Revision as of 02:45, 12 August 2011

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages: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. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) 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.

• WP:A/R/M

New editors on arbitration pages

Background

The Arbitration Committee proposed the following motion:

That no editor with less than 1000 edits may give evidence or may make workshop proposals unless they (i) are either a party to the relevant case or (ii) have been expressly authorised to give evidence or make workshop proposals by the Arbitration Committee.

General discussion

• I'll only say . Sapienti sat. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• I can appreciate the comments from some of my colleagues about the perception that "socks" are the real problem here. While I'm quite happy to admit that it's very likely that most of the accounts that fall under this bar are indeed either returning users or second accounts, the reality is that the investment in time and energy to try to determine the status of these accounts considerably exceeds whatever benefit they may add. There has been a longstanding prohibition on using socks/alternate accounts in arbitration proceedings. Risker (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Really? All this is going to do is create a higher wall between the Arbs and the rest of the world, oh, and sour people's opinions of ArbCom even more. If your purpose is to prevent socks and SPAs from coming into the process, putting up a wall that keeps out all new users isn't the answer. Adopting a policy that instead say that:

"It is rare for editors that have not spent a significant amount of time on Misplaced Pages to find cause to be involved in ArbCom proceedings. Editors that participate in AbrCom proceedings, regardless of the length of time they have spent on Misplaced Pages, should expect to receive a high level of scrutiny from the committee. While anyone with legitimate cause for concern will be heard, if the determination is made that an account was created solely to participate in an ArbCom case, it will be looked harshly upon."

Oh, and if this whole thing is your answer to the Chester Markel affair, I would advise you that if you think that this or any other action you take will stop things like that from happening, you are only fooling yourselves. People with that level of determination to cause disruption will jump though whatever hoops you place in order to cause said disruption. If anything, creating hoops like this will only backfire, because it will mean that when the editor does come to ArbCom, he will be much more of a known entity, and become that much harder to detect as a disruptive SPA. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea; it's elitest, it focuses inappropriately on edit-count, it alienates newer members of the community.  Chzz  ►  21:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So what would you propose to keep socks out of proceedings? Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Socks are already prohibited from commenting in arbitration pages.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What do I propose? I propose that you have the clerks look at everyone that isn't a staple of the community that posts at ArbCom. Just give them a solid once over, make sure that they seem above board, and then if they look like socks, ask for a CU. Posts by undesirables can be removed with an explanation. You know, due diligence? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A sock should be dealt with; recently, Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) phrased it well, as "put up or shut up" - in other words, if you think someone is a sock, either file SPI / block, or don't mention it. (apols; I can't remember exactly where xe said that, and am too lazy to find it) Chzz  ►  00:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is it puts the burden on parties to the case, some of whom may disagree with positions advocated by the new user. Having parties to the case accusing each other of being socks, and having to take time to find sufficient evidence to warrant an SPI or CU, would not be ideal. Rather than focusing on who is or isn't a sock, it may make more sense, as suggested below, to essentially limit participation in ArbCom cases to established or involved editors.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Instead of putting the burden on the editor with less than the required number of edits to contact ArbCom, one can let the clerk handle that part. So, if a new editor starts to participate in an ArbCom case, the clerk notifies ArbCom and then ArbCom looks into this and takes whatever action is necessary (e.g. checkuser tests and then approval or not based on that). For other editors the same action can also be taken, but only if some red flags are raised. In case of new editors, as a rule, ArbCom is always notified. Count Iblis (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Just because Misplaced Pages is the "encyclopedia everyone can edit" does not mean that everyone has something sensible to say about an Arbitration matter. Editors who are not involved in a dispute before arbitration and who nevertheless participate are in the same position as someone proffering an amicus brief to a court. (For involved I adopt the definition of either (1) a named party, or (2) have significant experience editing articles in the same topic area as the dispute, or (3) have significant experience interacting with the parties to the case.) Courts have the discretion to accept or refuse amicus participation and I do not think courts make a habit of accepting amicus briefs from individuals without standing or stake in the case other than wanting to be helpful. I think that Arbcom should have the discretion to refuse participation by uninvolved editors. There are several reasons for this, the two most common are participation by sock/good hand/bad hand/reincarnation accounts, and participation by inveterate busybodies. In the present instance, an account like Cbrick77, who has less than 250 edits, mostly trivial, who does not have a history of significant interaction with either of the parties, and no significant editing history in the topic area, is either a true newbie, a reincarnation, or an alternate good hand/bad hand account. True newbies are unlikely to be able to offer credible and informed participation, and there are many other areas in the dispute resolution process where they can go to test the waters. Reincarnated or alternate accounts are nominally banned from participating, but checkuser is far from a perfect tool, and can be fooled or avoided in more ways than I care to describe. I recall a few busybodies from my active days, whose participation almost always brought more drama and confusion and impeded the process. Arbcom has a history (albeit irregular) of banning highly vested busybodies from individual cases, but only after the damage they caused was biblical in scope and impossible to ignore. Building on the rationale for granting courts the discretion to accept or refuse amicus briefs, I suggest the following:

1. The clerks may remove, at their discretion and with the consent of any single arbitrator, evidence and workshop proposals from new editors who are uninvolved in the underlying dispute and who do not have experience editing the topic area of the case or interacting with the parties. The content will be posted to the user's talk page, where discussion may continue if people find it informative. Any other single arbitrator who finds the content useful may direct that it be restored to the case pages.

