Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
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.

Arbitration motion regarding Durova

[edit]
Original announcement

This is really digging back deep. Well before my time, though when I first became an admin I read through a lot of old ArbCom cases so I was prepared for AE. No complaint about the modifications, to be sure. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I'm somewhat curious as to why this even came up. For those interested, it's just a restatement from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2 (which was also an awful mess of a case). Apparently James Forrester authored the version that got agreement within the committee; there were various proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Workshop. The principle was much more controversial in the Durova case because of the perception that the committee was shooting the messenger. Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackensen: And I thought I was the retired institutional memory. You do know that by showing up on this page after all these years, you're now required to run for the Committee again? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does ArbCom need to file another motion to amend Hkelkar 2 then? Really I think the point of this motion was to send a message that copyrights aren't the primary reason not to disclose private information, and correcting the historical record was a side effect of the way that was done, not the actual point, so no. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad that is flummery! Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that his came up is that the 2007 principle is mentioned at Wikipedia:Harassment. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing Wikipedia:Copyrights was always something of a cheat. It is and was legally accurate, but it was standing in for the lack of a policy governing the real issue. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Proposed decision#Private correspondence, particularly 2.2. There was certainly a very strong norm that you shouldn't post the contents of a private email (I was guilty of that once, well before that case), separate from the question of outing someone's real name or email address. The committees of that period were cautious about going beyond existing policies, but (as I recall) we didn't want that genie getting out of the bottle, especially since a copy-pasted email wasn't usable as evidence. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case Closed on 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 22:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Was this the longest between changes to a case? 16 years and a half could be some kind of record. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrybak You made me curious, and it is the record holder by just under 5 months from Eastern Europe. See User:Thryduulf/Arbitartion amendments after a decade for the list of 41 cases that have been amended 10 or more years after being closed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you really did the homework there. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You do realise, don't you, that many of our articles quote private correspondence that's been published by third parties through reliable sources, much of it long after the author's death without the possibility of permission? This would forbid us from quoting The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti (published 1928, so PD-US), because the authors haven't permitted them to be quoted in encyclopedia articles. For an extreme example, see Lachish letters. If something reaches the public domain, it's old enough that permission is almost impossible to obtain (given the most-of-a-century-PMA requirements of most copyright regimes) and old enough that it's basically guaranteed not to matter to anyone, since the author's long dead. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Nyttend. While we generally shouldn't be the publishing house for private correspondence, there are clearly notable exceptions that need to be clarified. If a US Secretary of State emails a friend that "policy XYZ needs to change. What can you do to help us?". It may have been intended to be private, but that email is subject to public records requests and is indeed in the public domain. It gets dicier when something is emailed to the Secretary of State. Was it private or not? Let's consider the wider implications before we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Buffs (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From context of the Durova case, the situations described by Nyttend and Buffs are clearly not the target of this motion. At some point, we should probably just say "come on, everyone knows what we mean", and not further fiddle with wording. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While they are not the target of this motion, we certainly need to specify and be clear so that such rulings can be clearly disseminated and followed. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Barkeep49 from ArbCom

[edit]
Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Suspension of Beeblebrox

[edit]
Original announcement
  • I am disappointed that rather than taking a moment to rethink what needed to be confidential and what can be public to get an easy win by providing the community transparency into the 2021 letter by publishing as much of it as is possible, the committee has decided to just close it with the motion. I am curious if the committee will at least release the vote for that decision as I know what it stood at when I resigned but obviously don't know how it shifted after my resignation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree, I believe by publishing my response I was able to demonstrate that it could be redacted in such a way as to not release any confidential material, and the community could see for themselves and decide if they thought the committee's characterization of it was accurate. I'm not going to pursue it any further though. It isn't any sort of a secret that I do not fully agree with most arbs regarding what should and should not be held as absolutely confidential. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you writing this. In some ways I don't think it will do as much as an unredacted version could - for instance I think one of the things listed in the letter is something you 100% didn't do but also was/am in favor of redacting that name none-the-less - but that it will still provide important information now and in the future about what happened here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Developments have meant that an update will be posted to this announcement soon. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Release of the 2021 letter to Just Step Sideways

[edit]
Original announcement
  • I hope that the letter's publication will allow others in the Community to come to their own conclusions regarding the motion passed above. I don't believe that I can be too specific on why the announcements were made separately (I wish that they were together too), but the important thing is that it was published. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I appreciate the transparency and I imagine I'm not alone in that regard. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...I'll be honest, any communication which begins "I'm writing to you on behalf of the rest of the committee" and ends "For the Arbitration Committee" seems fairly formal to me, but what do I know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't remember the last time I saw any kind of "formal warning" in any context whose main operating provision was "Can you please be really really careful". That seems like a pretty informal standard to me, and much more of a request than a warning. Maybe if y'all had asked them to be super duper careful, it'd have been more formal? Anyway, the conclusion the release is making me draw here is that I cannot fathom why so much energy was expended fighting against this outcome. Other conclusions too, but pretty sure I'd get in trouble for WP:ASPERSIONS if I stated them.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't remember the last time I saw any kind of "formal warning" in any context whose main operating provision was "Can you please be really really careful" This was my point as well, I mentioned it indirectly at the ARCA thread. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [chuckles] Yeah, I got that same impression when I read this passage as well - Can you please be really really careful, it does sound informal and kinda juvenile, I prefer your "super duper careful", sounds more grown-up. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Totes watch yourself, bro! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to the committee for releasing this. Even with the redactions, it helps with understanding where the committee was coming from and why JSS interpreted the message the way he did. I can understand why some committee members would oppose making it public, but I think better understanding both the (then) committee’s perspective and JSS’s is a good thing. Hopefully this can all be put to rest now. 28bytes (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, the basis of my oppose vote was that the original ARCA thread seemed to have been resolved—as in we had a clearly passing motion. My understanding (which may not have been entirely correct) was that we would post this as part of the ARCA thread, so I was not keen on continuing a thread looked resolved. I have no objection to posting this letter here at ACN in addition to the enacted motion. Maxim (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was also largely the basis for my abstention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that too, when I was pressing it for it earlier the matter was not resolved and I thought it would shed some light for the broader community. Doing it now still does that, but only after it would have made an actual difference. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a great look, especially for those who voted for the original motion with the formal warning verbiage and against releasing this correspondence. The best that can be said about the committee enacting the original language was that they were unaware of the elements that constitute a 'formal warning' in employment law or similar contexts. It's harder to excuse the recent hemming and hawing about JSS's formal request. While I still don't think it was the best way forward for JSS, I get the sentiment behind the appeal, and the final release of the redacted text entirely supports JSS's contention that the communication that was construed by the committee as a formal warning, was, in fact, not unequivocally a formal warning. If it was a warning, it was a particularly poor one in that the individual being warned reasonably (in my estimation, of course) did not understand it as such.
Further, If there was no response from the committee to JSS's taking issue with parts of the missive, that would be another failure of the committee: a warning disputed by the recipient need be investigated, considered, and reissued unequivocally, with or without refinement, in order to actually count as a warning; a disputed warning not refined or reiterated implies that the dispute had merit and the matter was dropped without further action pending. All of this perspective is from that of U.S. employment law, under which I have participated as both the sender and recipient of performance feedback. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even in just the everyday understandings of the word, you'd think that if something was a warning it would mention consequences ("if you do X, then Y might happen") and if it was a formal warning it would include the word "warning". The committee were hamming it up a bit there.
That said, this is the 2024 committee reviewing the wording used by the 2023 committee in citing a message sent by the 2021 committee. I don't know how many members those years have in common but it's understandable that they had difficulty toeing to a consistent line. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the message talks about the recipient needing to avoid a "risk" to the committee, so that looks like it is encompassed within the ordinary meaning of warning: "telling somebody that something bad or unpleasant may happen in the future so that they can try to avoid it."[1] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The risk thing is kinda ironic given how this whole situation has gone down over the past several months. It is frustrating to see how less than two weeks ago, members of the Committee were telling JSS that it was a clear cut case of a formal warning, only to see the actual email and be baffled about why they were defending it as such. I don't even feel confident that it can be claimed to be a warning. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated, it seems to me it is a warning with reference to the risk, nor am I alone in thinking, 'be careful' is also standard part of a warning [2] ("really, really" might not be but its obvious purpose is emphasis on being careful, and "please" may be too much courtesy, but the words of warning are still there). I also view any objection over "formal" as not well made, as the committee adopted and sent the message in its official capacity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the "really really careful" language was a bit... weak, I find the arguments that it wasn't really a warning disingenuous. A common sense reading of the letter seems to me obviously to be something that is not saying "here's what we think, but nobody cares if you do it again", but rather is saying "you should stop doing this". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't really appreciate the insinuation that I was lying, so there's that. I never said or implied that anyone said "nobody cares if you do it again" I only said this did not come across to me as a formal warning, and now the committee has said as much as well, along with a number of other people now that they've actually seen it. Are we all liars? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really finding fault with your desire to have the redacted letter made public, and I'm glad that it was made public, and that ArbCom passed the motion revising how they referred to it. You read the original letter the way that you read it, and I can accept that it came across as informal rather than as formal. My objection is with the other editors who, after reading it, and after reading the subsequent motion that was passed, keep insisting that nobody could have understood it to be a message telling you that this was a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am an outsider on these things, so I don't know how normal this is compared to other formal warnings the Committee has issued. But in my sincere opinion, to use language such as Your plain speaking is appreciated [...] been a couple of occasions [...] Whilst you may not have realised [...] Can you please be really really careful makes it read like a caution to me. Especially the lack of consequences or a requirement to acknowledge the issue.
