| Revision as of 10:55, 8 July 2012 view sourceSilkTork (talk | contribs)Administrators104,124 edits →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/4/1): commenting← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,350 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
| = <includeonly>]</includeonly> = | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| == Pending Changes RfC close == | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' —<font color="228B22">] ]</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> '''at''' 04:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| Due to the nature of the case, there are no "parties" per se. However, listed alongside me are the administrators who ultimately closed or oversaw the closing of the RfC, as listed on the page. | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Jéské Couriano}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{admin|The Blade of the Northern Lights}} | |||
| *{{admin|Fluffernutter}} | |||
| *{{admin|DeltaQuad}} | |||
| *{{admin|Thehelpfulone}} | |||
| *{{admin|Beeblebrox}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| *Thehelpfulone: | |||
| *DeltaQuad: | |||
| *Fluffernutter: | |||
| *TBotNL: | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| Additional dispute resolution would be singularly unhelpful due to the polarizing nature of the subject matter, thus aside from the RfC in question and the three preceding it there is no dispute resolution. In addition, as this case concerns a request for comment with significant ramifications for Misplaced Pages and there is a deadline of 11/01/2012 before discussion on the matter will approach a drawdown, dispute resolution would be ineffective and a timesink in any case. | |||
| === Statement by Jéské Couriano === | |||
| A couple of months ago, the ] on whether to retain or reject ] was started. This request concerns itself with its close. | |||
| On June 23, 2012, the RfC was by four admins, all of whom have professed neutrality with respect to whether or not PC is implemented. The close was ultimately to implement Pending Changes, but to work out its policy before it goes live, with a provisional policy as a fallback should a policy not be developed before November 1. However, since then there've been several complaints about the close - specifically, the totals. When closed, the totals were 178/308/17 (178 in favor of rejecting Pending Changes, 308 in support of keeping it with the provisional policy, and 17 in support of reworking the policy before implementing it). Even lumping Options 2 and 3 together, the end percentage in support of PC is 64.1% (Separate, Option 2 only has 61.6% support), as being quite low for a discussion with serious consequences for en.wp and thus gives the impression the close is being used as a super-!vote. Hence this request. | |||
| I'm filing this to clarify whether or not the result is proper at 61-64% in favor and, if it isn't, what the actual consensus of the discussion is. —<font color="228B22">] ]</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ''jc37'') That was my intent with filing this arbitration - as a closure review. —<font color="228B22">] ]</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Keilana === | |||
| I'm not 100% sure I'm allowed to comment here, so please remove this if it isn't appropriate. I was | |||
| one of the closers for the recent Muhammad images RfC, and found that determining consensus in these matters is more difficult than meets the eye. We don't use straight votes in this community for a good reason; consensus is a far better model for determining the true level of support for a proposition. The closers were all experienced admins, who know what consensus is and how to find it in a protracted discussion like the PC RfC. We don't need more drama with PC, we need to work together to implement the solution we decided on as a community. Arbitration will not help with that admittedly difficult process. ]|<sup>]</sup> 05:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :@Courcelles, thanks, just wanted to make sure I wasn't overstepping. :) ]|<sup>]</sup> 16:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment from The ed17 === | |||
| I don't think the committee should second-guess this close. What Jeremy seems to forget is that discussions on Misplaced Pages aren't governed by strength of numbers alone; the individual arguments presented from both sides also play a strong factor. The four neutral administrators who closed this RfC took the time to weigh both sides and determined that in numbers and argument, there was consensus to enable pending changes. If the committee does decide to take this on, which it might do to provide yet another "final" decision in the tortured history of pending changes, I urge them to do so by motion. Enough acrimony has come about thanks to pending changes over the last few years, and there is little need for more through a full case. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 06:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :@JClemens, that's a very good point (02:43, 7 July). I'd like to add to it in saying that under such a model, editors running for Arbcom would need to be veritable politicians with a cultured public image to be elected. Take pending changes, for instance. Expressing an opinion for one side or the other would attract large amounts of opposition; editors running for Arbcom would need to take a Romney-like (sorry, American reference) stand in order to have a chance. I don't think we want that. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 05:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Yaris678 === | |||
