Wikinews talk:Arbitration Committee

Active discussions

FYI: Heads up regarding ViriditasEdit

FYI: diff.

Relevant links:

  1. Wikinews:Admin_action_alerts#Community_ban_proposal:_Viriditas
  2. Wikinews:Requests_for_CheckUser#Nauseous_green
  3. w:User_talk:Cirt#Joe_job
  4. Wikinews:Admin_action_alerts#Viriditas_circumventing_Wikinews_via_Wikipedia_user_talk_page_space

Just wanted to give you a heads up here so Wikinews ArbCom can be aware of my actions in this matter. -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta RfCEdit

There's a RFC ongoing on m:Meta about the scope of their m:Requests for comment on users, more specifically about starting a discussion there on a dispute from another wiki. Some of the participants in the meta-wiki RFC object to the lack of involvement of other wikis in that discussion [1]. Participation from this project is invited. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

My opinion on this ArbComEdit

Is Wikinews's own ArbCom fair and justified? Is it necessary? Every year, no oppose votes have been allowed, and seems that ArbCom candidates votes for each other. Worst of all, no other people than the candidates themselves have voted in annual elections. I have wondered the necessity and process of the ArbCom and its elections. Do multiple issues about this ArbCom exist? If so, can they be fixed? If ArbCom can't be shut down, then what else to do about it? --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@George Ho: Yes, Wikinews's own ArbCom fair and justified. It is also necessary. ArbCom hearing was held earlier this year in an escalated situation. Some elections are support-only, (including your own democracy) Support-only election ensures those users who the community thinks are the most competent in handling the cases is voted higher. It also avoids spewing bad blood. Users standing in the elections are not barred from voting. They can't vote for themselves, but they are free to vote for others. We can't foce other people to come and vote. There is a pandemic going on. Not everyone is fortunate enough to come and cast their votes while their livelihood is probably at stake. Look at 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016. Eligible voters, who were not running in the election have voted too. Please consider fact-checking to back up your claims, George Ho. I am afraid you haven't established what is about the ArbCom that bugs you? We don't dismiss our courts if there aren't any cases.
•–• 00:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, this ArbCom runs different from enwiki's ArbCom. But that's not what was mainly bugging me. I was discussing the election process, not the way ArbCom decides on cases. There aren't enough various admins to nominate themselves as Arbs. Reading the 2016 elections, if the turnout rate is high enough, why were amount of votes very small? Or I shall say that I saw two or three votes on every nomination, including votes by the same person. Speaking of the same person, that same person also nominated the admins whom that person voted for. If those votes were fair, then how does small amount of votes be sufficient enough to make one an Arb? As for other elections, seems that candidates (even when they can't vote for themselves) have voted for each other. If that's okay, then fine. However, very small of votes would make others wary about the election process. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@George Ho: enwn is a small project and therefore the number of votes is going to be less. Information about the election has always posted well in advance through multiple channels. Someone who nominates a user is also allowed to vote for them. Please read the rules of ArbCom, George Ho. One can't vote for themselves, but they are allowed to vote for others. Top six candidates with the most amount of vote are elected to be the ArbCom.
•–• 01:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Hmm... "top six" seems a little too excessive for this "small project". How about reducing the number of top candidates to five or less? --George Ho (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
No, I do not agree with you on that. Six ArbComs have been working fine for us. As an active user, I don't see any problem this move will solve, given there is no problem our project is facing in that dimension.
•–• 01:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Arbitration Committee".