Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Conflict of interest VRT consultations, July 2024
The Arbitration Committee has received applications for conflict of interest VRT queue access and has reviewed them in consultation with the functionaries team. The Community is invited to evaluate the candidacies and comment here until the end of 17 July 2024 (UTC).

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Archived discussion at: 

Arbitration motion regarding Durova
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Resignation of Barkeep49 from ArbCom
I resign as Arbitrator effective immediately. I will be retaining Oversight and giving up Checkuser. It's clear I am no longer at my best as an arbitrator and so rather than waiting for U4C to achieve quorum before resigning - as I still believe we should have no rule against serving on both but that it would be foolish in the extreme for a person to do both - I have made the decision to step down from ArbCom now. I look forward to focusing all my energies on the U4C and the ways outside of ArbCom I am able to help Wikipedia. Thank you to the community for electing me, I hope those who supported me felt like I honored their trust and thanks to my current and former colleagues from whom I learned so much. It has truly been an honor to serve. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Arbitration motion regarding Suspension of Beeblebrox
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Aoidh (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Release of the 2021 letter to Just Step Sideways
The Arbitration Committee attaches the following addendum to its previous announcement regarding the suspension of Beeblebrox, also known as Just Step Sideways:

Dear Beeblebrox,

I'm writing to you on behalf of the rest of the committee, after.

Your plain speaking is appreciated, however there have been a couple of occasions that comments made in public risk compromising the faith the community puts in arbitrators to conduct arbitration fairly. Two important traits the community expects us to be are to be (a) discreet and (b) scrupulous/fair.

Mocking another editor (albeit one currently indefinitely blocked on en-wiki) on a Wikipedia criticism site is not compatible with fairness, and candid comments about differences in opinion concerning and  are not compatible with discretion.

Outside the public comments, your recent message to the functionaries list regarding has caused significant consternation amongst editors there. Whilst you may not have realised, the tone used in regard to another contributor who is participating in good faith was also not compatible with scrupulous behaviour.

Can you please be really really careful in situations where a public comment (a) may reveal or hint at private committee discussion, or (b) come across as denigrating, mocking or flippantly dismissing another person's concerns, or other ad hominem comments, in all fora, but particularly if made on Wikipediocracy.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Support: Aoidh, Barkeep49, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree

Oppose: CaptainEek, Maxim, Primefac, Z1720

Abstain: HJ Mitchell

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Proposed motion on historical elections
The Arbitration Committee is considering a proposed motion related to opening a case to examine behavior within the historical election topic area. Community statements are welcome at the above link. For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: