This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kirill Lokshin (talk | contribs) at 01:01, 28 May 2012 (→General discussion: Reply to Nobody Ent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

Motion to consolidate evidence submission procedures

The Arbitration Committee's existing procedures governing the submission of evidence, as enacted on 17 April 2011 and 24 May 2012, are replaced with the following consolidated and restated procedure:

Submission of evidence

Submissions of evidence are expected to be succinct and to the point. By default, submissions are limited to about 1000 words and about 100 difference links for named parties, and to about 500 words and about 50 difference links for all other editors. Editors wishing to submit evidence longer than the default limits are expected to obtain the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s) via a request on the /Evidence talk page prior to posting it.

Submissions must be posted on the case /Evidence pages; submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited. Unapproved over-length submissions, and submissions of inappropriate material and/or links, may be removed, refactored, or redacted at the discretion of the clerks and/or the Committee.

Votes

Support

1. Proposed. Our recent change has introduced two different variants of the procedures; there's no reason why we can't consolidate them into a single, coherent version. Kirill  21:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Works for me. Risker (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Noting that I approve of Roger's addition. Risker (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
3. This is just a merge of the two wordings in order to avoid confusion. PhilKnight (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Added "via a request on the /Evidence talk page" to avoid uncertainity over the proper place to make requests. It also enables other parties/onlookers to weigh in with their comments. Revert if you hate this.  Roger Davies 22:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Housekeeping. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

General discussion

Motion regarding procedural transparency

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 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)

Oppose

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)