Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions
Arbitration Committee proceedings
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation | none | (orig. case) | 7 June 2024 |
| Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads | none | none | 4 June 2024 |
| Amendment request: India-Pakistan | none | (orig. case) | 7 June 2024 |
| Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions | none | none | 10 June 2024 |
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Deletion RfC | 26 February 2023 |
Motions
 | This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
Deletion RfC
Motion: Rescind deletion RfC remedy
Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case is rescinded. There are no actions remaining in force from this remedy, so the community are free to conduct and close these and related discussions moving forward. The Committee thanks Xeno and Valereee for their work as moderators; KrakatoaKatie, RoySmith, and TheSandDoctor for their work as closers; and all the editors who participated in these discussions to date.
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Enacted ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Support:
- Thanks to all who participated and coordinated. In ending this, I want to clarify I don't see this as a failure. In fact I see that this process has been quite successful. Ending it now is a recognition that it has served its usefulness. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- SilkTork (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- I wish I shared the optimism of my colleague CaptainEek but I am disappointed that the core issue ArbCom identified never got to the discussion point. I think it's clear at this point that it won't get there either despite lots of time, thought, and care particularly from the moderators but also the community at large. I don't think it was a mistake to try this but before ever supporting such a remedy again in the future I'd want to make sure that committee had strong consensus about why this one didn't work and felt reasonably confident that another attempt wouldn't have those pitfalls. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Per my comments below — Wug·a·po·des 20:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator views and discussions
- Floquenbeam, give or take. Besides "this remedy didn't end up working", we had issues finding both moderators and closers, we didn't get the participation expected in the first one, and it's been 6 months since the motion passed and the community still hasn't had the opportunity to discuss the issues that prompted the remedy. The actual RFC that we wanted has not, indeed, happened. Izno (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- I did not vote on the remedy in the case and had little to nothing to do with the coordinating on our end, largely because I expected it would more or less end this way, but at the same time I didn't want to get in the way of it because it could have ended up being more impactful. I think a key takeaway for the community in the event that this passes is simply that the committee is getting out of the way here, as opposed to getting in the way of further community-based discussions of the content side of these issues. I think Rhododendrites comments below are a fair description of how this went, and although I find their counter proposal is interesting, it probably will not be seen as valid by the community. I would therefore again mention the restrictive RFC format I developed for WP:PC/RFC2012. I see a number of parallels here, this format is not meant to be used in a "normal" RFC, it is designed to force a usable result in cases where multiple prior RFCs with more traditional formats failed to do so. The issue is broken down to its absolute core issues and mutually exclusive options are developed, and users have to pick one and only one of the the presented options to support. No new proposals may be added while discussion of the core proposals is ongoing. This succeeded in forcing a usable result, and from there we were able to move on to even more smaller RFCs to settle the details. It isn't the end of the process, but it is a way to get a process moving forward instead of stagnating and festering forever. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'll offer some reflections on why I think this remedy did not achieve its main goals. The first main goal was to incentivize the community to fix policy issues that led to the inciting case. This is not an uncommon remedy when we see conduct issues in a case that arose from conflicts over the interpretation of vague or conflicting policies. Often the remedy takes the shape of a recommendation but in practice these recommendations are not always taken up or effective. The second goal was to improve on the recommendation framework: how do we actually get an RfC to happen and not let the issue fester due to lack of organizing interest? The attempt here was to have the committee (who is recommending the RfC anyway) take on some of the overhead by identifying people to (1) develop questions and run the RfC (2) close the RfC and (3) handle complaints in a centralized and timely manner. These were, and I think still are, outstanding questions that a future remedies in this genre will need to contend with, but for various reasons I think this attempt did not meet those goals to a sufficient degree.I think the attempt was harmed by various factors but the major ones being (1) unequal distribution of labor leading to (2) poor management and oversight ultimately resulting in (3) terminal scope creep.
- Unequal distribution of labor: as was mentioned by Izno, we had serious issues in recruiting editors for roles of manager and closer. Neither of these are small amounts of work, especially in the context of major policy discussions. We had discussions regarding how many moderators to appoint, for example, and I think we rightly avoided a solo moderator, but due to issues finding even two, I think we missed hitting what (in hindsight) probably should have been the optimal number of 3. I say optimal because this experience showed that 2 moderators fails too easily. If a single moderator needs to take a break because of family or work commitments, then the other is saddled with all of the work. This is not only unfair, but unsustainable, and I think we saw this happen a number of times during the process. Internally, I believe one goal in appointing me as "liaison" was to get that number closer to 3, but (and I said this internally) personally I was uncomfortable acting in that capacity as an arbitrator. One of the minor goals of this structure was to avoid having ArbCom involved in the process as much as possible, so having an arbitrator-moderator seemed to go against that point. In the future arbitrators should identify moderators before implementing the remedy, ensure that there are at least 3 such moderators, and maybe be less conservative in having arbitrators support moderators by taking more of their workload when needed.
