Revision as of 18:29, 30 May 2012

• 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).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are 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

Motions on procedural motions

Motion #1

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

Modification of procedures

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

Votes

Support

1. Proposed, based on recent concerns that we're not providing sufficient opportunity to comment on proposed changes before they're enacted. Kirill  21:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
2. I request you change "all changes" to "all significant changes", to exclude unimportant fixes and changes from the transparency requirement this motion creates. AGK 12:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Changed as requested. Kirill  12:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Having slept on this, I cannot support this in its present form. It is a sweeping measure, with very broad unintended consequences. As drafted, this requires a formal motion, advertised in three locations, and up for a week, to make a non-controversial copy edit to a procedural template, to make a non-controversial redirect to a better location, or to modify the precise sequence or number of procedural steps clerks take in opening cases etc etc. This runs directly counter to WP:BURO.  Roger Davies 09:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Is the change to "significant changes" requested by AGK sufficient to allay your concern regarding the sweeping nature of the motion? Kirill  12:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   No, because the unqualified expression "processes" is also overbroad. Pre-announcing everything in three locations is also OTT. To put this into perspective, the evidence length proposals were up for seven weeks and reported in Signpost on 9, 16, 23 and 30 April, and in Open Tasks for the duration. Which does not seem to me to be hiding anything away.  Roger Davies 12:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   Interesting; I wasn't considering the preliminary recitations to be material. Generally speaking, do you think that they should be interpreted that way? Kirill  12:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   It's probably responsible to assume that people will interpret this in the light most favourable to whatever their position happens to be as that's normally how people operate. Best therefore to pin it down.  Roger Davies 12:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

2. I understand the impetus for this motion but I do not believe it is necessary. The Committee has pledged before, and should reaffirm, that it will seek community input on significant changes that will affect the relationship between the Committee and its constituents, including all aspects of the editor community. This does not, however, mean that every change in process, or even every "significant" change in process, requires a week's worth of advertising in three different places. I am particularly concerned that giving undue weight to relatively minor changes that may occur to our processes over time may have the effect of diminishing the attention given to more significant issues, both ones involving this Committee and others. Or put more simply, I favor motion #2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Per those above me, favor motion #2. SirFozzie (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose for the same reason as opposing motion #2 Risker (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Not convinced on motion 2, but it is clearly superior to this one. Courcelles 17:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

General discussion

Moved Nobody Ent's comment from the oppose section of the voting area to this discussion section. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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

While I happen to agree that the particular change that spurred this discussion was a fairly trivial one, I think the request that we be more consistent in soliciting community input is a reasonable one in and of itself, regardless of which specific change we neglected it for.

Beyond that, my intent is not only to provide more transparency to the process, but also to create a defined place for decisions on procedure to be made in the first place; at the moment, the Committee can hold such discussions in a variety of places, making it rather difficult to follow them at times. Kirill  01:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, you are right, but it is a slippery slope - where is the limit. I fully endorse this change - it does not necessarily change the basics, but it does somewhat improve the transparency (something I have been asking for a long time). IF something is proposed by the ArbCom that the community would then massively oppose against, then at least that is seen - even the members of the ArbCom are only human. I presume that the motion about merging the Amendments and Clarifications pages would have passed without opposition, only some questions, concerns or suggestions which may have made the actual transition even smoother. --Dirk Beetstra 05:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree whole heartedly that this particular change was minor, and had I not been editing the page simultaneously to the merge would probably never have been brought up. But anything to improve transparency and accountability is good. Rich Farmbrough, 02:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Motion #2

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

Modification of procedures

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

Votes

Support

1. Alternative to the motion on procedural transparency above, and addressing my objections to that motion.  Roger Davies 09:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   The major concern that I have about this is the seven-day provision, which has been highlighted by recent events. A lot of stuff whistles through in less than a day or two; and may often be time-sensitive because we want to apply it to an upcoming case. Delaying the opening of a case by say five or six days for process sake is likely to antagonise a lot of people,  Roger Davies 18:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Works for me. Kirill  12:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
4. This is acceptable as long as "significant or substantive" is interpreted in a reasonable way, which I guess is something that will play out over time. Re the comment that the ArbCom noticeboard is watched less than some other pages, I think passage of this motion would be fair notice that people interested in monitoring for potential changes in our procedure should watchlist that page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Second choice to Motion #1. AGK 16:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
6. SirFozzie (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am quite certain that there will be plenty of people who will insist that any change whatsoever is "significant or substantive", even if it is making a grammar correction. ("But you changed the meaning by fixing the words!!!") Things we have motions for, I'm fine for discussing publicly onwiki and posting on the noticeboard. However, this requires lengthy deliberations even for going forward with a trial of something a little different. I don't think we need 7 days to discuss the majority of even substantive changes. Risker (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Per Risker. Jclemens-public (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

