This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guerillero (talk | contribs) at 06:51, 24 May 2012 (→Motion 2: '''Enacted''' - ~~~~). 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: Change evidence limits in arbitration cases

For these motions, there are 12 active arbitrators (not counting 3 who are inactive), so 6 votes is a majority.

Background

There has been discussion on the Arbitration mailing list lately regarding the limits placed on evidence submissions in Arbitration cases. At present, all users submitting evidence to an arbitration case are expected to limit their submission to 500 words and 50 diffs, barring a special exemption granted by the Committee on a per-case and/or per-person basis. At present, these limits are enforced in part by User:HersfoldArbClerkBot, which monitors evidence section length and warns users for significantly over-length submissions, and mainly by the Arbitration clerks assigned to the case, who may use their discretion to trim evidence submissions as needed to meet the limits. These limits were put in place to ensure that evidence submissions are succinct, to the point, and address only the most pertinent issues, and further to ensure that arbitrators would be able to review all submitted evidence in a timely manner. However, concerns have been raised that these limits are preventing users from submitting all pertinent information, and in particular preventing users from responding to allegations laid against them. The Committee is thus considering whether to extend these limits.

Motion 1

This motion is exclusive to motions 2 and 3

All users submitting evidence to an arbitration case shall limit their evidence submission to no more than 1000 words in length. All evidence must be presented on the case's /Evidence subpage. Evidence submissions significantly over this length may be refactored by an arbitration clerk at the discretion of the clerks and Committee.

Support

1. Absolute last choice, but ok if nothing else passes. I'm afraid if we extend this to 1000 to everyone we'll end up with unreadable essays. Some of our cases are intolerably long as it is. Hersfold 05:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Third choice. PhilKnight (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Second choice. AGK 00:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator Comments

• This will not require a reprogramming of HersfoldArbClerkBot; we just need to tweak the defaults on its configuration page. Hersfold 05:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• No mention of diffs, I see. These really need some kind of limit as it takes hours to go through and they can be used oppressively.  Roger Davies 05:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Motion 2

This motion is exclusive to motions 1 and 3

Users who are named parties to an arbitration case shall limit their evidence submission to no more than 1000 words in length. All other users submitting evidence to an arbitration case shall limit their evidence submission to no more than 500 words in length. All evidence must be presented on the case's /Evidence subpage. Evidence submissions significantly over the appropriate limit may be refactored by an arbitration clerk at the discretion of the clerks and Committee.

Enacted - Guerillero | My Talk 06:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Equal preference with 3. Named parties need to be able to submit more evidence, as they're the ones directly involved in the dispute. Views from uninvolved editors are welcome and certainly helpful in many cases, however they are not facing any allegations of misconduct (usually) and have less need to provide additional evidence in their own defense. Hersfold 05:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
2. I like this one the best. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Yes. Though there should be a provision for adding more evidence on request. If the initial evidence was helpful (and only if the initial evidence was helpful), and the named party or other user requests another 500 words, that should be granted. SilkTork 21:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
5. re Newyorkbrad's point, the distinction between party and non-party (such as in Monty Hall problem, Muhammad images) is clear. In cases where it is not, I would prefer to work out a different solution, like giving everyone 500 or 750 words. AGK 00:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
6. First choice. I think this is the best compromise to allow more wiggle room. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Hardly my first preference to proceed, but it works. Courcelles 05:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I understand the support for this proposal, but it will have the unintended consequence of increasing the bickering that sometimes occurs over which users should be considered a party to the case or not. Time spent quibbling about who should be included or not on the list of parties is generally unproductive, and I'd rather not cause the distinction between party and non-party to matter more than it already does. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Arbitrator Comments

• This won't initially require a reprogramming of the clerk bot, however until it is reprogrammed someone will have to manually add each named party to the bot's configuration page as an override. Hersfold 05:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• I would also entertain an easily-granted +500 words (to 1500 for parties, 1000 for others) if and when the first 500 has been used productively and appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Ditto. One of things that surprises me about the existing limit is how few people ask to go over it. It also needs a limit on diffs.  Roger Davies 05:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• I note the absence of authorization for the drafting arbitrator(s)to extend the limit upon request in any of these choices. I think we might be missing the core purpose of evidence, which is to provide the information for arbitrators to come to a conclusion. I don't inherently oppose any of the ideas that are being put forward here, but I'm concerned that rigid thinking about quantity overlooks the core issue with evidence submissions — relevance and quality. Risker (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Motion 3

This motion is exclusive to motions 1 and 2

All users submitting evidence to an arbitration case shall be limited to a section of no more than 500 words in length. Additionally, users may post a rebuttal section, of no more than 500 words in length, to be used to contest evidence posted by other users specifically against themselves. Evidence and rebuttal submissions significantly over these lengths may be refactored by an arbitration clerk at the discretion of the clerks and Committee.