| The closers stated that their decision was based on an analysis of the arguments put forward, rather than claiming that the majority was sufficient per se. I think this is reasonable in light of ]. If there is room for criticism it is that the analysis of the arguments seems partial, in both sense of the word. They seem to have picked the weaker arguments of the opposition to pending changes and ignored some of the others. | |||
| A full list of the issues raised a immediately after the trial can be found at ] (pro, con and requests). Some of these cons could be argued against quite easily, others could be dealt with by an appropriate choice of policy. I would prefer to see them all addressed in some way if we are going to base the closure of this RfC on arguments. | |||
| As a side note, I did not express an opinion at ] but I did make some comments on the talk page in the hope of finding an acceptable solution. I was involved in compiling the list at ], which may explain my bringing it up here, but if someone can identify a better list I’d be happy to see it. | |||
| *In response to : I think that misses what this is about. The question is not "Are we going to use Pending Changes", although arguably Arbs can get into that if they want to interpret their role broadly. The question is "Was the RfC closed correctly?" This is not an issue of policy or content. It is an issue conduct in that it is about what the closers did. ] (]) 09:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment from Seraphimblade=== | |||
| I'm of two minds on this issue. Except for DQ, who I don't really know one way or the other, I have a very high regard for those admins who closed this thing, and so I hope they will not take it too badly that I have serious questions about their judgment in this case. I have a lot of concerns about the close, and while I'll disclose that I opposed continuing PC, I don't think it's just sour grapes—I've closed more than one tough discussion, and while I know you can't please everyone, you also have to make every effort to maintain neutrality and propriety, both in appearance and in fact. I'll try to be concise, but at least some of you know that's not exactly my strong point. Please bear with me. | |||
| *The numbers are of concern. While we do operate on the principle of "discussion, not a vote," this RfC wasn't really set up that way anyway, since it forbade editors from adding new sections with nuanced opinions or for additional discussion. As such, it was very similar to an RfA, and its numeric threshold was at the point (low 60% support) where an RfA would essentially automatically fail. Given that this is a far more substantial change than making a single user an admin, it should seem it should require at minimum the same proportional level of support, and likely more. | |||
| *A very popular option at previous discussions, that PC must be improved before we would consider using it, was excluded (explicitly) from the discussion. The rationale was: "The option of the tool itself (as opposed to the policy on its use) being improved or altered before considering re-deployment is deliberately absent from the positions. Pending changes is a specialized version of the more restrictive "flagged revision" system. It was developed by the Wikimedia Foundation specifically to be used on en.Misplaced Pages and is not used on other projects. For that reason the Foundation made it clear that it would not expend any more resources to develop pending changes until this project had determined that they would actually use it. Therefore the option of improving it first before deciding is not viable at this time." (links omitted). This is a flawed rationale—since Pending Changes, as a part of Mediawiki, is ] software, ''anyone'' could have volunteered to do improvements the community required before use. WMF's involvement would not have been necessary at all to improve the software. This is likely to have suppressed a significant number of those who previously expressed the opinion that PC must be improved before use, only to come to the discussion and find their option not only absent, but a header forbidding its addition. | |||
| *The user who designed the RfC, ], also clearly supported PC: . Given how rigid the structure of the RfC was, and that others were prohibited from adding new sections (especially the very popular "Improve first" position), it is quite inappropriate that someone with a strong view on the discussion decided on the rigid structure. If the RfC must be rigidly structured, it should have been drafted by someone neutral on the subject. This gave Beeblebrox an inappropriate opportunity to channel discussion on the matter, and whether intentional or not, it would be almost impossible for someone with a strong opinion to draft a completely neutral RfC. This one wasn't, and it excluded at least one critical and popular opinion, to improve before use. That's why we generally allow everyone to add opinion sections, and don't do rigid voting/ballot type structures. We certainly should not do such when a partisan in the matter is designing the structure. | |||
| *Implementation was separated from activation. Rather than a full discussion deciding if we can come to a consensus on ''how'' to use PC, it was essentially stated that even if we cannot, it will be activated with a "draft" use policy, ''also'' drafted by Beeblebrox. This "activation even if we can't agree how" was not, to the best of my ability to find, noted as a consequence of "supporting" the RfC. | |||