- Poor management and oversight: the unequal distribution of labor meant that managers had less time to consider, discuss, and implement decisions. A single person running a whole RfC is already spread thin, and expecting that they be in constant contact with the committee is obviously unrealistic which is why they are appointed for their experience and judgment. So decisions are made in the moment, based in part on community input, but as often happens with such decision, there are other decisions which (with the benefit of time, deliberation, or hindsight) might have been suboptimal. The committee, having these benefits, occasionally got questions or had concerns which led to differences in opinion on what (if any) advice to give. While I (personally) was in favor of a very hands-off approach to oversight, this was not a universal opinion. The thinking being that, because any sanctions levied were arbitration enforcement sanctions and the outcome appealable to us, we had a duty to be at least somewhat active in overseeing the process. This internal difference in perspective meant that advice for the moderators did not always come quickly, or could contradict advice previously given. This put moderators in a bind---walk back advice already given to the community or go against the advice of arbitrators. This (rightly, I think) led to some frustration from moderators and arbitrators, gradually harming morale until both parties lost resolve to continue. In the future, arbitrators should clarify what level of oversight is expected before implementing a remedy so that advice can be given quickly and consistently when requested. Increasing the number of moderators, as mentioned previously, will likewise ensure that more people are available to bounce ideas and deliberate so that no one person feels like major decisions (and criticism) rest on their shoulders alone.
- Scope creep: I think this all contributed to the remedy expanding beyond its original scope which is what ultimately doomed it. The inciting case was about deletion and mass deletion in particular. The remedy was targeted at deletion, and the intent was to have a single RfC on that topic to help resolve the underlying issues that precipitated the case. The questions were to be figured out at moderator discretion prior to the RfC, but due to a poor project definition on our part and a glut of work for the moderators in the first place, it was decided to expand the scope to two RfCs: one to develop questions, and one to resolve them. This delayed the project, garnered little participation, and drained human resources on a process which was preliminary and not solvent. This includes tiring the moderators, creating additional work for closers, and committee-internal friction on how to resolve the definitional ambiguity. Ultimately we decided to specify that an RfC to develop questions was acceptable, but this opened the door to further modifications, including a potential third RfC on article creation which is clearly beyond the original scope, and would require further human resources that were barely enough for a second RfC. In the future, the remedy scope should be clearly defined (ideally in consult with the pre-selected moderators recommended previously) and that scope should not change after implementation except in truly extraordinary circumstances. Additionally, future remedies may want to define the process in more detail, including the RfC format taking in to consideration previous methods. Beeblebrox points to WP:PC/RFC2012 which (in hindsight) may have worked well here; a format like WP:AHRFC which was ArbCom initiated has also been shown to work well.
- I think there's more that could be said, but those are what I see as the major lessons to learn from this attempt. In some sense, I do agree with CaptainEek that this wasn't a complete failure, but its achievements were marginal at best. The biggest success, I think, is ensuring that the conversation stated. There are questions; there are people with interest; there are organizing discussions to draw on in the future. At the very least, despite the issues identified above, it has provided some activation energy which hopefully is enough for the community to continue the process to some conclusion. At this point however, it's clear that nothing good will come from the Committee's continued involvement so it is best that we bow out. I share the sentiment of Barkeep49 that this was worth trying, and I think it's good that the Committee is able to admit when and reflect on why new ways of solving problems have failed. The problems we face are difficult and growing more complex by the year, so we need to be willing to try, fail, and learn if we are going to develop the tools we need to meet the challenges of Wikipedia's next 20 years. — Wug·a·po·des 20:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Community discussion
- Sorry, you all seem to agree so maybe I should just shut up and leave you alone, but could someone briefly (1-2 sentence) explain the problem? As near as I can tell, the preliminary "mass article creation" RFC happened, but the "mass AFD" RFC never happened? Is that the problem, or am I confused? Couldn't someone just start the "mass AFD" RFC now? Or is the idea that ArbCom-mandated RFC's don't really work, and you figure a "mass AFD" RFC will happen thru the community? or maybe it already happened and I just didn't see it? There's not a lot of context in this motion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- The first RfC happened in the sense that a lot of people wrote a lot of words, but not in the sense that it did what it needed to do. The big problem IMO was that we never solidified a definition of "article creation at scale", but proceeded with voting on rules that would apply to "article creation at scale". There's also the problem that the RfC came out of a case that drew the attention of all the "higher standards for articles" vs. "all content is good content" hard-liners. Because the first RfC failed to address mass creation of articles, any effort to create create/change rules for deletion of mass created articles is going to have a big problem (the idea of "deletion at scale" does have applications beyond dealing with mass created articles, but that's the context the RfC arose from, so that will be an essential part of it). It was a worthy experiment for ArbCom to mandate an RfC like this, and I appreciate the efforts by the moderators and others who spent their time on it, but the experience seems like it should dissuade arbs from going this route in the future unless there's an extremely clear question to be answered. As a side note, I'd love to see an experiment with one of these high-profile, factionalized RfCs as follows: run it again, and don't allow anyone who participated the first time to do anything but leave talk page comments. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- So... for those questions that were saved by the moderators for a mass-deletion RfC, what is to come of them? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- The first RfC happened in the sense that a lot of people wrote a lot of words, but not in the sense that it did what it needed to do. The big problem IMO was that we never solidified a definition of "article creation at scale", but proceeded with voting on rules that would apply to "article creation at scale". There's also the problem that the RfC came out of a case that drew the attention of all the "higher standards for articles" vs. "all content is good content" hard-liners. Because the first RfC failed to address mass creation of articles, any effort to create create/change rules for deletion of mass created articles is going to have a big problem (the idea of "deletion at scale" does have applications beyond dealing with mass created articles, but that's the context the RfC arose from, so that will be an essential part of it). It was a worthy experiment for ArbCom to mandate an RfC like this, and I appreciate the efforts by the moderators and others who spent their time on it, but the experience seems like it should dissuade arbs from going this route in the future unless there's an extremely clear question to be answered. As a side note, I'd love to see an experiment with one of these high-profile, factionalized RfCs as follows: run it again, and don't allow anyone who participated the first time to do anything but leave talk page comments. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)