User talk:Barkeep49/ArbCom Guide

First draft of a glossary

Building off the discussion at ACN I have started drafting a glossary as part of the guides. Pinging @RoySmith, @HouseBlaster, @Jéské Couriano, @Thryduulf, @BlackcurrantTea, and @Levivich as the people who've participated in that part of the discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the meta question: If I understand correctly, each of the guides is intended to become its own page. In that case, I think it would be good to have a separate page to which each guide can refer. If the idea of a style guide comes to fruition, then it can be a part of that (many traditional style guides have a large lexicon of words with guidance on how they are used). isaacl (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the glossary is helpful, particularly for the triplet. I'm curious if this is meant to be prescriptive or descriptive -- describing what arbcom has done in the past, or prescribing procedures for arbcom going forward? The rest of my comment assumes it's prescriptive.

One thing I'd change is to not have a double meaning for "remind" (individual v group), particularly where one meaning has a negative connotation and the other does not. For groups, why not "advise" or some other term? Alternatively, for individuals, perhaps "caution" instead of "remind". (So "remind" would not have the negative connotation while "caution" would.)

Are any of the triplet intended to communicate that "next time you could be sanctioned"? That seems to be part of ordinary "warnings" on Wikipedia, like level 3 and 4 warning templates. I didn't see that in any of the definitions; not sure if that's intentional?

It seems to me that part of the escalation would be the difference between (1) a "reminder" of a rule existing (that was broken?), but without any suggestion of "next time, sanction," (2) a warning/caution/whatever that "next time you may be sanctioned" (which in my view would be a true "warning": letting someone know of a potential danger) and (3) "next time you will be sanctioned" ("last chance" warning). I don't know if that's what arbcom intends, it's just how I understand the usual lvl 1-4 template warnings elsewhere on Wikipedia to work.

Thanks for putting this together. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

This is intended to say how the words have been used so this is why you get the double meaning for remind. In the case of the triplet I plan to propose codifying that into procedures in the new year. However, your point about shifting to a different word than remind for the second definition does seem like it would be useful. I will try to keep this in mind the next time we have a case with that kind of remedy. As for whether they're intended to communicate "next time you could be sanctioned" that is true for all three of them depending on future circumstances. That truth is part of the reason some people say there is no difference. At least at the moment the value is in distinguishing between levels of culpability within a case but I agree a shift towards what you outline in your penultimate paragraph could be useful and has played out in some discussions I've been a part of. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion from Tryptofish

In Guide 1#Features of Arbitration Cases, I suggest changing:

"For example, a person who lies about how to translate a source written in a language other than English may be sanctioned for the lie." to:

"For example, a person who lies about what a source says may be sanctioned for the lie."

Obviously, you could have predicted that I would have noticed this (), and I just as obviously know where you got the idea. But it's really unnecessarily specific, and my suggested change makes it more general. You or some other Arbs might, perhaps, disagree with me about whether or not Arbs should be in the source-translation business, but I hope we all agree that the real issue here is misrepresentation of source content, regardless of what kind of misrepresentation, as a valid example of sanctionable content-related conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

First draft complete

I believe the draft is now complete. I welcome feedback. Ping to people who've offered commentary so far: isaacl, Levivich, Tryptofish. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)