Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lord Roem (talk | contribs) at 22:12, 7 June 2012 (motion enacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 25 May 2024
Motion name Date posted
Motions on procedural motions 27 May 2012

Motions

Shortcut

Motions on procedural motions

For these motions, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

Motion #1

In order to ensure that the wider community is given adequate notice of and opportunity to comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures, the following procedure is adopted:

Modification of procedures

All significant changes to the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page, and shall be advertised on the Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the Village Pump when first proposed. The motions shall remain open for a period of no less than one week, and shall otherwise be subject to the standard voting procedures enacted by the Committee for other motions.

Votes

Support
  1. Proposed, based on recent concerns that we're not providing sufficient opportunity to comment on proposed changes before they're enacted. Kirill [talk] 21:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I request you change "all changes" to "all significant changes", to exclude unimportant fixes and changes from the transparency requirement this motion creates. AGK [•] 12:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed as requested. Kirill [talk] 12:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Having slept on this, I cannot support this in its present form. It is a sweeping measure, with very broad unintended consequences. As drafted, this requires a formal motion, advertised in three locations, and up for a week, to make a non-controversial copy edit to a procedural template, to make a non-controversial redirect to a better location, or to modify the precise sequence or number of procedural steps clerks take in opening cases etc etc. This runs directly counter to WP:BURO.  Roger Davies talk 09:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the change to "significant changes" requested by AGK sufficient to allay your concern regarding the sweeping nature of the motion? Kirill [talk] 12:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because the unqualified expression "processes" is also overbroad. Pre-announcing everything in three locations is also OTT. To put this into perspective, the evidence length proposals were up for seven weeks and reported in Signpost on 9, 16, 23 and 30 April, and in Open Tasks for the duration. Which does not seem to me to be hiding anything away.  Roger Davies talk 12:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting; I wasn't considering the preliminary recitations to be material. Generally speaking, do you think that they should be interpreted that way? Kirill [talk] 12:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably responsible to assume that people will interpret this in the light most favourable to whatever their position happens to be as that's normally how people operate. Best therefore to pin it down.  Roger Davies talk 12:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I understand the impetus for this motion but I do not believe it is necessary. The Committee has pledged before, and should reaffirm, that it will seek community input on significant changes that will affect the relationship between the Committee and its constituents, including all aspects of the editor community. This does not, however, mean that every change in process, or even every "significant" change in process, requires a week's worth of advertising in three different places. I am particularly concerned that giving undue weight to relatively minor changes that may occur to our processes over time may have the effect of diminishing the attention given to more significant issues, both ones involving this Committee and others. Or put more simply, I favor motion #2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per those above me, favor motion #2. SirFozzie (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose for the same reason as opposing motion #2 Risker (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not convinced on motion 2, but it is clearly superior to this one. Courcelles 17:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, per Roger above and Risker below Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose as overly bureaucratic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain

General discussion #1

Oppose Per not bureaucracy. We're getting in a tizzy because clarifications and amendments get merged? Whether a Hey ArbCom, you didn't quite get it right, please fix this process is called amendment / clarifications / have a Salmonidae is just so not important. Nobody Ent 00:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I happen to agree that the particular change that spurred this discussion was a fairly trivial one, I think the request that we be more consistent in soliciting community input is a reasonable one in and of itself, regardless of which specific change we neglected it for.
Beyond that, my intent is not only to provide more transparency to the process, but also to create a defined place for decisions on procedure to be made in the first place; at the moment, the Committee can hold such discussions in a variety of places, making it rather difficult to follow them at times. Kirill [talk] 01:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody Ent, you are right, but it is a slippery slope - where is the limit. I fully endorse this change - it does not necessarily change the basics, but it does somewhat improve the transparency (something I have been asking for a long time). IF something is proposed by the ArbCom that the community would then massively oppose against, then at least that is seen - even the members of the ArbCom are only human. I presume that the motion about merging the Amendments and Clarifications pages would have passed without opposition, only some questions, concerns or suggestions which may have made the actual transition even smoother. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree whole heartedly that this particular change was minor, and had I not been editing the page simultaneously to the merge would probably never have been brought up. But anything to improve transparency and accountability is good. Rich Farmbrough, 02:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Motion #2

To provide an opportunity for community comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures prior to enactment, the following procedure is adopted:

Modification of procedures

Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page, and shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed. Such motions shall remain open for at least one week prior to enactment; otherwise, the Committee's standard voting procedures apply.

