Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 07:53, 29 March 2022 (→Opening of proceedings amendment: enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
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
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 11 December 2024
Motion name Date posted
Majority required to open a case 21 March 2022
Majority required close a case 21 March 2022
Opening of proceedings amendment 29 March 2022

Motions

Majority required to open a case

The Arbitration Committee procedure on "Opening of proceedings" (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings) is amended replacing Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators; with Its acceptance has been supported by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;

Arbitrators views and discussion (Majority required open a case)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
Oppose
  1. I think a net 4 of arbs is an appropriate amount to say "there's something going on here worth looking at for a full case". Opening a case doesn't mean there will be sanctions after all, it just means that at least 4 arbs (though in practice more) think that this is a good use of the committee's and community's time and attention. I further worry that making this change will make ARC even more like ARCA or our private appeals where things just sit because arbs figure "I'll get back to that" and then don't. The net 4 provides an incentive for this business to be handled and frankly I think that's a good incentive for a committee like ours to have. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Again, I'm weakly here. I would prefer an absolute majority, but since I'm more worried about the "we don't have to open until we're ready" aspect, I'd rather we had options available to us. In other words, net 4 is a minimum shortcut which we can use, but don't have to. WormTT(talk) 16:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would possibly be open to bumping the number to 5 (i.e., a third of all arbitrators), but not a full majority of active arbs. Izno (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BDD (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I will admit, this is something I was initially in support of, but in thinking about the last few case requests and some of the comments and feedback received, I have come to realise that if an issue is important enough, we should not necessarily have to wait for a majority of active arbitrators to weigh in on the matter; if those in favour of initiating a case actually hold the minority opinion, the case itself will reflect that and could even be closed early by a majority vote. Primefac (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Donald Albury 21:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. On BK's principle that net 4 shows that there is something needing consideration, and the practicalities that a 4-0 vote (with the 24 hour waiting period after net 4) needs 3-8 in the subsequent votes to reverse the tide. Cabayi (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim(talk) 13:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I would support this as a second choice to #Opening of proceedings amendment, but I agree relying on an absolute majority to open a case has downsides. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this motion would be quite reasonable to enact and I support it but I wouldn't support enacting it over the objections of my colleagues. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion
  • Truth be told, I'm more in support of this one than the case closing one. The case closing motion only enacts those remedies that have already been agreed by a majority, and even then there's an informal check on clerks-l after the motion to close hits net 4 to ensure that there are no last objections. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @L235 let me call on your institutional memory. "Absolute majority" is used in the procedures about voting on a decision. That certainly hasn't been considered an absolute majority of all arbs in past cases. Is there any precedent on whether it means a majority of active unrecused arbs or whether it just means a majority of voting arbs? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: I think we have always interpreted it as a majority of active, non-recused arbs, but I might be missing something relatively obscure. (I know that before the latest ARBPOL amendment, the two-thirds majority requirement to expel an arb was considered to be two thirds of all serving arbitrators, so it can vary in rare circumstances. But I don't think I've ever come across a simple majority of all those voting, disregarding arbitrators not voting.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (Majority required open a case)