General discussion

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

Motion on decision elements

To provide greater clarity regarding the purpose of each element of an arbitration decision, the following statement is adopted:

Elements of arbitration decisions

For standard hearings, decisions are posted in the form of "Principles", "Findings of Fact", "Remedies" and "Enforcement".

Principles highlight key provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice which are relevant to the dispute under consideration; and, where appropriate, include the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute.

Findings of fact summarize the key elements of the parties' conduct in the dispute under consideration. Difference links may be incorporated but are purely illustrative in nature unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Remedies specify the actions ordered by the Committee to resolve the dispute under considerations. Remedies may include both enforceable provisions (such as edit restrictions or bans) and non-enforceable provisions (such as cautions, reminders, or admonishments), and may apply to individual parties, to groups of parties collectively, or to all editors engaged in a specific type of conduct or working in a specific area.

Enforcement contains instructions to the administrators responsible for arbitration enforcement, describing the procedure to be followed in the event that an editor subject to a remedy violates the terms of that remedy. Enforcement provisions may be omitted in decisions that contain no independently enforceable remedies.

Additionally, the existing procedure for voting on proposed decisions is modified to replace the first sentence ("For standard hearings, proposed decisions will be posted in the form of 'Principles', 'Findings of Fact', 'Remedies' and 'Enforcement', with a separate vote for each provision.") with the following:

Proposed decisions will be posted with a separate vote for each provision.

Votes

Support

1. Proposed. It's been suggested that the existing procedure for voting on proposed decisions is rather vague as to what constitutes each part of the decision; this attempts to remedy that. Kirill  13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Copyedited. Revert if you disagree.  Roger Davies 13:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

   That looks fine to me. Kirill  13:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

3. PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
5. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
6. The motion is generally acceptable to me although I am not certain it is necessary. I do have one reservation: a diff link in a finding can be other than "strictly illustrative" without this being being "expressly designated". If a decision reads "Foo has been uncivil " then those links are illustrative; but if the decision reads "on May 29, 2012, Foo was uncivil in a comment to Bar " then it is not "illustrative" but specific. A more straightforward way to reflect when diffs are "purely illustrative" would be to precede lists of illustrative diffs by "e.g." or the like, rather than allay confusion by pointing to a policy page. Also a proposed copyedit (about which arbitrators have had friendly disagreements before): I believe the word "admonition" is much more common than "admonishment". Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
7. AGK 16:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
8. SilkTork 12:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Courcelles 17:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. Not really convinced this is needed, but don't object in principle to it. However, I do not think it is really ready for "prime time" until we sort out the issues raised by NYB with respect to diffs, which is a substantive issue in my mind. Risker (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

• This starts off by talking about proposed decisions, and then appears to relate to final decisions without making the distinction clear. That an individual member of the Committee has proposed an interpretation of policy doesn't follow that it is a Committee interpretation until there is a consensus in the Committee for the proposed interpretation. If the intention of this motion is to refer to proposed decisions only, then I cannot support; if the intention is to talk about both proposed and final decisions, then that needs to be made clearer before I can support. SilkTork 16:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  The intent was, indeed, to describe the final end product rather than delving into the drafting process; I've copyedited the text to clarify that. Does the change address your concern? Kirill  17:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  I was thinking earlier that this would probably work better in the present tense i.e. "decisions are posted in the form of 'Principles', 'Findings of Fact'" (instead of "decisions will be posted" etc) as that is the usual way of expressing general principles. If no one objects, this can still be done.  Roger Davies 19:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  I have now put this into the present tense, Revert if you hate it.  Roger Davies 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I see any substantive difference, but I have no objection to it either way. Kirill  12:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion on standardized enforcement

To provide for standardized enforcement of editing restrictions imposed by the Committee, and to reduce the amount of boilerplate text in decisions, the following procedure is adopted, and shall apply to all cases closed after its adoption:

Standard enforcement provision

Unless explicitly stated otherwise in a particular decision, the following standard enforcement provision shall apply for all cases which include an enforceable remedy, and shall be considered incorporated into such decisions by reference:

"Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page."