There is a comment from a Committee member to devote some energy to improving the Wiki. Since the Committee is part of the Wiki, here is my thoughts: Formal warnings should follow an agreed upon template to prevent later confusion and issues. That way we can avoid this issue in the future. Maybe include a sentence that says, you are reminded/warned/admonished based on Cabayi's vote and the glossary. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it doesn't even read as a caution. To me, the wording reads as a "hey, we don't like what you're doing, but as it doesn't technically violate any (rules/etc) we are just asking you to please stop it pretty pretty please".
I get that the arbitrators work with each other a lot - whether it's through email, offsite communication, voice calls/telephone... and they may become friends. But it's absurd to call a message that reads like a "please I don't like this please please stop but you technically aren't breaking any rules so I can't actually tell you you have to stop" a warning or even a caution. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 07:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is not "I", it is "we", in the corporate sense. Since you began with we, it is odd you then went "I". And the risk is to the committee's function so, yes it is about policy, the policy governing the committee. To the committee, in its official capacity, the recipient is acting on a line, a line they apply in any given matter. Such lines are made for caution, and going to the line is, metaphorically, being in danger and is warning. The absurd thing would be to take it as you suggest, that what the recipient is doing is not a risk, a danger, with respect to the committee. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between "we" as in more than one person, and the "corporate we" that you read the letter as. The informal language in the letter, especially during the request to be more careful, lends itself to the confusion over which we is intended. And while I agree that it likely could've been read as a "corporate we"/official "don't do this" notice... it is ambiguous and ultimately in a case like this where arbitrators are attempting to "police" one of their own with a warning, there should be no ambiguity. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SGV, as you brought up Cabiya, I draw your attention to part of the vote: "not see it as a warning is (imo) obtuse at best and wikilawyering at worst". Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that. At one point I was going to say something about the comments of certain members, but dropped it. I will say that the reason I spoke up this time was because of seeing the last several months of discussions through my notifications and being frustrated with some of the individual responses from the Committee revolving around the suspension and its aftermath. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One take-away lesson here is that if the "warning" had been written more sternly, it might have actually caused a change in behavior that would have avoided a suspension and multiple appeal requests. By trying to be nice and using kid gloves for one of its own ("Can you please be really really careful"), the 2021 committee failed to prevent disruption, and so here we are, 3 years later, still talking about it. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is reasonable criticism of both the 2021 and 2023 committees -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely concur Buffs (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, I agree as well. This went from "please please be more careful" in one conversation to "we formally warned you not to do this and you did it anyway, you violated the absolute ironclad code of complete silence that was clearly explained to you before so now you're fired from the committee and stripped of user rights as well." Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, come on man. When you got that email, did you understand it to mean (1) don't do it again or (2) it's ok if you do it again. Because if it was #1, wtf you wasting everyone's time with this? Ok it wasn't a "warning" it was a "request" or "advice" or "admonishment" or "reminder", who cares what you call it, man? They voted on it and told you to knock it off. What more is there to talk about? Levivich (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not active at the moment and have not been following this, but one thing I'll say is that IMO while the warning could have been clearer and more formal, to my mind it should have been sufficient to tell JSS that their behaviour needs to change or they could expect action against them. Notably the "not compatible" parts seem to me to serve as sufficient warning. I approach this as a "pleb" so to speak. As a regular editor, especially an experienced one, I understand if that if I clearly violate our policies and guidelines, especially ones I should be aware by now, I can expect to be sanctioned even without warning. And especially with warning, I don't expect anyone to explicitly tell me I may be sanctioned. To give a simple example, if someone tells me "this is not compatible with WP:BLP/NPA/whatever, please cut it out", I understand that if I do it again I might be blocked. If I disagree it's a BLP/NPA/whatever violation then I can try to challenge it when blocked. Or better yet, especially if the editor is experienced enough that they should know what they're talking about and even more if it's a committee of the 8 (or whatever) editors who are used to dealing with behavioural issues here, I should ask when they warn me why they think it's a violation since I don't feel it is. If I don't do that and keep at it, I definitely don't expect to get out of it because no one told me I could be sanctioned. The most I might be able to get out of it is because I didn't understand why it was a violation and I now understand and will do better for now one. But that will depend a lot on the circumstances e.g. how serious the violation and especially if I could explain why I didn't seek more feedback when warned. Or in other words, it's on everyone here, and especially arbcom members to seek feedback if they are warned their behaviour is not compatible with what's expected here rather than think because they were not explicitly told sanction might result if they keep at it, then they are fine. So to my mind, despite the deficiencies in the warning, it should have been sufficient. Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne, I find myself agreeing with you, @Thryduulf, and @Levivich here. All the wikilawyering around whether it's a True Official Warning vs just a friendly note of no actual importance leaves me wondering whether I should laugh or cry. C'mon folks: Go read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy six or eight times. Pay particular attention to the sentence in the middle that says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles."
    This is not a speeding ticket. The English Wikipedia does not have a police force, and there's no such thing as a Police caution here (which – go read the article – would require the offender to admit not just committing a crime, but also to have done so intentionally). Furthermore, the more experienced you are, and the more user rights you have accumulated, the higher the standard you're held to, including already knowing what that standard is. The fact that anyone even had to tell such a senior community member that his treatment of other editors was significantly below the usual standard is a problem.
    We should not be minimizing this. Wikipedia's articles need a functioning community. Having a functioning community requires treating other editors with at least a tiny bit of respect. If you (or me, or any of us) fall so far below our notoriously low standards of collegial behavior and basic human decency as to have a committee write and vote to send a letter to us, that's a problem that the rest of us should not be taking lightly or trying to minimize. Ask yourself: How many basically unpleasant people do we encounter in a given year? We blocked 82,865 registered editors last year. And how many of them got such a letter? We encounter thousands of problematic editors a year, but very, very, very few earn a letter like this. No matter how you feel about the wording, this is not something to dismiss as just a chat between friends. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're so focused on "he shouldn't need a formal warning, we're not a bureaucracy" you're ignoring the fact that ArbCom swore up and down they did give a formal warning, and the actual text proves they didn't. They are the current elected people in positions of trust who I have far more concerns with, because rather than simply apologize or admit their mistake plainly, we had to go through this song and dance to get any level of transparency. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motion on historical elections