| *One closer seems to have indicated that the developers were in private contact with the closing admins during the close: . Unless I'm misreading, that's utterly inappropriate. If the devs had something to say, they should have said it openly and publicly at the discussion just like anyone else. It was not appropriate, or even close, for them to be advising the closers during the close, and it was even more inappropriate if the closers considered what they had to say when deciding how to close. | |||
| There are too many flaws here to have confidence in the outcome of this discussion. I'm not sure what to recommend—starting the discussion over without all the restrictions on what may or may not be discussed, throwing the whole thing out for good since low-60's isn't near consensus for a major structural change, whacking with trouts but otherwise keeping it and moving on—I just don't know, but that's why we have an ArbCom. I think it would be beneficial for the Committee to open a case and at least take a good look at what happened with this train wreck, and it would ease a lot of people's minds. Maybe it would help us do better in the future, too. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm going to request that the Arbs who have stated there are "no conduct issues" reply to the above, as I believe these ''are'' conduct issues, if not the usual ones ArbCom deals with. That especially applies to the potential private contact of the closing admins with the developers during the closing process (which ArbCom may be uniquely qualified to evaluate, since it normally handles issues involving private correspondence), and the drafting of a rigid, unchangeable RfC by a clearly involved party. Those are conduct, not policy, issues. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Beeblebrox: Note that I said "even if unintentionally." Forcing a result ''is'' channeling the discussion, since a "no consensus" result, the likely outcome of a freewheeling discussion, would mean retaining the status quo. You may not have intended that, but the rigid structure did do that. The RfC should have been like any other—anyone being free to add their own opinion, anyone being able to endorse or discuss said opinion, and a clear consensus outcome only possible if there really was an overwhelming consensus. If many people disagree in such an open discussion, the result would be, and would ''properly'' be, no consensus for change, retain status quo. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, to add to the above response to Beeblebrox, the closers did ''not'' make clear the extent of their contact with the devs during the closing, they only vaguely alluded to it once. Any private contact with them, however, was too much. The devs had every right to express their opinion—publicly, openly, and at the discussion, like anyone else, and subject to community acceptance or rejection. Communication with them on the part of the closers outside that discussion process granted them undue influence, and was inappropriate and unacceptable, no matter what its extent. If I'm in the process of closing a tough discussion, and someone contacts me privately regarding it, my response is ''always'' "Sorry, but your comments should have taken place at the discussion, and those are the only ones I'll consider." That's the only appropriate response to an attempted private contact about a discussion you're in the process of closing, and to read the private requests, let alone to mention them later as a deciding factor, is totally inappropriate. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, and one more thing, Beeblebrox: You've never explained why you explicitly excluded the very popular "improve first" position, given that not only WMF, but ''anyone'', could execute such required improvements to ] software, despite being asked to explain that multiple times. Your rationale that only WMF could execute such changes, or that it would cost money, was utterly flawed, since anyone at all could have volunteered to make any needed improvements and had access to the source needed to do so. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Rivertorch=== | |||
| While I have no strong opinion as to whether this falls within the province of ArbCom, I do have serious reservations about the close that don't seem to fall into anyone else's jurisdiction. Aside from the question of the numbers—and a less than two-thirds majority ''is'' problematic for green-lighting a change as far-reaching and potentially game-changing as pending changes might turn out to be—the marked lack of rigor displayed by the closers in their decision calls into question whether they exercised proper diligence in attempting to determine consensus. | |||
| Of the more than 500 editors who participated in the RfC, over 85% offered a substantive comment to explain their !votes, and a sizable number engaged in further discussion. Yet in reading the closers' remarks, I was left with the distinct impression that they had completely ignored most of the arguments—strong and weak—on both sides, and still somehow come to a remarkably one-sided conclusion. Rather than make any attempt to summarize the major arguments, they selected, apparently at random, several concerns expressed by Option 1 supporters and summarized the rebuttals made to those few concerns by Option 2 supporters. Option 1 supporters did also take the time and trouble to rebut various arguments put forward by Option 2 supporters, but you'd never know it from what the closers wrote. | |||