2 The clerks will remove, upon the direction of any three arbitrators, evidence and workshop proposals from "highly vested" or otherwise experienced editors if, in the judgement of the arbitrators, the evidence or proposals are seen as irrelevant or disruptive. The content will be posted to the user's talk page, where discussion may continue if people find it informative. If 3 or more arbitrators agree that the content should be restored, it shall be. (Yeah, this one is even more of a long shot than the other, but as long as I'm dreaming...) Thatcher 23:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering how very many secrets ArbCom seems to keep and how many more they make, this had better be on the record, i.e. "Arbs A, B, and C have signed off on the removal". Anything less will only feed the perpetual and surprisingly well justified conspiracy ArbCom-is-a-shadow-government arguments. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I really tried to avoid posting to this thread, and I'm sorry, but yea .. I think there's a LOT of merit to what Sven says here. This arbcom is going to pass a motion that limits who can and can not post to them? ... REALLY? ... Just WOW!!!. And you wonder why the community is feeling such a disconnect with you guys eh? All I can say is that to this one editor, it sure gives me the impression of "Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely". I'm just sayin folks, I'd really think this over real hard if I were you. — Ched :  ?  01:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing extraordinary about the idea of limiting a dispute resolution procedure to those who are members of the dispute. That's already the practice with mediation.   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The motion was entirely limited to who can post in any given case: that is, all named parties and established editors with a track record of appropriately positive contributions. No one is suggesting that low-edit users be prevented from seeking their own recourse to arbcom, either in public or in private, just that by default they would be excluded from proceedings without a clear rationale for their participation. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Humph. While I sympathize with the desire to avoid sock trolling in Arbcom proceedings, this is not the way to do it. For the determined socker, it is easy to rack up any number of minor edits with enough dedication. Yet thoughtful, even longstanding editors may trundle along quite slowly in terms of editcount. Now, certain processes on Misplaced Pages require simple rules due to the immediacy of the effect (e.g. autoconfirmed status) or automation and confidentiality (e.g. elections), but a (some would say painfully) slow process like arbitration proceedings are not one of them. For my part, I have been a low-level active participant on en:wp for 6 years, racking up 750 edits sometime in 2010 and 1000 edits just a few months ago. I would feel sad that my participation in workshop or evidence pages is unwelcome - it has not been extensive, but I could point to a few cases in early 2010 when I think it was helpful rather than harmful - and I would also feel sad for yet more community emphasis on "experience point gathering" rather than being a smart a thoughtful editor. I think a much better approach is as mentioned by others above - to police and remove the evidence and workshop pages for unhelpful contributions. Those pages are intended to help arbcom reach a better decision, and their parallel talk pages are the corresponding "free speech zone" (with restrictions). I will of course accept if I (or by the current proposal I-minus-18-months) am excluded from participation, but will regret it. Martinp (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@ Will ... hmmm, I could see that much easier than some arbitrary edit count limit. A very valid point indeed. Martin, good points as well. (and yes by the way, I do see there are quite a number of current arbs opposed to this as well, and I apologize if I appeared to paint with to wide a brush) — Ched :  ?  02:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ched, you may also want to look at things from the point of view of the parties. Do you want to have to defend yourself from evidence and harsh sanction proposals offered by an apparent newbie editor who seems to be out to get you, and who might just possibly be an old or even banned opponent hiding under a new name? There needs to be some way to limit participation when called for. A bright-line edit count may not be the best way, but other proposals (such as having the clerks act on their own) won't work without backup from Arbcom. This is a good conversation either way. Thatcher 02:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I do understand what you're saying Thatcher, and that's a valid point. However, I'd be fine with simply letting my edits and actions stand as my defense in such a case. It's not hard to see what someone types or does here, and if we're to trust AC to determine a measure of remedy in a dispute; then I think we must also implicitly trust them to view the evidence objectively. If a "sock" comes into play, we have WP:SPI to look to. If someone says I said or did something wrong, then I say .. please provide the diff. There's already such a huge divide between the factions here: (editor/admin/crat/arb) that I think we need to consider lessening that divide, and I don't think this motion does that. — Ched :  ?  02:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ched, from your contribs it appears you have only participated in one Arbitration case. This is a good thing -- it will keep you sane and happy. But I don't think you have a good appreciation for how disruptive some contributors can be. Or how claiming one's opponent is sock can be turned against a person. And you should be aware that from my long experience as a checkuser, the checkuser tool only catches sockpuppet users who are stupid or lazy. It's great for finding and blocking the IPs of casual vandals. But if you want to conduct a long term campaign of harassment against someone, and ultimately provoke them to doing something to get them banned or placed on probation, it only requires a modest investment of time and thought to create undetectable bad hand accounts. Thatcher 02:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) I think a point to keep in mind here is that the edit count is an imperfect measure, but that the only effect is that it changes the presumption: arbitrators (and clerks, on their behalf) already have the ability to exclude nonconstructive participation. What this motion proposes is simply that if you have less than x experience, you should ask before you involve yourself in arbitration where you are not involved as a party. (The presumption being that if you are an experienced contributor you know better than willingly stick your fingers in that gearbox if you don't have to).