Support

1. Equal preference with 2. Most of what sends evidence sections over the limit are rebuttals to other evidence sections. By allowing an additional 500 words specifically for this purpose, we allow editors to "make their defense" while retaining the original stuff. One concern is that this will invite greater inflammation of disputes (evidence boiling down to "he-said, she-said" or flat-out namecalling), however I'm hoping that the limitation that these sections are to be ONLY used for allegations against oneself will help with this. Hersfold 05:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
2. First choice. PhilKnight (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
3. My preferred option, but I'd like to see it copyedited to not be a firm and absolute limit, and to mention numbers of diffs, as well. Courcelles 20:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm very happy with a 500/500 split but less happy about setting these figures so firmly in concrete. The word limits were only ever meant to be targets or guidelines, and readily extendable by request.  Roger Davies 05:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I am far from a fan of adversarial evidence submissions, but do not feel strongly enough to oppose. AGK 00:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator Comments

• This will require the bot to be reprogrammed. Hersfold 05:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Motion 4

This motion is complementary to the above motions

All users submitting evidence to the Arbitration Committee, either as part of an open case, or for a request for amendment or clarification, or via private email, are reminded to keep evidence short, to the point, and factual. All claims should be supported by diffs or log entries where possible, and should directly pertain to the matter at hand. Users are also asked to avoid repeating evidence where possible so as to ensure a full coverage of the matter at hand.

In open cases, the drafting arbitrator(s) are expected to provide clear guidelines on the sort of evidence to be provided, based upon the scope of the case. The drafting arbitrator(s) should review evidence submissions throughout the case and modify these guidelines as needed to address perceived gaps in evidence submissions. Where necessary, and on a per-user-per-case or per-case basis, any arbitrator may grant a user a limited exemption to the otherwise stated evidence limits at the user's request.

Support

1. Clarify standards for evidence submission, and set somewhat new (or perhaps codify existing) practices on how the Committee should be guiding evidence. Hersfold 05:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Not compatible with the status quo, but nor does our current modus produce a well-run, focussed examination. AGK 00:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is probably unrealistic, I think, as it requires the drafting arbitrator/s to have a clear (and inflexible) vision of the scope and passage of the case. In the larger sprawling ones, this is impossible.  Roger Davies 05:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
2. In addition to the points mentioned above and below, repeating evidence, where the repetition is done in such a way that it succinctly summarises the most persuasive evidence, is often very helpful. In many cases, arbs spend considerable amounts of time sifting the wheat from the chaff when reviewing evidence submissions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Arbitrator Comments

• I can't support this with the onus on the drafting arbitrators to guide evidence submissions. Can we tone that down somewhat? Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• ^Ditto. The drafters have some responsibilities, but the onus on providing useful evidence is not theirs, its the parties (who in the evidence phase, usually know better than the arbs what is out there to be looking for, anyhow.) Courcelles 05:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Motion 5

{Placeholder for numbering.} With no appetite to go down this route, I'll remove these motions so we can focus on ones that enjoy more agreement and activity. AGK 15:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Motion 6

{Placeholder for numbering.} With no appetite to go down this route, I'll remove these motions so we can focus on ones that enjoy more agreement and activity. AGK 15:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Motion 7

Parties and other participants in arbitration cases are strongly urged to keep their evidence presentations as succinct as reasonably possible. Wherever possible, editors should seek to confine their evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 100 diffs. An outside maximum of 1000 words should be achievable in most cases.

If an editor's evidence exceeds 1000 words, then the editor is required to post, at the top of his or her evidence section, a summary of his or her evidence, marked with the subheading "Summary of evidence by ". The length of the summary is strictly limited to 500 words and 100 diffs. Evidence contained in the summary does not need to be repeated in the balance of the evidence presentation.

Editors posting overlength evidence should understand that in reviewing the case, arbitrators may focus most heavily on their evidence or contentions discussed in the summary, with the remainder of the evidence being referred to as backup support for the summarized contentions.

These revised procedures will apply to the next three full cases opened after this motion is adopted. The Committee will evaluate whether to make these changes permanent at that time.

Support

1. After years of thinking about this, I may (or may not) have come up with a solution. Input sought. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Sure, let's try this. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Somewhat overly complicated, but a good idea nonetheless. Overall, equal second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
4. AGK 15:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry to be a party pooper, but I think it's probably a little too complicated to be practical. Although opposing, I would not object to trialling it.  Roger Davies 10:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Two problems. First, this is very complicated. Secondly, if I understand it correctly, it effectively removes all evidence limits. Under this, someone can post the entire text of War and Peace if they wanted to, as long as they can provide a 500-word summary of the book. Yes, it comes with the warning that we won't read the whole thing, but it's still a lot to go through to pick out the actually important stuff. I remain in favor of fixed limits. Hersfold 00:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Arbitrator Comments

General discussion

Putting some comments in this section (as suggestion at the top of the page):