Votes

Support
  1. Alternative to the motion on procedural transparency above, and addressing my objections to that motion.  Roger Davies talk 09:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The major and lingering remaining concern that I have about this is the seven-day provision, which has been highlighted by recent events. A lot of stuff whistles through in less than a day or two; and may often be time-sensitive because we want to apply it to an upcoming case. Delaying the opening of a case by say five or six days for process sake is likely to antagonise a lot of people,  Roger Davies talk 18:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Works for me. Kirill [talk] 12:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is acceptable as long as "significant or substantive" is interpreted in a reasonable way, which I guess is something that will play out over time. Re the comment that the ArbCom noticeboard is watched less than some other pages, I think passage of this motion would be fair notice that people interested in monitoring for potential changes in our procedure should watchlist that page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice to Motion #1. AGK [•] 16:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While I see Risker's point, I think that any rule can be wikilawyered to death but I think there's ample room for sound judgement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I am quite certain that there will be plenty of people who will insist that any change whatsoever is "significant or substantive", even if it is making a grammar correction. ("But you changed the meaning by fixing the words!!!") Things we have motions for, I'm fine for discussing publicly onwiki and posting on the noticeboard. However, this requires lengthy deliberations even for going forward with a trial of something a little different. I don't think we need 7 days to discuss the majority of even substantive changes. Risker (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Risker. Jclemens-public (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Risker. I'm in favour of opportunities for community input, but not if the only input is wikilawyering. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose as overly bureaucratic and arbitrary. Some discussions take longer, some take shorter. If folks are open and engaging, I think this is unnecessary and overly formalises interactions with the community at large. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. On reflection, I am not sure that it is sensible or necessary to impose on ourselves a one-week minimum period of exposure for motions, even considering our absolute discretion over whether to ignore or adapt procedures in a given case. AGK [•] 13:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The point should be, "hold our procedural discussions here" not "wait a week to pass anything". A mandatory holding period of this long is too bureaucratic. Courcelles 13:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion #2

  • Of the three pages in the initial proposal Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard has far less watchers than the other two. AC/N has 593 to AN's 3482 and VPP's 2513. In a project with less than 10,000 highly active users, you are dealing in huge percentage differences. I'm not sure if your intent is to actually increase transparency or just to make a feint and point to it next time people complain, but with this motion you're doing a much better job of the second than you are the first. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually mindful of the complaints we've had in the past about focusing on procedure when we've posted this stuff publically. How much transparency does whether Amendments and Clarifications are on one page or two need?  Roger Davies talk 14:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the objective is to inform the community, you're going to have to break from Arbspace. The people who are complaining are most likely not watching the AN/C. The people watching AN/C are already involved enough that they'd be in the loop anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sven is absolutely right. There are still people like me who will remain in blissful ignorance most of the time, being too busy running bots and editing protected templates, but with those pages you will at least get about 3-5% of the active editors, and probably a good chunk of those who can make useful contributions. Rich Farmbrough, 02:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • I don't care about the procedural details, but the idea of Arbcom requiring itself to give notice of substantial changes is a great one in my mind. I likely won't pay attention, because arbitration is really something I've ignored most of the time, but it will definitely help those who care more about it. Typos and other things definitely don't need to get prior notice; we're not a bureaucracy where everything requires votes first. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree this is a good step in the right direction and also agree that the notice should be somewhere, like a village pump, that folks are actually likely to see it. Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion #3

To provide an opportunity for community comment on proposed changes to the Arbitration Committee's processes and procedures prior to enactment, the following procedure is adopted:

Modification of procedures

Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made.

  • Unless Hersfold is active on this motion (which it appears he isn't), then 7 is a majority. This is then a call for Arbitrators to cast their vote if they have not done so. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enacted. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support
  1. Okay, the core idea here is a good one, but it doesn't take anywhere near a week to get the community's input. Sorry to propose another motion at this late date, but I just can't get behind a week's waiting period above. A day gives the community plenty of time to object, without stretching into days of silence. Courcelles 14:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fair enough. Kirill [talk] 14:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Better. AGK [•] 14:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 21:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I can live with this. Risker (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. per Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. PhilKnight (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain

General discussion #3

How about "Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures, as assessed by the committee itself, shall ..." Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or simpler: "Modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures that the Committee determines are significant or substantive shall be made etc etc",  Roger Davies talk 02:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A word of warning here. A day is not really enough time both for significant changes to be advertised and for public discussion to conclude (many people, including some arbs, may miss a few days here and there, so the unit of a week works best for most discussions). Trivial changes, I agree, shouldn't need bureaucracy, but the "days of silence" referred to above usually only occur when trivial changes are proposed. When something that objections are raised to is proposed, is a day enough time to assess opposition to it and whether the proposal needs to be withdrawn or reworked? The above will only work if any discussion that arises is allowed to continue for more than a day after a change is proposed. What something like this will need is arbitrators to exercise judgement on whether to close a proposal after a day of no input, or whether to allow discussion to continue for as long as needed, followed by the proposal being reworked. Or thanking people for their input but going ahead anyway (which may be needed at times, but will always irk some). Best to make a named someone (an arbitrator, not a clerk) responsible for any discussion that ensues and what to do afterwards, preferably the arbitrator who drafted or proposed the change in the first place.

What is also not clear is whether this advertising period of a day takes place before a public vote by arbitrators or is just a required period of notice following an internal (possibly informal) vote that passed the proposal. If you are advertising a public arb vote on a proposed change, this works less well if people turn up and find the arbs have all voted publicly already within minutes or hours of the proposal going up (something that is intensely annoying - why ask for input and then vote before any input arrives?). Also, beware of arbitrators proposing alternative wording that substantially changes the nature of the proposal, and that wording passing without the required 24-hour notice period, or any updates being made to the notice.

I would suggest a day of something being proposed with no voting by taking place (that is something clerks can enforce as arbitrators, being very busy and all that, tend to forget things like this), and then voting starts with input from any public discussion that may or may not have started. But really, the judgement starts at the point of deciding whether something is a trivial change, or a 'significant or substantive' change. Good luck with that. Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why has the language for this #3 proposal dropped Village Pump in favor of WP:AN? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Administrator Noticeboard has a larger, more diverse and less fragmented readership. Risker (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And places administrators as a special class. WP:VPPRO is the appropriate place for proposals that affect the community at large. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=496510590"