This isn't an onerous requirement for a well-intended contributor, but it insures that any "new" editor receives minimal scrutiny. — Coren  02:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

But the proposal does not say "if you have less than x experience", it says "if you have less than x edits" which is not at all the same thing. I understand it is impossible to assess 'experience', and how challenging it is to deal with persistent sock-puppetry; however, the formulation of this proposal is further alienating the community from arbcom, and that's a serious concern. I wonder if other measures would be more appropriate - I'd actually like to see us enforce a more clear 'innocent until proven guilty' policy, because AGF does not seem to apply in these cases; in particular, users who frequently deal with socking concerns naturally tend to forget that we must step carefully. What I would like is, for us to consider accusations of sock-puppetry without evidence and without launching an SPI (or an admin blocking the user as they consider it self-evident), to be considered a form of personal attack, and simply removed.  Chzz  ►  12:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Coren, if that is true, then wouldn't the duration of existence (or regular editing) be a better measure than number of edits, e.g. "be an active editor for 3 mos or more"? It's less about how many vandal reverts or spelling fixes you've made, and more about how many nasty conflicts you've had the misfortune to watch go by... (I'm slighly facetiously excluding article creation - our raison d'etre - since that may well generate only a small number of edits). I just fear x00 edits is less of an impediment to a dedicated sock/bad hand account than to a low-to-moderately active good contributor - and promotes editcountis to boot. Martinp (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There is some value to the concept of "longevity" but I don't know how to define it. For example, someone who makes 5 edits a day for 60 days in a row probably has more experience than someone who makes 50 vandal reverts on 6 different days over 6 months. An edit count is a crude filter, but anything more sophisticated is likely to require judgement and discretion. What I really want to see is the ability for clerks and arbitrators to have the discretion to exclude, on a case-by-case basis, individuals who (1) lack interaction with the parties, and who (2) lack experience editing the relevant topics, and (3) lack experience in the dispute resolution process. But of course, any exclusion rule based on discretion and case-by-case judgements will attract allegations of abuse and selective enforcement. There's probably no obviously best way to address the underlying concern identified here. Thatcher 15:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree that it is alienating the Community from ArbCom; if anything, both are on the same page on this issue. If nothing is done, what will result is a system where bans don't actually mean anything in practice (and thereby, it chips away at what it is the Community actually hoped to accomplish through "Banning policy"). That is neither what the Community wants, nor is it what the Committee wants. If the Community or Committee bans an individual, it is with the intention that the ban is not circumvented and that the system is not gamed in any way. Lately, the system is being gamed in various ways right across the project, and it has brought on the need to consider more proactive measures which will help enforce the bans and reduce the incentive to try to circumvent them. Accordingly, I applaud arbs for taking the initiative to try to address this issue, and the Committee should be encouraged to not let this rest until something is in place. This is a time where many of the vested contributors who were/are good at detecting this sort of thing have left, and will continue to leave (leaving a void which is becoming more understaffed with time), and some change is needed so that the system is in a better position to manage the relevant risks (and problems). I expect those who are opposing to actively look for a way to address the concerns rather than simply look the other way and express reluctance; if this was a century ago (in Misplaced Pages time), then it probably would not have sparked this response, but times have changed (and are continuing to change); playing a constant game of catch-up does not make for a good approach when it comes to the long-term future of the project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • One more argument in favor of some kind of exclusion rule. Arbitration is the last and most serious step in the dispute resolution process. Parties almost always end up with some kind of significant edition restriction. Even assuming that new accounts are legitimate newbies with an honest interest in dispute resolution, having them start on Arbitration cases would be like have a first-year law student give the closing argument in a capital case. Participating in a case, no matter how well-intentioned, is disrespectful to the parties who are facing topic bans, probation, and site bans. The newbie can read the policies but has never lived them. There are plenty of other pages where new accounts can gain experience in handling disputes where there is less at stake. Thatcher 15:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are assuming that an editor with few edits is a new editor. That is not always the case.  Chzz  ►  16:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You've lost the thread and need to circle back to the beginning of the thread. New accounts who are not new editors are already prohibited from participating...either they are reincarnations of banned users, or they are alternate accounts used to segregate their edits away from their main account, and this is a prohibited use in Arbitration. Experienced editors who want to comment in Arbitration cases are expected to use their main account so that they remain accountable for their participation. Thatcher 16:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What about e.g. Clean start?  Chzz  ►  17:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would such an account, if not directly involved in a dispute, want to involve themselves with an arbitration? The answer is that they wouldn't unless they fit one of the two categories of people who should be excluded (someone with prior involvement or a busybody). I think Thatcher's ideas are spot on here.Griswaldo (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole purpose of a clean start is that you don't involve yourself in old disputes. Read Misplaced Pages:Clean start. Thatcher 18:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone not directly involved in a dispute, want to involve themselves with an arbitration? Yet, it is permitted. And I didn't mention anything about an old dispute.  Chzz  ►  18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC) -Struck, please disregard that. I think I've made my point, and further responses from me here are unlikely to reach any conclusion; I'd prefer to end my participation in this discussion.  Chzz  ►  18:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thinking more about this, I think the Motion provides for a reasonable solution to the wrong problem. While socks may pose a problem in some ArbCom cases, a far bigger problem that affects almost all ArbCom cases is that disputes are personalized; editors tend to fight their battles during ArbCom case, making it hard to get to the bottom of the dispute(s). An effective way to address this would be to do the opposite: make it compulsory for each participant to edit under a new account that is exclusively used for the ArbCom case. At the start of the case, no one knows who is who, but that's then also irrelevant, because what matters is the presented evidence and the arguments presented during the Workshop.