  • I'm with Barkeep here. I spent a significant portion of my time on the committee trying to move things along so they didn't get stale, and even with that I wasn't always very successful (I've recently had cause to look at an appeal we (the ban appeals subcommittee) received in late August where we didn't actually make a decision until mid November). Anything that incentivises arbitrators to actually, to put it bluntly (because I can't think of a less blunt alternative right now) shit or get off the pot* is a good thing. Things going slowly should only happen because of an active need to go slowly (and there are plenty of reasons why that might be needed) rather than through apathy, malaise, or plain forgetfulness. I see the net four as something that allows those arbs who are actively engaged with a request to ensure their (and the community's) time is not wasted. *by which I mean declare themselves inactive or even just actively abstain on a piece of business they are not able, willing and/or desirous to be actively engaged with. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno. I get the idea. I'm kind of on the fence about this. On one hand, the reason we elect arbs is so they can make decisions. reducing it from a simple majority seems like we are suddenly distrusting the discernment of the majority.
    That said, this also kind of reminds me of the arb working groups which were a subset of the whole. Though in some of those cases we deprecated that....
    In any case, if this were to go forward, I think a percentage would be better than an arbitrary number of 4, since the total number of arbs can vary. Maybe something like one third? - jc37 02:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37 you have it backwards. Currently it works on net four. This is proposing to make it a majority. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the clarification. Then to clarify based upon that. Yes, I'm on the fence, but lean towards majority only. I'm not in favour of 4, and would prefer a percentage like one third, for the reasons stated above. - jc37 02:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see this one is looking opposed. Would it be possible to do a follow up motion to change "4" to "1/3"? The number of total arbs can vary. - jc37 10:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think 1/3 introduces some complexity without much benefit over net 4, which is a reasonable number in my opinion no matter how many active arbs we have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a set number to represent a subset when the value of the whole is variable, seems odd to me, but since (I presume) we'd only be talking about 1 or 2 in either direction, you're probably right in it not being worth the effort at this point. Though if it ever became an issue, I would hope we'd revisit this. - jc37 03:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Barkeep's position - we don't want the burden of there being a case becoming too high, and the change would just likely further extend the time that a case would take from requesting to conclusion. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the idea of arbs pocket vetoing a case request by refusing to vote one way or the other from the start (e.g. 4 supports, 0 opposes, a pile of non-recusal/non-votes). — xaosflux Talk 10:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majority required close a case

The Arbitration Committee procedure on "Motions to close" (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Motions to close) is amended so to read as follows:

Once voting on a proposed decision appears to have ended, an arbitrator will move to close the case. To be adopted, a motion to close requires the support an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators.

A final consideration period of at least 24 hours will usually elapse after a majority of votes to close the case has been reached. However, closure may be fast-tracked if an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators vote to do so.

Markup of changes

Once voting on a proposed decision appears to have ended, an arbitrator will move to close the case. To be adopted, a motion to close requires the support of the lesser of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators.

A final consideration period of at least 24 hours will usually elapse between the casting of the fourth net vote to close the case and the implementation of any remediesafter a majority of votes to close the case has been reached. However, closure may be fast-tracked if (i) all clauses pass unanimously or (ii) there is an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators vote in the motion to do so.

Arbitrators views and discussion (Majority required close a case)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 3 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
Unlike when we open a case, closing a case is final and becomes very hard to change after the fact (in fact it requires a majority) so a majority strikes me as a reasonable thing to obtain even if it means it takes us a bit longer to get it than net 4 would. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Just on procedural grounds, if it takes a majority to change a case, it should take a majority to finalize it. I can also imagine quite strange corner cases that we can just avoid by requiring absolute majority to enact case remedies. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I'm here, but weakly. We've been very lucky to have active and interested arbs over the past year, but in the past, it's taken quite a few days to get voting done. As such, it means that some arbs may become a little less active after voting. Generally, we only vote to close when everything is passing or failing and I've never seen a case closed prematurely. So, overall, I'm happy with the status quo. WormTT(talk) 16:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I find myself moving here given my comments below in response to BDD and L235's astute observation elsewhere that a remedy itself can't pass without a majority. I find both of my concerns in favor addressed. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Here as well, with similar +- entertainment voiced by others. The one thing I think about is remedies not proposed that might have a consensus where a remedy failing did not. ARCA is available of course for the same scenario, which gets back into 'majority', but that's time down the road it might be preferable not to review the relevant material. --Izno (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my comments above. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per WTT. Cabayi (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maxim(talk) 13:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I'm going back and forth on this, ultimately agreeing with all three votes above up to this point. My biggest concern—that of arbs checking out, as Worm mentions—is easily remedied by gentle prods. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Truth be told @BDD the slow arb response to these proposals has only reinforced my thinking that some gentle motivation for arbs to act is useful especially as this work progressed over a month before being proposed. Our emails have been quite busy this week so I completely understand why this has happened - arbs are reasonably focusing their attention elsewhere - but again that's the whole virtue of net4 in that it can help something rise to the top because doing nothing becomes less viable. I think I'm still in support of this (per the it takes a majority to amend so having a minority enact it doesn't make sense rationale) but it has made me more wary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For the moment I find myself agreeing with BDD, in that I agree with both sets of opposite viewpoints. On the one hand we do not want a net four to somehow slip through and result in a case being closed when there are still votes outstanding, but on the other hand this has never happened, and the language in the rest of the paragraph implies (by Once voting... appears to have ended...) that there are no outstanding votes. The thought that since we need a majority to amend a case also seems rather valid, but since each passing motion already should have a majority support it seems more of a procedural nitpick than a practical one. I am leaning towards opposing this change at the moment but have not yet landed there formally. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. My gut reaction is to support, but the above comments make me feel I don't understand the consequences well enough. - Donald Albury 22:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion

Community discussion (Majority required close a case)

  • I like this a lot. I dunno if it's a good idea that 4 arbs can suddenly close a case before everyone has had a chance to comment. We elected the arbs as a body, not a subset. So all who want to, should be able to comment. Anything less than a majority, when making an outcome determination, just seems contrary to what we do here. We already have the text "active, non-recused" - that should be enough to address things for this. - jc37 02:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the sentiment, although I doubt that it really is a problem. I see WTT's concern that activity even for official active arbs can rise and fall but that could be addressed by adding a clause that a simple majority is sufficient if the case is not closed within X days. Regards SoWhy 10:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opening of proceedings amendment

The Arbitration Committee procedure on "Opening of proceedings" (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings) is amended so the first line reads: A case is eligible to be opened when it meets all of the following criteria

Arbitrators views and discussion (Opening of proceedings amendment)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Enacted - KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. This change reflects current ArbCom practice that cases aren't immediately upon net 4 (or a majority). By current procedures we have to draw up drafting instructions for the clerks. We might want to change that so it's done less by assent of the whole committee (as is what happens now) and more on the shoulders of the drafters but that is a behind the scenes change that is permitted with-in current procedures without amendment. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is standard operating practice. We shouldn't open until we're ready. WormTT(talk) 16:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BDD (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Documents current practice — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Donald Albury 22:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. In the sense of marginal improvement. I am not really sure this item is "done", as discussed below. Izno (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. For better or worse, this is already the current practice. Maxim(talk) 13:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion

Community discussion (Opening of proceedings amendment)

The current text indicates that the arbitration request "will proceed" if the criteria are met. This implies that after the 24-hour grace period is over, allowing for arbitrators to change their minds, the case has been definitively accepted. It doesn't, in my view, imply that the case pages must be created on a strict schedule. Is the proposed amendment intended to extend the grace period after criteria 1 and 3 have been met, so that an arbitrator could change their mind and the case is no longer eligible? Or is it just intended to address the fact that cases aren't instantly opened? If the latter, then I suggest leaving the existing wording, and adding an explanatory note somewhere about when the case pages are created. isaacl (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have had instances where 24 hours have elapsed with net 4 and no case was ever opened in just the last few months, namely the Holocaust in Poland and Timwi. This drew us some criticism and rightly so based on current procedure. But the sense I have from among my fellow arbs, is that we'd prefer to change procedure to reflect our current practice rather than make our practice conform to the procedure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I suggest being more explicit: say that arbitrators can still change their minds up until a case is officially opened, and that a case can be forestalled through an alternate resolution, such as a motion. isaacl (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How specifically would you write that into procedures? I'll admit I'm a bit skeptical that being more explicit gains us anything and would come at the cost of complexity that must be followed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it will be more complex because as you say, it's documenting what is currently done. In addition to the proposed change, for example, a sentence could be added at the end such as Although a case may be eligible to be opened, arbitrators may resolve the request through other action, such as a motion. isaacl (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=1079905119"