| Reasonable people can disagree about whether the closers made the right decision; in the final analysis, that is a matter of opinion. ''How'' they went about making their decision is something else entirely: that ought to be a matter of fact and a matter of record, easily discernible from the wording of their close. Anything else makes a mockery of the efforts made by the RfC's participants and sets a troubling precedent for those who close important RfCs in the future. Unfortunately, little can be discerned from what the closers have told us. | |||
| Although I am familiar enough with two of the closers to state without reservation that I believe them to be highly competent, conscientious editors whose presence on Misplaced Pages I value considerably, I cannot help thinking that their work here was slipshod and fell far short of the thorough, careful close that the community had a right to expect on such an important question. Pending changes is undoubtedly one of the most controversial issues ever considered by the community, and there can be little doubt that closing the latest RfC on it had to be a thankless job. All four closers took the task on willingly, and presumably with their eyes wide open. It was incumbent upon them to be meticulous and thorough, ''and to document that they were so''. In that, they failed utterly, and that failure cannot help but cast a pall over whatever comes next along the road to PC implementation (or non-implemention, to keep all options open). ] (]) 09:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Barts1a=== | |||
| People seem to be having an issue with the percentages behind this close, but they seem to be failing to look at the numbers behind the percentage which add quite a bit of validity to the closure. There is a gap of 130 people between supports and oppose. That gap alone is more people than we get participating in most RfC's from all options combined! The total number of participants was 503 or which 308 supported option 1 which is a lot of people whatever way you look at it! While the consensus is small in terms of percentage it is actually quite large in terms of raw numbers. If we judged all policy changes by percentages alone many of the original policies would still stand in their original and much less effective forms and we probably would still be using the currently redundant CSD criteria as new ones would never have been implemented! ] / ] / ] 11:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Collect=== | |||
| I do not find ArbCom has a normal purview of all closures of RfCs, hence have the opinion that this is ''not'' the place for this discussion. Unless, of course, the intent is to accuse the closers individually and collectively of misconduct warranting formal sanctions. Absent such, I doubt there is cause for this action. ] (]) 12:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by A Quest for Knowledge === | |||
| This sounds like a content (well, policy) dispute. I don't see any conduct issues here. It's therefore outside the scope of the Arbitration Committee's purview. ] (]) 12:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Uninvolved comment by jc37 === | |||
| The only thing I wanted to note was that, since this case seems to be concerning a close, and ''specifically'' notes the "numbers of votes", I just wanted to remind everyone: | |||
| * ], and with only one exception (noting immediately below) we do not count votes for closing, but weigh arguements. | |||
| *Discussions which grant an individual additional responsibilities (or to remove such responsibilities) which may also include one or more user-rights, are typically some hybrid of consensus and voting. | |||
| I think that this also may be a confusion in this case. While this policy/process would introduce some new responsibilities for editors; this particular discussion, afaict, does not by it give any particular individual any additional responsibilities. | |||
| So ] would clearly apply. | |||
| If arbcom wants to accept this case, so to be a form of '''closure review''', similar to ] or ], then that's obviously up to them. Though I can't recall a time in the past where they have done so. (I have no doubt, someone will remind us if such examples exist : ) - <b>]</b> 13:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :@PhilKnight - While I am neutral concerning the over-all nomination here, just to clarify: at ], the goal is not to determine about content, but rather whether the process was followed, and whether the closer acted within policy. That sounds rather close to assessing editor behaviour. So I suppose one could argue that it is within the remit of arbcom. I'm not arguing it is, merely that it potentially "could be". I'll obviously leave that to you all to decide : ) - <b>]</b> 16:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Short comment from The Blade of the Northern Lights=== | |||
| Our rationale is up on the main RfC page. I'm not exactly sure what an arbitration case is going to accomplish, other than perhaps allowing a few people to blow off steam because they didn't like the close. As Keilana says above, a ''lot'' went into this from all sides, and we made the decision we made; what's there to arbitrate in that? ] (]) 16:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I should also add that I have no problems with Newyorkbrad's participation in the voting to accept/decline this case and, on the off-chance it's accepted, participating in the case itself. ] (]) 16:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Adjwilley=== | |||