[edit]
Original announcement

Without divulging anything private, is ArbCom able to tell the community what led to this motion? Remembering the HiP case, where ArbCom made themselves the filing party based largely on an offsite publication, I think the community has a legitimate interest in why ArbCom appears to be self-initiating another case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the motion, we received evidence of alleged harassment and canvassing in relation to the topic area. There appeared to be an onwiki axis as well as gradations of conduct alleged, so we felt that a case was a better vehicle to examine the issues than a singular motion. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. With respect to "historical elections", can you say anything about which elections, or even which nation, these were in? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence that we were given seems to mostly have to do with the results of elections displayed on Wikipedia (tabulations, maps, infoboxes, political parties, etc.) from c. 1800 until present day. There have been no allegations that the dispute involves policy or politics. Some of this overlaps with WP:CT/CID and WP:CT/APL, but not all of it and not in the way those cases bubbled up. AN(I) had a few cracks at the issue and weren't able to resolve things. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note @Guerillero:, WP:CT/APL is a redlink, so the meaning of your comment may be lost. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presume APL refers to "Anti-Semitism in Poland" (per WP:ARBAPL) but there is no contentious topic designation specifically for that topic area as it is encompassed by Eastern Europe (WP:CT/EE). Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be a fat-fingered WP:CT/AP (American politics); P and L are adjacent to one another on a QWERTY layout. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to WP:CT/AP -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks again. It sounds to me like this might be related to this, and there was additionally some private evidence of harassment and canvassing, and I guess it might be awkward for editor(s) who felt harassed to come forward publicly as the filing party. As a generalization, I think ArbCom making yourselves the filing party should be a last resort, but I also want to support ArbCom coming to the aid of editors who feel harassed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this. I see ArbCom initiating a case on its own initiative where harassment is a factor as basically a John Doe filing with less likelihood of figuring out just who the Doe is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, while on the outside this certainly looks the same as HJP in terms of ArbCom initiating, I want to underscore the received evidence of [offwiki] alleged harassment and canvassing bit of this all. The parallel I saw from the evidence was much more akin to the Tropical Cyclone case than HJP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasingly proactive, this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. saw this from a mile away, but assumed it'd require a prolonged and annoying case request. thanks committee :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, amusingly alliterative, that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a very similarly-named case from 2006: Election (which was focused on the 2004 United States presidential election). You may need to expand the name a bit, to something like Problems with elections articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical elections" works perfectly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest VRT appointments, July 2024

[edit]
Original announcement
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=1236086331"