During the case, the identities may become clear, but participants are not allowed to out themselves or others. The involved editors always have to be refered to in the third person. Count Iblis (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose well, it could be good in some ways, but if a person has evidence, its your duty to post it. ~~Ebe123~~ _Contribs 17:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that is concerns not just presenting evidence, but also posting, voting for, and commenting on workshop proposals. While evidence might be objective, workshop activity is almost always based on opinions. That's where the participation of socks and busybodies is especially unhelpful.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

See also: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Workshop#IP editors and socks on the Workshop.   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved: The user, who had an old account, signed his comments.   Will Beback  talk  07:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This incident is an example of the fact that IP editors participating in ArbCom cases will almost always have an existing account.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for a position which dictates that a person is breaching their duty if they do not present all evidence they have about a Misplaced Pages-related matter (by circumventing bans or otherwise indirectly encouraging users to act counter to the Community). The consensus view is that unless otherwise specified in the individual ban, when the individual lost his/her standing to participate on the project, he/her lost the standing to participate on arbitration on Misplaced Pages; such individuals may earn/re-gain standing - either after the ban has expired, or after making a successful appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just my personal opinion, but I don't see that the problem this is addressed at is amenable to or justifies a blanket prohibition. A legitimately new user coming along with something to say should be heard. A returning user coming along and hiding under a new account should be identified and blocked. There are certainly cases of the latter, but they can be dealt with. I strongly oppose this idea. Further, I think that Arbcom should put things like this to wider community vote rather than impose it from within. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This proposal does permit a legitimately new user to say something. The only additional requirement is that they must go to an arb beforehand so that an arb can help manage the risk which has apparently been poorly managed so far. I have little confidence that the whole banning exercise is productive if banned users are just going to be indirectly enabled to edit certain areas. And why? Because they do not get caught in our weak and limited enforcement mechanisms which, for some stupid reason, only revolve around blocking/sanctions (that give birth to trigger-happy problems). Proactive risk management, which would be beneficial, is virtually non-existent at present. I note that despite your/their apparent blocking abilities, it was neither the active administrators nor the clerks who addressed the most recent occurrence; it was an inactive arbitrator who addressed it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a chilling action on legitimate new users and a hurdle that seems inappropriate. Imho. I don't see it as appropriate to scare newbies off to prevent the narrow risk fraction this represents. Again, Imho.

Regarding who addressed what - lack of awareness of the problem is everything. There are many many things going on every day that I would act upon if I were aware of it. How many people were aware before it was actioned? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Prefer, if possible, to allow Arbitration Clerks the ability to grant an editor the ability to give evidence. - Penwhale | 07:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd buy that modification, that any arb or any clerk can grant permission. Goodness knows we trust our clerks with far more weighty matters on a routine basis, and with good cause. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Final motion text and arbitrators' vote

For this motion, there are 16 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 9 votes are a majority.

That no editor with less than 1000 750 edits may give evidence or may make workshop proposals unless they (i) are either a party to the relevant case or (ii) have been expressly authorised by an arbitrator to give evidence or make workshop proposals by the Arbitration Committee.

Support

1.  Roger Davies 16:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Support, with the proviso that a 'newer' editor may request permission to participate. I anticipate that such permission would be granted fairly liberally to editors whose editing history is focused on any topic area relevant to the particular case; or if they have made edits periodically over an extended period. Note that there is no prohibition for these editors to comment on the various talk pages. Risker (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
3. I'm not sure that a 1000 edit cap works as a bright line, but I understand the purpose of higher barrier of entry. We just need to make sure no good-faith editors are harmed by this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
4. There's been a concerted effort on the part of one or more parties to disrupt the arbitration process. While continually playing whack-a-mole with sock blocking is one method (that currently keeps our clerks and CU's busy), I would prefer an approach like this that provides a barrier to uninvolved "newbie" accounts participating. Yes, this would be prior restraint, but given that nerves and tempers are already frayed by the time folks arrive at ArbCom, I think we owe our named parties a break from such agents provocateur. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
5. With the understanding that said permission will be liberally granted to editors who have been around productively for a while regardless of exact number of edits. The point isn't to exclude infrequent contributors but to reduce the incentive to sock in order to disrupt a case or to avoid scrutiny. I would prefer a tweak to read "expressly authorized by an arbitrator" so as to avoid the need (real or perceived) for a whole motion or full-committee vote, however. — Coren  20:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

   Two tweaks made: 1) reduce to 750 edits and 2) any arbitrator can authorize. People may feel free to revert. Risker (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

   Copy-edit: removed the "by the Arbitration Committee"

6. non-parties are still permitted to participate on the talk pages. John Vandenberg 00:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too stringent. I think generally that if someone has valid evidence to give, they should be able to give them. SirFozzie (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

   But they can do so if they can show ArbCom they have valid things to say.  Roger Davies 17:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

   I'd prefer to assume that they have valid things to say, rather then presume they don't. SirFozzie (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Don't understand where the figure of 1000 edits comes from. I'd be prepared to support if we made the threshold the same as the minimum to vote in ArbCom elections. Or in other words, I'm unclear why the threshold to vote in elections should be lower than the threshold to participate in a case. PhilKnight (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

   Short answer. Plucked out of thin air. Feel free to copy-edit, with a lower figure :)  Roger Davies 18:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

   Have copy edited down to 750 edits - again out of thin air. Risker (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

