I suppose you can choose to do what's natural or what's accurate, and it's up to the Signpost which they care about. ~ Rob13Talk 15:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0