| I thought the close was very tactful. A close supporting the minority would have been completely inappropriate. A close with no consensus would have kept PC in the state of everlasting limbo, and would have also been in favor of the minority, as well as a grand waste of time. A close in favor of the majority would have implemented a policy that there was intense opposition to. The current close takes PC out of limbo, favors the majority, but gives us the chance to fix the policy so it is less offensive to the minority. | |||
| My recommendation for those who wish to see Pending changes die is to accept the close and move forward. Create a draft of a new policy that fixes the problems you see with PC. Make a policy recommending that PC not be used at all, if that's what it takes. There will be another RFC down the road, and if you want to have your policy in it, you should get started. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">(])</span> 16:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Uninvolved comment from Tom Morris=== | |||
| According to ], the only possible criteria under scope and responsibilities for ArbCom is the first one: "To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve". I fail to see how there has been a "serious conduct dispute" here. In addition, administrators are granted trust by the community to determine consensus: having an ArbCom case because one disagrees with the closing of an RfC will potentially risk opening up a flood of appeals on matters that are outside of ArbCom's scope. —] (]) 16:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment from FormerIP=== | |||
| As far as I can see, the complaint does not have much merit. I see nothing wrong with the close and, in some respects, it may represent a model of good practice which I hope sets some precedents (chiefly, it prioritised resolving the question asked over trying to minimise dissatisfaction at the result). | |||
| However, I would implore arbs not to give "outside our remit" as the reason for declining. If that happens, then it would leave new-breed "special" RfCs without any formal accountability structure. ArbCom should not gainsay the result of a special RfC, but there is no reason in principle it might not consider narrower conduct-related questions such as whether the RfC was properly conducted or whether the rationale was manifestly perverse (although I don't think the claim is well-founded, this seems to be what is claimed). ] (]) 16:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment from Looie496=== | |||
| Ultimately only the WMF can practically decide the validity of the RFC close, because only they can implement it. All ArbCom could do is express an opinion, and expressing opinions is not your job. You could open a case concerning the behavior of the admins who closed the RFC, but that would be absurd. ] (]) 17:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment from Beeblebrox=== | |||
| I find it only too typical that it is only after they didn't get the result they wanted that a bunch of users popped up to protest how the RFC was run. Absurd procedural objections and endless fillibustering by a small but extremely vocal minority was what ruined the 2011 RFC and made this restrictive structure necessary in the first place. Please reject this baseless case. ] (]) 17:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :@seraphimblade: Did we forget about AGF? You make it sound like there was conspiracy between me, the closers, and the devs. The closers made it clear what the extent of their contact with the devs was, and there is nothing to be alarmed about there. I'm guessing here, but maybe they did that in private because they hadn't finished the close yet and just wanted some information. As for your apparent contention that there was something improper about the structure itself, I deliberately designed it to give all three option s an equal chance. I waited '''a full year''' to put it up in the hope that somebody else might have the nerve to re-open the discussion and move us beyond the limbo this issue was in, and nobody did. Your implication that this was some sort of sinister plot is utterly without any logical basis or supporting evidence. It has never before been considered inappropriate for someone who has stated an opinion about something to open an RFC on the subject. As I have mentioned about t thousand times now, the restricted structure was designed to try and force a result. Not any particular result, just some sort of result. It could just as easily have ended with PC being rejected entirely, and I would have been totally happy with that since it would have been a decision. How could I, by merely asking people to add their endorsements to three exclusive options, have manipulated the results? Once this thing was set up, I added my endorsement and I answered questions about the structure that asked on the talk page. That is the full extent of my involvement, I had nothing whatsoever to do with the closing and had no advance knowledge of what the result would be. There was no misconduct of any kind here, just sour grapes from those who didn't get what they wanted. ] (]) 01:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by WaitingForConnection=== | |||
| In principle I have no objection to Arbcom accepting this case – I am in no doubt that you will conclude that there was no improper behavior and that the close was within the realm of the admins' discretion. | |||