3. That would probably have formed an initial bar on myself becoming involved in the Ottava case, and it may have made it unlikely that I'd bother. The issue is with sox, rather than newbie editors. Why not have a motion that actually references this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
4. I understand the reasons this motion has been proposed. Some new editors (whether genuinely new or unannounced returnees) have had a negative impact on the process in recent cases, and we now have to continually be on the lookout for socks of John254. (It is an interesting question whether John254 started out as the troll he has become, or whether he started out genuinely interested in improving standards of behavior on Misplaced Pages. There are a few editors who have the capability of acting as in effect "prosecutors" without being obnoxious and counterproductive about it—Thatcher was one—but most of the time the most useful evidence comes from parties to the dispute or from experienced editors who tried unsuccessfully to settle the dispute.) That being said, there have been valuable evidence and proposals presented by newcomers as well—I found the arbitration pages fairly early in my own editing career, and don't think I would have reacted well to being shoo'd away from them—and I'm always reluctant to impose too many limits on who can do what within the project based upon tenure. I'll be willing to reevaluate this proposal in a couple of months, however, if problems of this nature continue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
5. Arbitrary edit count thresholds are merely arbitrary thresholds, nothing more. If the intent is to prevent sockpuppets from participating in cases, then let's do so directly, rather than by trying to prevent "new" editors from taking part in general. Kirill  22:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
6. Would prefer to find another way to address this problem. –xeno 02:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

Arbitrator abstention votes

Background

The use of abstention in arbitrator voting has been causing elements of arbitration cases and motions to technically pass or fail while the abstain section contains many arbitrator votes consisting of comments heavily leaning for or against. The Arbitration Committee needs to review its use of abstention in order to ensure that the committee position on an issue is clear and that they have the requisite support to provide legitimacy for that position. Initiating arbitrator: John Vandenberg 11:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

General discussion

• Well, I probably would have gone for discussion before writing motions, but meh. My own preference would be a separate section for each voting proposal called "Comments" where arbitrators who are not yet ready to cast a vote, or who have a broader question about a specific point, could comment. Placing these in the "abstain" column has an adverse effect on the outcome of a vote, in that it reduces the level of support required for a vote to pass. I would go so far as to say that we need to examine whether or not to permit any proposal to pass with less support than the majority of active arbitrators, so that we do not have a perverse outcome such as we very nearly had with the "public email list" vote. I also call upon my colleagues to commit themselves to either supporting or opposing motions more regularly, and eschewing abstention in almost all cases. Risker (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  I am happy to remove the motions if you think they are distracting. I hope that arbitrators can commit to either one of those. Of course the recent overuse of abstain can be curbed without these procedure changes, however arbs would soon fall back to using abstains again in order to avoid hurting anyones feelings. I agree that we should look at minimum support levels here, as abstentions are the reason this fluctuates and falls to ridiculous levels. The related procedures are Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Committee_resolutions and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Voting_on_proposed_decisions. We can either say 'abstain' votes do not count for the total, or that a vote doesnt pass without a minimum level of support. (slightly different results) IMO the minimum level is the right way to go, and it should be a percentage of all non-recused arbs, including inactive arbs. If we have a bunch of arbs become inactive, the rest need to put in the time to vote. John Vandenberg 03:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  My concern is that the proposed motions would force an arbitrator to simply not vote on a particular item if they were not willing to support or oppose, which will hold up voting and potentially prevent items from being passed. –xeno 12:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  (snicker) that does kind of defeat the purpose of removing abstentions, doesn't it? I am much, much more in favor of a per-item quorum, even as high as half the non-recused, non-inactive arbs... but to require an absolute majority rather than a plurality is dooming many things to non-resolution, and is completely unworkable in any motion where there are more than two competing choices... unless we go back and actually establish how our tiebreaking amongst multiple passing competitive motions works. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  Oddly enough, Xeno, I don't think it is necessarily bad that comparatively unsupported matters fail to pass. I would much rather see a proposal "die on the paper" than pass one that, for example, sanctions a user, or has broad longterm implications because people were unwilling to try to work together to find a better solution. We're supposed to be modeling effective dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  #Motion 5 Add a "Not voting" section for arbitrators to signify they reviewed the element and do not wish to change the voting count or calculation, along with whatever comments they had about how the item could be improved. We should also take each other up on the suggestion to copy edit directly; with a note explaining changes. –xeno 02:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is important to consider how Abstentions affect the overall count and process. Please allow me to make an example: If there are 17 ARBs and 1 Supports and 16 Abstain, I believe that a motion (or anything other than something requiring "4 Net") would pass in this case. I would recommend something that has the effect of "any measure with at least 1/4 or maybe 1/3 of the active, non-recused ARBs abstaining remains in a voting state of not yet having achieved consensus". My wording might be awkward here, but hopefully the "jist" of what I am suggesting is understood. --After Midnight 20:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators' vote

Motion 1

That Arbitration Committee members should not use abstain votes as a vehicle for comment.

For this motion, there are 16 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 9 votes are a majority.