• (1) Would it not be simpler for those submitting evidence to draft in their userspace, and then transfer it over, asking for an extension to the size if needed? I'm saying this because it is often easier to edit down to a size limit than to fit into one when drafting an evidence submission. Also, it will be easier to state whether an extension will be granted when looking at the extended submission. It might also be more sensible to give a range for the upper limit (500-750, say), rather than a set value. That would also remind those with less to say that they can say less and still be heard.
• (2) More useful than evidence limits would be indications from arbs as to what sort of evidence (type and range) they are looking for in particular cases. That would need discussion within each case, but if done, that would help set the limits (to be fair, this does seem to be more common now than in the past). In other words, one of the main reasons people write lots is because they are not sure what they need to say and/or how far back to go when documenting some behaviour.
• (3) Cases vary from many-to-one adversarial to one-to-one adversarial and many-to-many adversarial. The points made about rebuttals need to take that into account. Rather than set inflexible limits on rebuttals, what is wrong with using the evidence talk page and workshop for discussion of evidence, or was that considered too likely to spiral out of control? Such discussions would be less likely to get out of control if they were seen as a vehicle to draft something to be formally posted as a rebuttal (or to improve the evidence submitted).

The key to many cases is to identify where parties agree and disagree, and have arbs rule on who is 'correct'. Evidence submission and discussion should really be tailored towards those ends. Something like the parties to a case saying "we worked with the drafting arbitrator(s) and other interested members of the community to come up with evidence, and position statements and findings that show where we agree and disagree, and we'd now like the committee to examine the submission and vote on it and decide what remedies are needed." Though this may not work in cases where the parties aren't capable of working together without arguing all the time. But in less heated cases, it might help. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that Committee members could and should get more involved in collecting and directing the evidence. I have raised in earlier discussion on the mailing list that the evidence page should have provision for questions, such as those on RfAs, so that each named party can have an opportunity for dialogue with one or more arbs. SilkTork 21:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I worded that poorly. My thinking is that the arbs question the parties, not that the parties question the arbs. But that in answering the questions, a dialogue is entered into. SilkTork 21:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth - regarding your comment The key to many cases is to identify where parties agree and disagree, and have arbs rule on who is 'correct'. Evidence submission and discussion should really be tailored towards those ends.

Honestly, over the years, how many cases have been well-enough behaved that the parties could agree on the parameters of what the disagreement was fairly precisely? The people who can do that have a tendency to not push things to the point that they get arbitrated over. The people who can't end up as case involved parties.

I understand what and why you're getting at, but this is why real life courts use lawyers. The lawyers are qualified experts who analyze the situation and come up with the specific points of disagreement that the court needs to decide upon, and then address evidence to those points. Parties here aren't specific experts. Some parties will get that anyways or get help on it, but unless Arbcom forsees advocates being assigned or something, I can't see consistently hitting that standard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Two comments: (a) We have "Analysis of evidence" section, like here, and this is probably the best place for rebuttals; (b) some people create sub-pages in their user space with additional evidence and link them to arbitration Evidence pages. You probably need to tell if that would be allowed.My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The linking to supplementary evidence in userspace is prohibited by policy and as such Arbitration Committee clerks remove any such links and inform the editor concerned. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Presumably it is still permitted to draft evidence submissions in userspace during a case and then transfer it over when submitting it? Is it permissible to point drafting arbitrators and clerks at such drafts and ask for advice on whether it needs shortening or not? And some "diffs" in evidence submissions are actually pointing to very long discussions. What is the difference between linking by 'diff' to a wall of text (e.g. in an ANI archive) and linking to a wall of text in userspace? It's always been the case that evidence that is well-presented and clear to read will always be better than anything artificially constrained. There have to be limits, but they should be flexible ones, not artificial ones. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The arbitration process is already opaque and impenetrable for those outside the system. Adding in increasingly complex rules on evidence and workshop submissions is likely to a) confuse parties and non parties; b) increase arguments on eligibility of submissions and classification as party or non party; c) further complicate the life of all concerned (participants, arbs and clerks). Traditionally the clerks were asked by the Arbitration Committee to use their discretion. Now there a bot (which is going to either require more complicated programming or the clerks are going to spend their time adjusting tolerance limits and exceptions) and rules about posting on the drafting arbitrator's talkpage X days after such and such phase has been entered. If the intention is to improve the arbitration process, increase legibility of evidence and workshop, whilst allowing parties to present the salient points and not be cut off arbitrarily, you've missed the mark. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Activity note: I am currently inactive on new matters, but I led the discussion and would like to vote. Please count me as active for these motions. AGK 10:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that anything over 500 words should be put in their own sub-subpages of /Evidence and then linked to on the page itself?--Ipatrol (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AlexandrDmitri above, simple word limits are easily understood but may be inflexible. The more complicated the case (often, but not always, a function of the number of participants, number of sides and length of the dispute) the more words and diffs will be needed to present the dispute to the arbs. The proposal to limit the number of submissions (or is it sections?) in the workshop phase is too complicated and could be counterproductive - for example where the reaction to one proposal clarifies the positions and leads to a second proposal that most people are happier with, my reading of the proposed motion would suggest the second of these would not be permitted? Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)