| Revision as of 20:15, 6 January 2012 editSteven Crossin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users39,753 edits →Replies to arbitrator comments: @SilkTork← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012 edit undoRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits dpuble redir | ||
| (855 intermediate revisions by 85 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #REDIRECT ] | ||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> | |||
| = {{-}}{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment|Requests for amendment|]}} = | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| == Request to amend prior case: Abortion == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> '''at''' 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Abortion}} | |||
| ; Clauses to which an amendment is requested | |||
| # | |||
| ; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment | |||
| * {{userlinks|Steven Zhang}} (initiator) | |||
| ; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request | |||
| * All parties have been notified on their talk page. | |||
| ===Amendment 1=== | |||
| * That the remedy be vacated and replaced with a ]. | |||
| ==== Statement by Steven Zhang ==== | |||
| It's no coincidence that I am filing this request only just after the start of the new year, that was my intentions, as I wanted the new committee to be able to consider this. I've been discussing it with arbitrator ] over the past few weeks (). In short, remedy 5.1 would be vacated, and a structured discussion would be opened, similar to the structure suggested in the remedy. The difference here is that it is a community process. Instead of being closed by administrators appointed by the committee, three editors would close the discussion, an admin, someone who has knowledge in the area (for example in this situation, a member from WikiProject Medicine) and a user experienced in dispute resolution. This is somewhat similar to the in terms of structure. Once the discussion has closed, it would be logged at the arbitration case as well as ]. | |||
| A few things need to be considered here. I think that this kills a few birds with a single stone. It empowers the community to resolve these disputes, and addresses the idea of "ArbCom doesn't touch content disputes" which may have been the partial cause for delay in this arbitration case. I also note that the discussion by ArbCom has not been set up yet, whether due to lack of interest or the holiday season, the discussion still needs to take place. | |||
| The proposal I made (], though the name isn't quite right) is currently under discussion at the ], though discussion has been slow. It really needs a test case, and I think that this would fit perfectly. I'm happy to work with ArbCom to set up the discussion (though I will not take much part in the actual discussion as a party of the case) but I do think that this would be a win-win situation. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| =====Replies to arbitrator comments===== | |||
| @Risker, I disagree that the proposal has received no support. Discussion has been slow at the Village Pump, but there has also been expressions of support on the proposal talk page. It's the lack of participation that is the issue, which is why I discussed the possibility of this remedy being handled by the community as a test case. As for how the remedy is inadequate, well, I don't mean to be rude, but the remedy states that '''"A structured discussion on the names of the...abortion articles shall begin following the conclusion of this case and continue for one month thereafter."''' This structured discussion has yet to even be created, let alone the discussion started, and this is possibly due to a lack of interest within the committee, as arbitrator Casliber noted. It appears that from the case decision as well as the PD talk page that Cas was the drafter of remedy 5.1 and was the one that was going to set up the structured discussion, so while indeed it was with the consent of only one arbitrator that I came here, I figured it was the one that counted. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Anthony, <s>will do the notifying in the morning</s> All parties notified. As for the remedy being inadequate, I do not mean to be disrespectful, but the case took over three months to be resolved, and I know that the internal discussion on how to deal with the article names was a factor in this. The discussion proposed in remedy 5.1 has yet to take place, and I feel that this process can word. It would be carefully observed by the committee (and likely by many others), and id expect nothing less. I apologise if I came off as rude. I have a vested interest here, that the process I am proposing be used is one I have developed myself, but I think since little has happened thus far, then it might as well be dealt with this way. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Jclemens, I came here after it was suggested by Cas. I can say little more except to suggest you read over the thread on their talk page which I linked to. I think that explains it better than I could, and I'd rather not take Casliber's comments out of context. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @SilkTork, the main problem I'm facing here is apathy, or lack of awareness. Participation in the discussion at VP has been low, so I was thinking that a test case could work, and this situation is an ideal one. I'll see if I can get a watchlist notice to get more participation. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 20:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| =====Replies to parties===== | |||