Support

1. Cases are often about shades of grey. It is probably much more useful to deliver clarity in principles, findings and remedies than to present a spectrum of perhaps conflicting views that pass with a much lower threshold. Decisions which pass with a low number of supports because of the high number of abstentions somehow lack the legitimacy of committee consensus. The solution is probably to amend the decision to see what will pass.  Roger Davies 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Largely per Roger Davies. If a motion does not enjoy the active support of a majority of active non-recused arbitrators it should not pass, regardless of which venue the motion is proposed; in fact, that is already the standard for any committee resolutions that are proposed on the arbitration wiki. A "comment" section should be added to our standard voting format, where arbitrators should feel welcome to comment. It is clear from many of the comments made in abstention votes that the arbitrator does not support the motion as proposed; however, by abstaining, the net result is to lower the threshold for passing a motion that the abstaining arbitrator does not support. Risker (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
3. John Vandenberg 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think it's useful. Sometimes we want to be recognized as not supporting things, while not standing in the way of others if you are in the minority... for example in the public mailing list vote, several indicated that they were not willing to use the public mailing list for various reasons, but not standing in the way of others if they wanted to try it. Is it being over used? Possibly. But that's a behavioral thing, and something that can be restrained without taking the option away. SirFozzie (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
2. I use abstention votes in a way that exactly matches their effect: when I do not support a measure, but will defer to the majority of my colleagues. Those tend to be, by nature, the more ambiguous or complicated votes and thus the ones I am most likely to detail my reasoning or comment in detail. — Coren  11:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
3. Per SirFozzie and Coren. PhilKnight (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
4. This is unenforceable as written. Kirill  00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
5. I was tempted to abstain on this motion as an illustration of self-reference, but I won't. Instead, I will oppose the motion as being a bit overbroad—but I will simultaneously confess that on reflection, I have probably cast many too many abstention votes in my time on the committee, and I hereby vow to do so less often. That being said, as I have explained to my colleagues before, when I (and I believe when other arbitrators) abstain on an item, it can generally mean one or more of the following:

   (a) I'm really not sure how I feel about this proposal.

   (b) There is an aspect of the proposal that I agree with, so I don't want to oppose it, but there's another aspect I disagree with, so I don't want to support it. (E.g., "User:X has done A and B" if I believe he did A but not B.)

   (c) I agree with the general substance of the proposal, but I don't like the wording.

   (d) I agree that the substance of the proposal is factually accurate, but I don't think it rises to the level of being worth writing up in an arbitration decision.

   (e) (more rarely) I'm recusing myself in one particular aspect of the case, but not the whole case.

   As I seek to cast fewer abstention votes going forward, I think the rare occasions of (a) and (e) won't be affected. For (b), (c), and (d) what would probably happen is that I would wind up proposing alternatives to the proposals as posted. I've been hesitant to do too much of that because having too many alternatives all over the proposed decisions page delays voting and closing out the case (especially if an alternative goes up after some of the arbs have already voted), plus creates first/second choice issues sometimes, plus (frankly) risks annoying the drafting arbitrator if someone proposes alternative wording to half the paragraphs in the decision—but it might make sense to do it more than we have been doing. I may also do a bit more consensual copyediting (e.g., voting with a note "copyedits - drafter or anyone revert if you disagree") where the change is relatively minor, or voting with the note "I propose a copyedit to such-and-such" if the drafter agrees (but then the question is what if some other arb who voted for the original wording prefers it better than the edited one). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

6. A less strenuous oppose than to the rejiggering the voting, but an oppose nevertheless. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose. I certainly agree with Risker and Roger that abstains can be occasionally problematic, but this isn't the solution. As Brad alludes, arbs being more proactive in alternate motions to appeal to everyone might be one option that would be more effective. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
8. –xeno 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

Motion 2

That where Arbitration Committee members make comments to accompany abstain votes, the comments should be limited to providing a rationale for the abstention (for instance, to recuse on a particular aspect of a case).

For this motion, there are 16 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 9 votes are a majority.

Support

1. With a slight system change, perhaps introducing a comments/discussion section in difficult votes to see where consensus lies, we should be able to reduce the need to abstain considerably.  Roger Davies 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Per Roger Davies; however, abstentions are different from recusals, and recusals for a particular question should be listed separately. Risker (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
3. John Vandenberg 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per Motion 1. SirFozzie (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Also per 1. — Coren  11:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
3. Again, per motion 1. PhilKnight (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
4. Given the lack of any clear definition for what "a rationale for the abstention" might comprise, I expect this would merely cause everyone to frame their comments in the form of a rationale, while doing nothing to restrict the substance of the comments themselves. Kirill  00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
5. See my comments on motion 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
6. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
7. I guess my concerns for motion 1 extend to this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
8. –xeno 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

Motion 3

A motion will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. This applies to both motions proposed as part of an arbitration case and those proposed independent of any arbitration case, with the exception of a motion to close an arbitration case, and is applicable regardless of the venue in which the motion was proposed.

Rationale: Brings the same standard to any other motion as is already in place forcommittee resolutions proposed on the arbitration wiki. Motions should not pass absent a majority support. Abstentions should not result in the passing of motions that do not enjoy the support of the majority of the committee.

For this motion, there are 16 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 9 votes are a majority.

