Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee
Use this page to discuss information on the page (and subpages) attached to this one. This includes limited discussion of the Arbitration Committee itself, as a body. Some things belong on other pages:
|
 | This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
Access to redacted/deleted evidence regarding potential ArbCom cases etc for contributors not normally having the necessary permission to view it.
[edit]Not for the first time, as a contributor without the necessary permissions to e.g. view speedily deleted articles etc, I find myself in the position of questioning whether a recent series of what appear to be highly-questionable edits by a long-term contributor merit further scrutiny, either by the community at WP:ANI, or more likely (given privacy/WP:BLP concerns, and a wish not to exacerbate the problem further) by ArbCom itself. I am, however, unable to see the edits in question, and to confirm to myself at least that the issue appears serious enough to merit such action.
Clearly, it would not be appropriate to make such material accessible on demand (which would rather negate the purpose of hiding it) but I do wonder whether there ought to be provision for non-admin(etc) contributors to request access in some manner to deleted/redacted content, under terms of strict confidentiality? As a general principle, Wikipedia seems to operate on the basis that admins are appointed to enforce policy, but that anyone is entitled to request that it be enforced. And in circumstances where potential evidence of what may appear to be a serious breach is hidden before such action can be taken, this places those non-admins who consider such matters to be of serious concern, meriting further action, at a distinct disadvantage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump You give the impression that you have a particular editor/page in mind. I'm not sure that handing out deleted pages on request is a sensible idea. But if you email us and lay out your concerns, we can probably do some deeper investigation and answer your questions more directly. Having an example makes application easier. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- It was one specific incident that led me to start this particular thread, but as I say, it isn't the first time such circumstances have arisen. And as I hoped I'd made clear, I'm not suggesting that deleted/hidden material be automatically be handed out on request - I'm instead suggesting that consideration ought to be given to at least making provision for this to be provided, after satisfying e.g. ArbCom that the request is genuine, and that there are at least plausible grounds to suggest it merits such action. Such a request not being taken as a request that an ArbCom case immediately be started etc, but merely for what it is - a request to see specific material. E-mailing ArbCom to say I'm concerned about material I haven't seen, and can only surmise about, seems less than optimal, and less than equitable, given that others clearly are in the position to scrutinise it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump There's no absolute prohibition on emailing deleted articles, it does happen, especially in areas like copyright. A little birdy told me what this is probably about, and I don't see why someone couldn't email you that article. Still, I'd be careful with it because of the deletion reason. Sounds like it could probably be handled by a single AE admin who could block or hand out the relevant tban. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- If your little birdy is correct, and we are discussing the same person, it appears that there may well be more to this than a single incident. I'll look into this further, and follow up accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump There's no absolute prohibition on emailing deleted articles, it does happen, especially in areas like copyright. A little birdy told me what this is probably about, and I don't see why someone couldn't email you that article. Still, I'd be careful with it because of the deletion reason. Sounds like it could probably be handled by a single AE admin who could block or hand out the relevant tban. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- It was one specific incident that led me to start this particular thread, but as I say, it isn't the first time such circumstances have arisen. And as I hoped I'd made clear, I'm not suggesting that deleted/hidden material be automatically be handed out on request - I'm instead suggesting that consideration ought to be given to at least making provision for this to be provided, after satisfying e.g. ArbCom that the request is genuine, and that there are at least plausible grounds to suggest it merits such action. Such a request not being taken as a request that an ArbCom case immediately be started etc, but merely for what it is - a request to see specific material. E-mailing ArbCom to say I'm concerned about material I haven't seen, and can only surmise about, seems less than optimal, and less than equitable, given that others clearly are in the position to scrutinise it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Speaking just as an admin, if a user wants to see a deleted version of a page and they have a reasonable argument for why they want to see it, I will usually do so. I do not necessarily see this as "on demand" viewing, since I review the request first, but I do not see any issue with asking (the worst that can happen is receiving a "no"). Primefac (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)