| However, I'm concerned about losing an opportunity to resolve the PC deadlock. If Arbcom does decide to accept this, I '''''implore''''' you to make clear that policy discussion should continue in parallel with this one, and commit to closing this case on 1 November. If you endorse the RfC closure, we would still be on course for a 1 December turn-on of PC, and this case would not have caused any delay. If the closure is overturned, we would nonetheless have some valuable input from all sides of the discussion, which should help us create a more representative policy for a future RfC. —]— 17:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Fetchcomms=== | |||
| (I don't think I voted in this latest RfC-poll. I do not support pending changes or flagged revisions for the English Misplaced Pages.) | |||
| I'm reminded of the recent ] ruling on the ] legislation. To me, the results and judgment of the RfC are largely unsurprising. I think the decision is another prominent indicator of the community's increasingly progressive attitude, which I generally find to be a good thing on Misplaced Pages. I am very much a traditionalist when it comes to the concept of wikis, but I welcome innovation, even if it's been several years in the making. | |||
| The committee should remember that policy is dynamic and that some incarnation of pending changes is inevitable because more and more users have been warming up to it over these past few years—and I predict that to many newer users, PC simply makes sense because they have only experienced the large mass of content that is Misplaced Pages today. | |||
| While I do not applaud the decision, I applaud the closers of the RfC and hope that this event inspires users to propose more major changes the future. The committee would be foolish to reevaluate a major community decision (though I am confident the committee would side in favor of the current judgment)—the only body with that power is the WMF (not that they would exercise this power). Instead, the committee should endorse the decision based on its own merits as well as the process of the RfC. This is an opportunity to strengthen the community's ability to determine consensus and make policy changes on its own, without interference from the committee or the foundation, as well as to encourage future policy innovation. The committee must not squander this chance by prolonging the bickering. | |||
| <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/]]]'''</span> 17:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Short comment by Dank === | |||
| As I endure yet another political TV ad here in the US (it's an election year ... ugh), I'm reminded that it's easy to complain that things weren't done right. It's more productive to state and defend your own position on Pending Changes, and The Blade and I (the closers of the next round of discussions) have been asking people to create their own pages to do just that; please use the format ]. Over time, whichever of these pages attract the most productive discussion will likely be discussed and voted on at ], and consensus results will be added to ]. That process seems more likely to fix any problems identified with the draft version of PC than an Arbcom case rehashing the last RfC. | |||
| ===Comment from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz=== | |||
| I see no "jurisdiction" for Arbcom here absent a credible allegation of misconduct by the closing admins, a substantial conflict with WMF policy, or a conflict between two or more specific policy decisions by community processes which cannot be reconciled and requires exigent resolution. | |||
| ===Statement from RedSoxFan2434=== | |||
| As a vocal opposer of Pending Changes for Misplaced Pages, I have to admit that, while it was not perfect, and certainly not what I wanted, the closers' decision is, in my opinion, correct. Yes, the closers admitted that one of the 2 factors was "majority of votes" - which, at only 61-64%, I do not think should have been considered. Also, to say that the community as a whole "supports the adoption of Pending Changes" is incorrect per this low majority. However, the strength of arguments was stronger from pro-PC users than anti-PC users like myself, especially with the proposed limit to the amount of time a pending change can remain in an article's PC queue before it goes live automatically. The backlog was a main point of my argument, along with an argument I used which was commonly used but, as the closers pointed out, did not ]. | |||
| In short, I would like to apologize for not assuming good faith, and state my (grudging) approval of the closers' decision. | |||
| Signed, ] (]) 00:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Rant by Isarra=== | |||
| As I understand it, there has been a long-standing revolving mess surrounding pending changes. There have been arguments in every direction of varying validity, and arguments over validity, and arguments over the validity of what is considered valid. Most recently we've had a vote on pending changes, which people have argued in and over and about, from whether or not it is a vote to the validity of the vote to the positions and arguments in the vote, to the closers, and to, of course, the close itself. And now we're here. | |||