Support

1. As proposer. Risker (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
2. I can go with this. If there isn't a majority, then those who abstain with comments will have to move one way or the other. This should limit excessive abstentions. SirFozzie (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
3. John Vandenberg 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
4. This would simplify how we calculate votes and make arbitration cases more accessible to observers. PhilKnight (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Prefer 3a. Kirill  00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
2. I worry that this will increase delays beyond their already erratic level. I would very much agree that this should be a requirement for the (comparatively rare) process change vote (like this one would be, for instance) but "normal" case and incident handling is would almost certainly be crippled by this for no perceptible benefit. — Coren  01:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
3. This makes an abstention the same as an oppose. That's not the right outcome, although I can see requiring a quorum of arbs participating (neither abstaining, recused, or simply failing to vote) in order for a motion to carry. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not understanding this rationale. This is the process by which we approve motions on the arbwiki already; why should onwiki motions be held to a lower standard? Further, if one cannot bring oneself to support a motion, why should one's "vote" lower the threshold for support? Having spent the last few years reading all the votes, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that almost all abstentions indicate an opposition to at least some element of the motion or proposal; from that perspective, they are oppose votes being counted as support votes. Risker (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   Rather, they're neutral votes being used to reduce the number of votes in play. Consider a hypothetical committee of 13: 5 support, 2 oppose, 2 recuse, 2 explicitly abstain, and 2 don't bother voting but aren't inactive.

   Step 1: remove the recusals. That gives us a field of 11 (5 support, 2 oppose, 2 abstain, 2 don't vote), where the supports don't pass.

   Step 2a: Under the current de-facto on-wiki system, we remove the abstentions from consideration, such that now 9 arbs are considered--5 support, 2 oppose, 2 don't bother voting--which nets a barely pass, even though only 2 arbs opposed.

   Step 2b: Under the proposed system, abstains would move either to oppose, support, or don't vote. Assume for the sake of argument they don't want to either support or oppose and so simply don't vote. Thus we would have a field of 11 (5 support, 2 oppose, 4 don't vote) and the motion would fail, even though the numerical vote is 5:2 in favor of the motion.

   If anything, the "we need a few more people to vote!" hubbub that goes on in the list demonstrates that the last votes to be cast are the most reluctant. I suspect if we asked, they'd probably generally admit to being of the lowest quality, reflecting the least arb effort in evaluating the positions. That's just a supposition based on my own biases, and might be completely wrong. Thus, I think it's far more intellectually honest to let arbs abstain when they think it appropriate and let pluralities carry the day. I'd still support an absolute majority for fundamental changes in operating procedures, but for day-to-day cases and motions... reality is that everyone can't keep up with everything all the time, and making everything but a support or a recusal for cause into an oppose is not the way to get anything done. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   Jclemens, we nearly had a motion pass just the other day specifically because of the number of abstentions, on a process that would have fundamentally changed the operations of the committee, and which not a single arbitrator was stepping up to take responsibility for actually trying to make work; all but one of them read as oppose votes, as most abstention votes do. (The one that didn't read like an oppose vote was simply a signature.) The use of abstentions instead of trying to find a middle ground, or to improve a motion, thus leaving the committee (and community) with an approved proposal that not even half the committee thought was a good enough idea to support is very difficult to justify. Other motions could result in sanctions on individual users or topic areas, and again it is difficult to justify this without the support of at least half the committee. I agree with Coren that we really have to get hardline about enforcing our inactivity processes (and arbitrators need to take more personal responsibility for making it clear they are inactive). How is it good for a dispute resolution decision to proceed without at lesat majority support? Risker (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   Hard cases make bad law. Rather than focusing on that one event--which I agree was an unhealthy outcome in that case--how about we go back and look at the regular case motions throughout this year would have failed? I am perfectly fine with routine matters (in which I include desysops and bans--those being within the specific scope of the committee) being supported by half the committee who cares, rather than an absolute half of the committee less recusals. In a perfect world, the entire committee would always care, but my experience on the committee to date has shown that there are always a few arbs who don't vote in a timely manner, which turns your proposed requirement of an absolute half of the committee into a de facto supermajority of those who care. I don't think it's feasible to make arbs care about everything on our plate all the time, and I'd rather have a simple majority vote by those who have taken the time to inform themselves and vote appropriately than to require a bunch of me-too votes from un- or under-interested arbitrators. Consider this, then, a vote for having things handled by a majority vote of self-selected subset of arbs, somewhat as had been proposed by other members who advocated delineating the committee into multiple subgroups... only I'm OK with a fluid redefinition of those subgroups on a case-by-case and motion-by-motion basis. Jclemens (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   There have been a couple of things in the past year that have passed absent a majority, including this recent finding of fact; that is two in a matter of a few weeks. The purpose of raising this now is that, until this year, abstentions were fairly uncommon, perhaps one or two in an entire case. Their usage has progressively changed in the last six months, and it's time to nip this in the bud before we start sanctioning people with what, to almost any non-arbitrator, would appear to be insufficient support. In other words, we've been heading down this path for a while, and we need to correct. As to your point about un- or under-interested arbitrators, in my view this is mainly a self-discipline issue, and I would strongly encourage our colleagues to realistically assess their availability on a case-by-case basis and to position themselves as inactive if they have reason to believe they'll have difficulty keeping up with a case or voting in a timely way. I would also encourage the case clerk to move an arbitrator to inactive status if they have not edited the wiki within the 7 days prior to a PD being posted. Risker (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   That's fine, but that's not what I asked: how many passing remedies, findings, etc. would have failed had abstentions not reduced the need for a majority? I'm sure I don't have time to go through all that right now, but what you're pointing out is only half the projected effect of the change. While I agree arbs should be disciplined, I don't think compelling votes on everything or nothing will have the desired effect. I expect more arbs will be more inactive on more cases, and thus we'll still have about the same net levels of support for passing motions. If we agree to try a self-discipline approach, per NYB below, and that still doesn't work, I'll be more willing to support such a measure, but I don't think we've exhausted that option yet. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   Just to be clear, Jclemens, that passed with 5 supports, 2 opposes and 5 abstentions (most of which were worded as at least partial opposes). There was an impact in that the subject of the finding has elected to retire, at least in part in relation to this vote. I don't have any problem at all with the notion of having only 9 or 10 arbitrators active on a case; such cases often move more quickly, in fact. However, I don't think that assigned teams are a good idea either. Risker (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