Votes

Support

1. Proposed. We've discussed having a standard enforcement provision in just about every case over the past few months, since we inevitably just repeat the boilerplate; this wording appears to be the form that we typically use. Kirill  13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Go for it,  Roger Davies 13:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Since this is update-our-procedures-to-reflect-reality week, this is pretty high on my list. We've had closes delayed for no better reason than a topic ban was added late, and then an enforcement had to be added on later and voted on appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Yes. SilkTork 16:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
6. SirFozzie (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
7. AGK 16:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Like NYB, though, this should be placed on the final case page if it applies, so everyone is clear. Courcelles 14:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Given the response to my comment I will support, though I'd still welcome some discussion of the initial maximum block length. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Support provided that it is actually placed on all decisions AND we have a method for declaring that this standard provision does not apply in a specific case. I don't think it is to the project's benefit for us to be inflexible. Risker (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    As the motion says, "Unless explicitly stated otherwise in a particular decision". In order to revise something for a specific case, all that would need be done is pass an enforcement provision disagreeing with this onem, whih would control that case. It wouldn't hurt to add a line like "This enforcement provision shall be placed on the final case page of all cases where the Committee has not passed a different enforcement provision in that case" though to make this expectation clear instead of being forgotten about in these votes. Courcelles 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    Perhaps add something alomg those lines as a copy-edit? In the unlikely event it's reverted we can always discuss further.  Roger Davies 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

1. I can support this in general, but would still like to see this enforcement paragraph included in decisions, to make sure the parties to cases (who may not be aficionadoes of the arbitration process who are familiar with all the relevant policies) are aware of how enforcement works. Also, I think we should discuss whether one month as the maximum block for a first violation of a restriction fits well for every case. Traditionally, it said "one week" here although we have gone with "one month" in several decisions more recently. This may not be a crucial point given that one month is the maximum block, but we might want to emphasize that fact in some fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, It can be added to the page template so that the information is there but doesn't require a separate vote every time.  Roger Davies 13:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Given that a month is the maximum and that admins remain free to decide a less severe block better fits the situation, I can support them having the flexibility to go up to a significant length when it is actually necessary. Admins aren't in the habit of blocking for the absolute longest stretch they can when there's no call for it. Courcelles 17:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

Take out the long words. Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Standard enforcement provision

The following provision applies to all cases which include an enforceable remedy, unless they say otherwise.

"If a user subject to a restriction violates it, they may be blocked, for up to a month to start with, and then with blocks increasing in length to a maximum of a year. Appeals against blocks may be made to the administrator who blocked the user, and afterwards to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks will be recorded on the main case page."

Something like this. Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

I would suggest using a standard one week initial block and go from their. In many cases one month could be considered excessive for the first offense especially considering the vague way that some of the recent arb decisions have been worded. One could easily find themselves blocked for a month because of the way someone interpretted the decision, right or wrong. Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion on Scientology discretionary sanctions

To replace the customised Scientology discretionary topic bans with standard discretionary sanctions:

Remedy 4 - Discretionary topic ban

This remedy is superseded with immediate effect by Remedy 4.1. All discretionary topic bans placed under Remedy 4 remain in full force and are subject to the provisions of Remedy 4.1.

Remedy 4.1 - Discretionary sanctions authorised

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for the Scientology topic broadly construed. All warnings and sanctions shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

Votes

Support

1. Proposed. This brings the Scientology discretionary sanctions into line with others, and enables the relaxation of existing restrictions,  Roger Davies 04:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
3. AGK 10:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Kirill  12:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
5. SilkTork 12:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Seems to be one of, if not the last, of the non-standardised sanctions. Courcelles 14:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Risker (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
9. PhilKnight (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

General discussion

Just noting here that there is a long boilerplate on most articles in this topic area (see Talk:Bare-faced Messiah for an example). Does this need to be updated? Prioryman (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but only once this passes. It will make the boilerplate significantly shorter.  Roger Davies 07:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)