| Nevermind the sides, though. Now we have to contend with an application of pending changes that ''will'' harm the project, but not necessarily for any of the reasons put forth during and after the latest vote (that I know of, anyway; I never read them all) or because of whatever the policy may turn out to include. Even if pending changes works out perfectly, the fact of the matter remains that otherwise productive editors have been, are, and will continue to put considerable effort into arguing over various aspects of the matter largely without getting anywhere practical; I'd argue that its divisive nature is probably the most damaging aspect of pending changes, nevermind whether or not it actually works. This divisiveness has evidently been present for years now, and could potentially continue indefinitely if not resolved in some direction, and I mean actually resolved, not by meandering discussion that goes nowhere, or ignoring the topic, or starting a vote to be awkwardly closed whilst people throw blame in the background, but by a resolution that will somehow magically solve everything. Or, more realistically, by one that involved parties would be willing to respect - one that makes them feel that their concerns have indeed been at least considered (as it so often it seems they are not when there are so very many people involved), unlike in previous closures, so that they can shut up about all this already and move on, either to the next stage, or to other stuff entirely. | |||
| And maybe an arbcom ruling on the latest vote could be enough to help calm some folks down and pave the way for more productive discussion, but would it? Nevermind whether or not this technically falls into their jurisdiction, it might be worthwhile for them to look into the matter, sort through the mess, consider the propriety involved with all involved, and say something appropriately authoritive that essentially boils down to yelling SHUT UP at some people, though worded considerably more tactfully. Unfortunately it would also probably be a completely insane undertaking. | |||
| Question is, ''is'' there anywhere better to take this such that folks could finally move on? Or are people just doomed to keep throwing bricks at each other over pending changes until they find something else to throw bricks at each other over? | |||
| Eh. -— ] ] 09:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/4/1) === | |||
| *'''Recuse''' as a vocal supporter of pending changes. ] (]) 07:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' - the Arbitration Committee is primarily involved with user conduct, and doesn't stipulate content, or policy. As far as I can tell, this request concerns policy, and not user conduct, and therefore is outside the remit of the Arbitration Committee. ] (]) 09:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Recuse''' ] 14:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **@Keilana though, of course neutral parties are allowed to give their views here, if a case were accepted, the parties statements would be placed on the main case page, and the uninvolved folks statements would be placed on the talk page, ] 14:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I also found myself considering whether to recuse, because I was the (sole) closer in two rounds of the equally controversial RfC that wound up the pending changes trial last year. On the other hand, it's a borderline recusal, and I doubt that there are many arbitrators who, in their capacity as individual editors, haven't said something around their personal opinion on FR/PC over the years. I will therefore participate in voting on this request (and in the case if accepted) unless there are significant objections to my doing so expressed in the next 48 hours. ] (]) 16:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Recuse''' as I have an opinion (having opposed them in favour of broader use of semi-protection) ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Recuse''' as I have participated in extensive discussion about this RFC. ] (]) 23:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. I see no credible allegations of misconduct by the closing administrators, or of any other substantive violations of policy that would require our intervention. Absent those, the Committee has no authority to overturn a reasonable—if, perhaps, controversial—decision arising from a community process. ] <sup>]]</sup> 23:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''': concur with Kirill, ] <sup>]</sup> 09:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''': Aye, this appears to be outside our jurisdiction. <small>(Not affecting the decision to accept/decline, but also worth noting that if this rate of recusal continues (4-5/9 so far) we may not have enough arbitrators left to make a meaningful decision.)</small> ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 17:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hersfold's point is well taken, in that under our standard "net 4" rule, with 4 recusals and one inactive arbitrator, four declines are ''already'' enough to make this mathematically impossible. At the same time, we're seeing clamoring above for the committee to do ''something'' about this. I think we're at a point where this model--that we don't decide policy for the community, merely enforce its policies in situations it is not equipped to handle through standard processes--is ineffective in doing what is asked of it. I didn't sign up to make decisions as a de-facto project steering committee, I signed up to help hash out disputes that centered around editors behaving inappropriately. Nor do I expect to be gagged from expressing my own opinions on how Misplaced Pages should be run, of which I have plenty, to serve as an impartial ''policy'' judge. I am not shy about participating, as any other editor is entitled, in discussions in which I have an opinion, and any such policy-based discussion would likely require my and a few other arbitrators' recusal, such that only a tiny subset of the committee would be left to review any such decision we are called upon to make. I can't see that being a good idea at all. ] (]) 02:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' ''']''' ''']''' 10:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.