4. The concerns discussed above that motivated motions 1 and 2 have been widely recognized by most of us, to the point that I believe there will be fewer abstentions on future motions and proposals than there have been in the past (certainly fewer by me), and a greater number of attempts to improve proposals about which arbitrators have mixed feelings as opposed to the casting of lukewarm abstain votes. If this indeed occurs, then the problem this motion seeks to address may be mitigated without a change in the actual voting rules. I'd be willing to reevaluate this proposal a little bit down the trail once we see how things are working out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
5. Per my concern above - forcing either 'support', 'oppose', or 'recuse' will mean arbitrators may simply neglect to vote on motions/proposals/case elements/etc. that they cannot bring themselves to support or oppose. And as Jclemens notes, "to require an absolute majority rather than a plurality is dooming many things to non-resolution". I thought that following the internal discussion on this subject, we had reached an understanding to simply abstain less when we really meant to support or oppose, and I think it appropriate to see if that resolves the concern prior to making changes of this nature. –xeno 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

   If a number of arbitrators cant bring themselves to support or oppose, non-resolution is appropriate. John Vandenberg 02:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

Motion 3a

A motion will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. This applies to both motions proposed as part of an arbitration case and those proposed independent of any arbitration case, and is applicable regardless of the venue in which the motion was proposed.

Rationale: As for Motion 3, but removes the special rules for motions to close. There is no reason why what is essentially a motion to limit debate should have a lower threshold than the other motions.

For this motion, there are 16 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 9 votes are a majority.

Support

1. As proposer. Kirill  00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Second choice. A bit worried that this might delay the closing of a case, but see Kirill's point as well. Risker (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. For the same reason as proposal 3. — Coren  01:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Net Four works fine to close cases. SirFozzie (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
3. For the same reasons as 3, above. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
4. Net Four works reasonably well. This would encourage arbs to vote on the closure before other arbitrators have finished voting. I think we do need to review the closure process separately, and look at options like preventing motion to close votes until after the voting has stablised so that arbitrators are approving the combined decision which has majority support. John Vandenberg 08:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
5. Net 4 seems to work ok, and in the context of complaints of how slow arbitration can be, this could make arbitration even slower. PhilKnight (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
6. Same comments and caveat as on motion 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
7. Per my comments on motion 3. –xeno 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

Motion 4

A proposal made as part of a proposed decision will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators.

Rationale: Brings the same standard to proposals made as part of a proposed decision as is already in place for committee resolutions proposed on the arbitration wiki. Proposals should not pass absent a majority support. Abstentions should not result in the passing of proposals that do not enjoy the support of the majority of the committee.

For this motion, there are 16 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 9 votes are a majority.

Support

1. As proposer. Risker (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
2. John Vandenberg 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
3. Now that the question below has been settled. SirFozzie (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
4. Agree that sometimes there are situations where arbitrators need to recuse from a portion of a case. PhilKnight (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
5. Kirill  00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
6. I can live with that, even if that means that this will increase committee inertia to a point; but this makes it critical that we are more diligent in assessing activity levels. — Coren  00:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
7. I think this is a better approach than the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

:#Ugh, I want to support, but I cannot. Here, as part of the PD we may have people who are active on most of the case but abstain/recuse from a specific part of the case for a good reason. With a motion, we can just say recuse, here, we can't. I hope that if this passes, we will allow arbitrators to mark an abstention as a recusal and that WOULD lower the level required needed to pass the proposal. That would allow folks to participate without causing the percentage to go higher (suddenly you need 9 of 15 instead of 9 of 16 for example, if someone abstained) SirFozzie (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

SirFozzie, recusal is an entirely different concept than abstention. Recusals are generally made on some form of ethical basis, and should continue entirely as they are now. That is why I deliberately excluded recused arbitrators; people can recuse proposal by proposal as required. We have had several cases where arbitrators recused with respect to one party while voting on proposals relating to other parties, and this has been widely accepted by both the committee and the community. Risker (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just being sure, right now, we normally have Support, Oppose and Abstain in our PD, as long as it's well settled that a recusal will be treated as such (and lowers the majority needed), I have no problem with this. SirFozzie (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I do not believe this is appropriate, per my opposition to 3 and 3a. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Same comments and caveat as on motion 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
3. Per my comments on motion 3. –xeno 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

Motion 5

That a section entitled "Not voting" be used in addition to 'Abstain'; to comment or signify that the arbitrator has reviewed the motion and does not wish to alter the voting count or calculation method.

For this motion, there are 16 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 9 votes are a majority.

Support

1. Proposed. –xeno 02:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Unless I've misunderstood, this would be abstaining by another name. I'd rather keep the "abstain" column and that it is used sparingly. John Vandenberg 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

   This would be different because it would not change the majority count. Some arbitrators are presently using the "Abstain" column, when they actually mean to comment about the proposal itself. If they don't make it back in time for the case to close, we run into situations suchlike the recent finding. –xeno 02:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

   Woops. I didn't write what I meant. I've fixed it now. –xeno 02:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Abtain

Comments