| @Binksternet, nothing in remedy 5.1 has even happened yet. My proposal in this case is simple. Instead of a structured discussion where ArbCm would set up the discussion and appointed admins by the committee close the discussion, as a community (but in this case guided by the committee) would partake in a structure discussion, and three admins would close the discussion. There's really little difference, apart from it giving the ''community'' the power to resolve content disputes like Abortion, and possibly others like Senkaku Islands, Muhammad etc.<font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Nyyankee, eh, I see the participation of disinterested people as necessary in the process, but agree that the discussion could turn into a vote if it is not watched carefully. That said, the structure of the discussion would have two parts, part one is where users would present evidence for their proposed title. This would be in the form of policy, backed up with other evidence. No other discussion would take place at this stage. Then, after a period of time, an ] discussion would take place, where users would "vote" on their preferred title, with reasoning e.g. "I prefer the titles of pro-life and pro-choice movements as the titles and this is supported by X policy which is backed up by Y sources" or something like that. It's strength of argument that will be weighed at the close, which will be done by three users, so it is more likely that the outcome will be a fair one, and weigh comments, as opposed to doing a raw number count. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 19:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Eraserhead1 ==== | |||
| The three editors close thing (as well as presenting a strong evidence based case) was also done at ] and seems to have been relatively successful. | |||
| All in all this is probably needed, there seems no other sane way to solve these kind of disputes beyond the creation of ] which never seems to get anywhere - or letting Arbcom do it, which has a lot of opposition and is probably bad. While you may be able to blame me for pushing a couple of cases in your direction we've just had abortion which needs this and we're dealing with Muhammad now which has similar issues which need a binding resolution. And we've also had Senkaku Islands very recently as well. | |||
| We probably have a whole bunch more cases like them that people have failed to escalate elsewhere on the project, I mean Muhammad got to half a million words before any serious escalation was done, that's insane. Discussions of that length basically prevent everyone from taking part - so people with families and stuff like that as they literally don't have the time. That isn't good. -- ] <]> 20:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Binksternet ==== | |||
| I see no reason to replace Remedy 5.1 which was painfully obtained after much discussion and consideration. A test case for new practices should be found elsewhere. ] (]) 04:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by NYyankees51 ==== | |||
| I see benefits and a possible detriment to this - The benefit is that this is a much simpler process and easier to understand and participate in, and it allows for consensus, not a majority vote. The negative is that it might make it too easy for disinterested people or meatpuppets to come in and say "Yes per above", and that would skew the vote. I think I would support this; I'll see what others think. ] (]) 17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Anthony Appleyard==== | |||
| After wading through much text, I get the impression that, in summary, the topic to be discussed is "''In this case, as with ] and some others, discussion goes on endlessly and never comes to a decision. Therefore, let one neutral man be appointed to make a final ruling.''". Please, is that correct? ] (]) 06:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by other editor ==== | |||
| === Further discussion === | |||
| :''Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.'' | |||
| ==== Statement by yet another editor ==== | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| :''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| ==== Arbitrator views and discussion ==== | |||
| * '''Recuse''' on the specific case, but I will add some general comments. It is my firm belief that Arbcom decisions (or portions thereof) should not be overturned unless there is a clear '''need''' to do so. What is being proposed here is the ''preference'' of a single user, and it is not rooted in policy but is instead based on a suggested change in practice that has received almost no support. There is no indication that this specific situation has been discussed anywhere other than a one-on-one discussion with an individual arbitrator. There is no indication that there is any support at any discussion pages related to this issue to change the decision made. I'd suggest that the Requests for Amendment page is not the appropriate "first stop" for this proposal. ] (]) 17:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * The original parties will please be notified of this amendment request. Steven, you will need to explain in what ways the final decision of ''Abortion'' is inadequate; at this point, I have no view. ] </nowiki>]] 17:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * I was unsure whether this needed a specific name or process that required an amendment as such, and would be content to have some three-admin closure of an extended discussion, if someone actually had an interest in chairing it. ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * I'm '''neutral''' on this one. I can see Steven Zhang's point, but I'd also like to see the remedy proceed as Cas articulated... just to see if it works as designed. ] (]) 04:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *The binding RFC idea is interesting, and as individual members of the community it would be appropriate for us to join the discussion and give our support if so inclined. Should we as a body support or oppose the idea? I don't think that would be appropriate while there's a community discussion in place. In addition, we are being asked to vacate a valid remedy with one that does not yet exist. If ] gets consensus, I can see it being proposed in future cases, and at that point it would be fully appropriate for ArbCom to consider using it - but this is '''too soon'''. ''']''' ''']''' 10:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012
Redirect to: