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 Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) at 23:36, 22 February 2021 (→‎Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case: 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
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Motion name Date posted
GamerGate Rename 10 February 2021
Case Workshops 16 February 2021

Motions

GamerGate Rename

Initiated by Barkeep49 at 01:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
GamerGate arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Information about amendment request
  • Name of case
  • Should this case (and the discretionary sanctions) be renamed to something which better describes their scope?


Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this proposed motion as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should or should not accept this rename, plus thoughts on possible names

GamerGate: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This came up during our most recently concluded case and I bring it forward to the committee and the community for consideration. It strikes me that having sanctions about Gender that is actually called GamerGate gives a misleading impression. Obviously GamerGate accurately describes the situation at the time but these discretionary sanctions continue to be used for events that cannot tie into that inciting incident at all and I think we should rename accordingly. I would lean towards Gender but perhaps there are other options out there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero: What does Elliot Page, the article responsible for the two most recent sanctions under this DS, have to do with GamersGate? Nothing. But the article clearly falls under the scope we've defined and having a name that reflects that provides clarity for people who aren't wiki insiders and who don't understand all the nuances like we do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WTT: I'm not necessarily opposed to Gender-related controversy but we don't call American Politics "American Politics-related controversy" or Race and intelligence "Race and intellegence-related controversy" so why the extra appendage here? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the idea of only renaming the DS rather than the original case. I can also support David's suggested wording below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a fan of a rename. I think GamerGate has somewhat faded out of memory, but the issues of gender remain an ever present problem, and GG DS are used almost solely for gender these days. I think a rename to "Gender" would be perfect, but imagine that some clever folks in the community may have a better idea than I :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm keen on a rename also. Can I suggest that "Gender-related controversy" might be an alternative, as that seems to link through to the DS that have been authorised. I'd also like to hear community thoughts on both whether a rename should happen and if so, what it should be. WormTT(talk) 09:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds reasonable. I was trying to think if we would have a new gender-related case that we would treat separately from GamerGate, such that a broad name (either "Gender" or "Gender-related controversy") would be short-sighted. Probably not, as that case would have a more specific name ("Gender in Fooland", "Gender and Bar"). --BDD (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes me nostalgic. Imagine thinking misogyny on the internet was largely limited to certain topic areas. 2014 really was a simpler time. This probably should've been renamed at the time, as we had gone well outside the bounds of just the flash-in-the-pan controversy known as GamerGate before the case had even concluded. I'm open to the idea but not completely sold on anything proposed so far. Really, "gender related dispute" is incredibly vague in itself, I'm kind of scratching my head looking at the case now wondering why that was the phrasing we went with. (possibly because this case, at that time, felt like an all-consuming soul-crushing thing that would never go away. Then something happened around 2016 or so that seemed to shift the focus of mysogynyst trolls on the internet to other areas... what was that again?) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gender and sexuality" would probably more accurately map to what DS topics are used for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 17:53, February 11, 2021 (UTC)
  • ProcrastinatingReader, a little late, it's already been renamed. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the concept of what is being discussed here. An editor who is not familiar with GamerGate should not have to learn about it in order to understand the context of a current Wikipedia procedure. I haven't been closely following the debate over the fine points of the renaming procedure, and candidly it's more important that I invest my arb-time this weekend in reviewing the pending case decision rather than this. To avoid further delaying the discussion, will ask the Clerks to mark me as inactive on the specific motions below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to rename GamerGate discretionary sanctions

The Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate discretionary sanctions are renamed to "Gender and sexuality". The index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the GamerGate decision do not need to be updated. The central log page of discretionary sanctions, however, should be updated for the current year. For prior years the new name should be noted along with the old one. The rename of the GamerGate sanctions to Gender and sexuality is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
Might as well get this started since there's been (what I feel is) a reasonable rename suggested. I do note that while the arbitrators are all supportive of a change in case name, the community comments (as of the time of me writing this) are either of the opinion that the "generic" names above (posted before David Fuch's suggestion) are insufficient, they do not feel the case should be renamed, and/or a specific case regarding transgender issues should be created. I still think the motion should be made. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strike/move per CaptainEek. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support Barkeep49 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This should make enforcement less confusing. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin's version below is superior, so I'm striking here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I don't know how this would work in practice, or how this would be implemented by the clerks; I've proposed the motion below, which hopefully carries the spirit of this motion but is more clear in terms of what it would do. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Needlessly complex Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments
  • Cross-posted with this proposed motion but does it make more sense Primefac to just rename the DS rather than the case? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's fine, I'm amenable to rewording. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just modified the motion given that idea. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Primefac: I don't think I know what it means to "rename the DS". Discretionary sanctions authorization motions don't have names in the sense that cases have names; by convention, every discretionary sanctions area is referred to by the name of the authorizing case. I'd be fine with renaming the case, though. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to be responsive to the community concerns below but I also am fine with the original course of renaming the case as well if it present implementation issues. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about creating Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender, pass DS under that case name, and strike the DS from GamerGate? We did something like this with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa, minus the striking. Maxim(talk) 23:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Maxim: I can get behind that – that sounds like my first choice. It's true that every other DS authorization is under a case name that is similar or identical to the topic area. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm fine with that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case

In order to promote consistency and reduce confusion, the arbitration clerks are directed to create a new arbitration case page under the name Gender and sexuality, with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy.

Clause (i) of Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Sanctions previously issued in accordance with Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case will from this time on be considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. This motion does not invalidate any action previously taken under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions authorization.

In order to preserve previous clarifications about the scope of these discretionary sanctions:

  1. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender.
  2. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force.
  3. Remedy 15 of the Manning naming dispute case ("Discretionary sanctions applicable"), as amended, is rescinded.
  4. The final clause of the February 2019 Manning naming dispute motion (adding an amendment to the Interactions at GGTF case) is rescinded.

The index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to GamerGate need not be updated. The arbitration enforcement log, however, should be updated for the current year. For prior years, the new name should be noted along with the old one. The arbitration clerks are also directed to update templates and documentation pages with the new name as appropriate. This motion should be recorded on the case pages of the GamerGate case, the new Gender and sexuality case, the Manning naming dispute case, and the Interactions at GGTF case.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Proposed. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Trust Kevin to come up with a genius solution. This keeps GG intact, but allows the DS to be implemented more sensibly. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Affirm support after revision. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Achieves my goal and if it makes more sense to Kevin type people, well that's a good sign for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I affirm my support for the revised motion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elegant solution. Well done Kevin and Maxim. WormTT(talk) 11:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, we've had 24 hours, I've reviewed things and while I'd rather we completely rescind the motion referred to in pt 4, I'm also not that worried. I still think this is an excellent solution and thank all that have worked on it. Re-affirming support WormTT(talk) 13:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming support. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maxim(talk) 18:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I was trying to talk myself into the other one, but I like this a lot better. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. BDD (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. SoWhy 10:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Procedural decline due to the scope of the changes, to give time to review - I do intend to return to support. Noting that I'm happy with bringing all three cases under the shell case, however - to point 4, L235, I think we're rescinding the entire motion - the first part deals with moving DS from Sexology to GamerGate, and we're moving it further to the new case. WormTT(talk) 08:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to necessarily add it as a strict oppose but I'm going to officially stall it by striking (temporarily) my support. Primefac (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC) re-supported. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments
  • ​​​​​​​​ In response to MJL's concern, I've added a bit of housekeeping, updating clarifications that ArbCom has previously made about the GamerGate DS scope to reference the new name. I thought about amending in place ("Remedy 15 is amended to read as follows...") but it gets quite messy because there have been previous amendments; that's why I simply restated the clarifications in the motion itself and rescinded the old remedies. (The substance of #1 and #2 is copied verbatim from the previous ArbCom decisions.) Pinging arbs who have already voted – if there are any objections let me know. Sorry that this got a bit longer . Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    L235, I'm happy with these changes on the surface, but would like a bit more time to review them - considering this is quite a larger scope. I'm going to ask the clerks to hold off actioning this until after the weekend, which will allow time for the committee / community to just check there's nothing massive we're missing.
    I do wonder if it might be better to create a new motion given the scale of the changes. WormTT(talk) 08:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Worm That Turned: To answer your question, I considered rescinding the entire Feb 2019 motion, but I thought doing so would be ambiguous and/or invite wikilawyering. For example, the first part of the motion amends Remedy 15 of the Manning case. If we rescind the motion, are we reinstating the version of Remedy 15 from before it was amended? (After all, that might be one way to read "rescinding an amendment".) That's certainly not what we want. Better to be specific and simply rescind Remedy 15 itself (see point 3). I considered ways of making it more simple, but ultimately didn't find one I was happy with. I didn't think a separate motion would be needed, because this is all ultimately housekeeping (we enacted this stuff before, we're just bringing it under the umbrella of this motion in order to effectively rename the DS). But if you feel at all strongly about it I'm happy to. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that rescinding Remedy 15 in Manning is the right option, but because Remedy 15 is rescinded, I'm not sure I understand why rescinding the entire Feb 2019 motion at the same time would be ambiguous. If we were just rescinding the motion, I'd agree with you, but we're doing both. I'm not too worried about yet another motion, but I'd like to see some comments on the changes (even just arbs confirming they're happy) before we enact. WormTT(talk) 10:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I mean, it also raises other questions: by striking "Clause 2 of the February 2015 motion at the Interactions at GGTF case is struck and rescinded.", do we reinstate clause 2 of the Feb 2015 motion? (Probably not, but best safe this way.) Figured it's easiest to only rescind the parts we need to rescind. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reaffirm my support for the substance of the changes, but would strongly recommend striking the language in #1 after "transgender". There's no need to name any individual here, much less one who is specifically addressed in #3 (which is appropriate). If we don't strike as proposed, I would even more strongly recommend using only "Chelsea Manning". --BDD (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. I think removing it would be uncontroversial, so I've done so now. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with the updated wording. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate Rename: Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion name Support Oppose Abstain Passing Support needed Notes
Motion to rename GamerGate discretionary sanctions 2 2 0 Cannot pass Cannot pass Cannot pass due to a competing motion passing
Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case 11 0 0 Passing · Due to a substantive change to the motion, it's implementation will be held until all arbitrators have had a chance to reaffirm their votes. Per clerk-l Maxim is counted as a support
Notes


Community discussion

  • In general I don't think this is a good idea to go move all the case pages because the remedy has expended in general, and would rather see just some sort of "sanction name" be added for referencing. However, in reviewing the current list at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions this one specific topic sanction authorizing case does seem to be an exception and a more general name could avoid future confusion for editors less versed in the realm of arbcom. — xaosflux Talk 16:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike Footnoted Quotes, there are active and recent sanctions that Gamergate has placed on people. This looks like a solution in search of a problem here --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are going to do this, create a new pro forma case for the DS. Moving cases around is extremely extra --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 02:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally I've seen this applied almost exclusively to transgender-related topics. Instead of renaming this, I would establish a separate DS scope for topics related to transgender issues, and use that instead, though that seems like it be more complicated. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the intent here, but I'm not sold on any of the proposed names. "Gender-related disputes" is probably the best of a poor bunch, but I've not got any better alternatives to suggest at the moment. I disagree with Elliot321's suggestion of creating a separate DS scope - gender and transgender are frequently overlapping and experience shows that adjacent/overlapping topics are best merged (e.g. Balkans/Eastern Europe). Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with you - except I don't see this being applied in many gender-related but not transgender-related issues, and I'd rather have a narrower scope. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transgender but not gender would imo just be opening things up for wikilawyering from gender critical type folks. Best to leave the authorisation broad but set individual restrictions narrower within that where they are needed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with xaos et al. Retroactively renaming a case from 7 years ago seems misleading, just because the scope of the DS has changed over time. Imo rename the authorised discretionary sanctions to stop being “gg” / “ggtf” to “ge” or “gender” or something. The goal seems similar to wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture which was resolved by motion and was honestly redundant to the pseudoscience DS (acupuncture is psuedoscience, by definition, and the split log doesn’t seem to make sense). I guess you could just file a pro forma case and authorise a general DS by motion if you really wanted, but renaming the old case seems eh imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, I don’t think transgender issues need to be separated from other gender issues; don’t really see the point, and it would be confusing, per Thryduulf’s reasoning above. I still think that renaming of the case is messy, but if done you should probably amend the scope of the DS at the same time (the focus on GG in the topic scope seems off, in 2021). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • barkeep49 motion section header still says it’s to rename the case, and the prose still says The rename of the GamerGate case to Gender and sexuality is only for clarity in reference. Is that intentional? Currently unclear whether that motion intends to rename the case, after your edit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @MJL: Maybe there could be a review case, similar to the infoboxes review, opened under the "Gender and sexuality" title. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree that only the DS needs to be renamed, as most of the other remedies of the GG case were specific to the behavior on the Gamergate movement page. But the DS has grown to encompass gender-based aspects far beyond that, so renaming just that would make a lot of sense. --Masem (t) 18:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding naming conventions: arbitrators are free to devise any label they wish for a given remedy. If the remedy has a different scope than the case, be it broader or narrower, an appropriate moniker can be chosen. I don't feel that a case should be renamed in a way that suggests its scope of inquiry was broader than it actually was. isaacl (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding creating a shell case: I think it's unnecessary overhead. Remedies can be freely crafted with any suitable label. The supporting templates for discretionary sanctions are made to carry out the effects of arbitration, and not the other way around. isaacl (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that appetite to do a simple rename or just creating a shell case here, but I think that won't solve the key issue here which is that this is a tragically underappreciated sanction. I don't think anyone, including arbcom in all likelihood, really understands why this is such a difficult area to edit in (as in the core of the issue). We need a new case to completely re-examine what is actually going on.
    Now, let me clear something up about my involvement in this area: I barely ever edit in this topic area outside of projectspace. I have always found it too much of a WP:BATTLEGROUND to the point I feel more comfortable editing American politics than I do editing gender topics. Passing a simple set of sanctions will not come close to fixing the issue, and six to seven years have gone by without a critical eye on this entire area. The pronoun humour essay, Fae, Wander v. Flyer22.. they're all expressions of a core problem here.
    I thought when I originally proposed that Manning get officially amended to clarify its scope under Gamergate that this would fix the problem, but here we are two years later being left (in what I feel) is a worse place than we started. Sanctions haven't helped because the guidance is outdated, and admins need to be told what and how to effectively use them here. Put simply: what is the type of user that Arbcom expects these sanctions to be used against, and how does that fit as part of a general problem in this topic area?
    My contention is that no one here has any idea what is going on, and that can be incredibly frustrating when talking about discretionary sanctions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: I'd be fine with either a review case or essentially a fresh case (regardless under the "Gender and Sexuality" title). My only preference is that entirely new sanctions be passed under that case name which supercede the old. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @L235: Love the motion, but if I may suggest you also rescind the Manning February 2019 amendment as well? The entire reason it was proposed and passed was to consolidate the gender/sexuality-related discretionary regime under one broader remedy. We finally have that with this motion, so that amendment is now finally useless. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @L235: I'm glad to see that the clarifications will be hosted at the shell case! I never thought about that, and it will certainly solve the "people always forget about the clarification remedies" problem. The only further change I would make at minimum is removing /Bradley from it since that was a holdover from a 8-year-old dispute about COMMONNAME which has been definitively settled by now. Though, I am sympathetic with what BDD said about removing the clarification of a BLP entirely (as it covered in the previous sub-clause of that section).
    Either way, I'm sorry if I unintentionally delayed these proceedings at all. I feel guilty about that. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposal is absolutely wonderfully crafted, and I am incredibly glad to have such a well thought (yet still somehow concise) motion pass this committee. I would like to caution against adding any unneeded language at this time. It should be pretty clear to everyone reading this that nonbinary and genderqueer people are included under these discretionary sanctions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a serious wikilawyering loophole here (a terminological specificity one) that is easy to close by changing "known to be or self-identifying as transgender" to "known to be or self-identifying as transgender, nonbinary, or genderqueer". The whole point of this motion is to centralize all the sexuality and gender ArbCom/DS stuff into one meta-case, so it needs to actually do that, not provide an "escape valve" for two closely related subsets of the overall topic area by being very specific about one but not about those two.

    PS: I agree with MJL that "We need a new case to completely re-examine what is actually going on" (though I doubt we would have the same answer to that underlying question). The WW/Flyer case was a shitshow in large part because it was very unnecessarily opened as as "this editor v. that editor" failure-to-get-along case when it was obvious to everyone that it was a proxy fight over a much broader set of behavioral problems involving many more editors, and then in the Workshop phase it ballooned into something closer to that broader conflict, but without any additional pertinent editors being named as parties, and with virtually no enforcement of ArbCom evidentiary and behavioral norms during the case.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think this is unnecessary. The numbered list merely restates previous existing clarifications about the scope of the DS authorization. Of course article title/pronouns/etc. of transgender, nonbinary, or genderqueer people are covered by the scope of "any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people". The clarification is not an exclusive list. Anyone who wikilawyers this does not have the competence to be editing in this area. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      But it will happen anyway. We know this. Let's not permit the time waste to occur. If it were not necessary to be terminologically specific, then we should also remove "transgender" and just leave it at "any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people". That is, either be vague or be specific, but don't be "1/3 specific", in a way that virtually guarantees pointless dispute.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case Workshops

Initiated by Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures

Motion: Make workshops optional

Arbitration Committee cases shall no longer have a workshop as a default. Arbitration procedures will be modified to indicate that the workshop phase is optional, at the discretion of either the drafting arbitrators or the full committee.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. As proposer. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Happy for the flexibility if needed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments

Workshops have, in many cases, become counterproductive, serving more as place for involved parties to snipe at each other as opposed to the actual crafting of proper proposed decisions. In looking onto this, it became clear that there actually are no rules for workshops. They simply became a standard part of cases at some point without any apparent policy or procedure outlining how they are to be used. This is but one of several ideas we have been discussing and there will probably be more motions to follow to more clearly establish what workshops will look like when they are still used. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat reluctant to remove the flexibility we have now by codifying it into procedures, even as what we're codifying is apparently flexible, because subsequent changes would need their own vote which would remove our ability to respond in the middle of a case. I don't know why we might need to but I'm also not completely convinced we need to lock ourselves in with a formal procedure. If we're going to formally introduce Workshops into procedures, I think getting the wording right for how we do it is important. So while I am philosophically in favor of this change and the two below, based in no small part on the extensive feedback we've already received from the community at WT:ACN, I would love to hear from our clerk term and L235 before I start voting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically what I'm getting at with the third motion, when we do have them the arbs can set the ground rules at the outset, and the participants will be held to those rules. The way it is now, it seems like every workshop works under the same rules, or lack thereof. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I share BK's reluctance to codify much more on this front, but perhaps I could support "Discretionary authority in workshops" on the understanding that this is already status quo, just codified and formalized. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Isaacl: That is indeed the only mention anywhere of how workshops work and what they are for. That is the problem I am aiming to address, for whatever reason, when workshops became a thing they were just there all the sudden. Their initial purpose was for the arbs to draft the proposed decision, but that function has by and large moved to the arbwiki, and a more finished product is usually presented in the PD, while the workshop is just a free-for-all. As to the the overall timeline, that is also pretty flexible, usually being established as the first step once a case is accepted. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm struggling here, because I don't like workshops - however, after the discussion on WT:AC/N, I'm not convinced that they are a Bad ThingTM. They are useful in a number of ways. The difficulty comes with how to manage the workshops - they can be very stressful for participants, but at the same time any direct action taken against a specific individual gets significant push back - so the line is perhaps drawn higher than it should be. We often find this in civility discussions, people may agree that "generally" level of discourse is lower than would be hoped, but "specifically" it is difficult to point comments that should be removed / updated to improve matters. Given that the entire area of the workshop is to discuss ideas for how to improve a situation, we're always going to have some level of upset.
    So, I agree there are certain types of cases where we should not have a workshop - cases where we are focused on the behaviour of a couple of individuals or perhaps admin accountability cases, and so I wholly support the idea of an "optional" workshop. However, other sorts of cases may benefit more from a workshop, especially those where we are looking at "area of dispute". I guess I'm just not happy about the first sentence, which I'm reading as "by default we won't have a workshop, and so will need to justify having one". WormTT(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kolya Butternut, my thoughts on removal for one or two individuals comes back to a "disciplinary process" approach. In those cases, statistically, if your name is in the case name, there is a good chance you will be sanctioned. It is likely that the case will be taken personally, and be very stressful for those participants. The plausible benefits of the workshop are outweighed by the damage it can cause.
    Thryduulf I agree in theory. However, in practise, this does not work, just as it does not work at other locations where similar complaints come up, say, RFA. As I say, people consider the "general" tone to be low but struggle to point to "specifics". Further, when you do point to a specific low level issue (nipping problems in the bud), the moderator is likely to a) be pointed to another "low toned" comment, or b) simply disagree that there's anything wrong. What to be done? Removal of the comment / Removal of the participant? Both may be seen as overblown except in clear cut cases. WormTT(talk) 15:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this sentiment from WTT. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I share the concerns of Thryduulf and Tryptofish below that this is a further step than we should take just yet. I hope this isn't just quibbling, but wording with more flexibility may help. It may not have been the intent, but this reads to me a strictly opt-in process: "There are no workshops unless the drafters choose to have one". Maybe something more open-ended, like, "There will not necessarily be workshops, and drafters will decide whether they're appropriate for individual cases". Maybe I'm just writing my own motion at this point... --BDD (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like the wording "the workshop phase is optional" is pretty clear, and I personally do not feel like this is all that drastic of a step. I deliberately kept the wording simple because this should be a very simple process. I would think in most cases it would be a simple, brief discussion between the drafting arbs. All that being said, I'm very used to people not liking the way I present ideas and am always happy to consider any proposed alternate wording. I just felt like we needed to get the ball rolling here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm definitely quibbling about language now! "Shall" sounds like there's a prescription. I agree that "the workshop phase is optional" is clear. Maybe this is as simple as striking the first sentence. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion of Motion: Make workshops optional

The only current mention of workshops in the procedures is in the section Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Target timetable for proceedings. Thus will the change be essentially changing step 2 to "The optional workshop phase" and step 3 to something like "within one week of the evidence phase or the optional workshop phase closing"? isaacl (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, I was trying to understand, in light of Barkeep49's concern, if there would be any more codification in the procedures beyond changing the target timeline section. Because the format of the case pages is entirely within the discretion the arbitration committee, there may not be any need for additional procedures to be formally written. isaacl (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When will the decision to include / exclude a workshop be made? Will it be subject to community comment / discussion or just internal discussion of ArbCom (or uniltateral decision of the drafting Arbs? Has consideration been given to how not having a workshop might effect editors submission of evidence? The evidence page has no place for arbitrator comment, so will skipping a workshop mean there is even greater scope for a PD to appear that comes as a shock to participants? Where will arbitrator questions / requests for evidence appear? What about motions relating to cases? I'm wondering about unintended consequences... EdChem (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think at least some of these concerns are already addressed in the motion. The drafting arbs would probably make the call most of the time, but if other arbs disagree it will go to the full committee. The committee usually decides on a timeline for cases as soon as it is clear that the case is being accepted, I would think the decision on whether to have a workshop or not would naturally occur as part of that process (which I realize is invisible to non-arbs as it takes place on the mailing list) The signal-to-noise ratio in many cases of recent years has been just awful, that's the motivation behind this. As for discussion, it would just be one less talk page, arbs can still communicate as they do now on the evidence and PD talk pages. In the event that we actually decide to do a temporary injunction (which is pretty rare these days) we can just create a subpage just for that in place of the full workshop as needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe we need to keep an analysis of evidence section separate from the main evidence section. If analysis were to be combined with the evidence phase then we would be virtually guaranteed to need an extension for analysis of the statements of evidence, so at that point we should just separate the sections. Also, it can take too much time to make one's own statement and analyze all the other evidence. I think it makes more sense for arbitrators to ask questions during the evidence phase but leave the analysis to the workshop. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox, you said that workshops "simply became a standard part of cases at some point without any apparent policy or procedure outlining how they are to be used", but workshops have been explained before as early as 2005: "The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision."[1][2][3][4][5] I hear you that there is no current official policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC) added diffs Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC) +"as early as 2005" Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The change in the description of the workshop phase seems to have first appeared in March 2009: "Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision."[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Worm That Turned, you stated that we should not have workshops for cases about the behavior of a couple of individuals; what are your thoughts there? What I saw at the recent FF and WW case was almost no moderation from clerks or arbs, and almost no participation at all until the very end. I would like to see us try to have workshops for user conduct issues where arbitrators put themselves out there more, not less by eliminating one of the only forums that isn't behind-the-scenes. I understand the concern about push back arbitrators can receive, but I think that if arbitrators were to give light warnings, like we saw on the talk pages of the past case, that could be effective feedback to keep workshops in line. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Worm That Turned, I think if we just eliminated threaded discussions from the workshop there would be a great improvement. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the workshops as they are now can have serious problems, but I don't believe that this can be solved by getting rid of the workshops - the sniping and incivility will move elsewhere (the evidence talk page is one possibility, but I'm not sure there will be a single place). Rather I think what is needed is active moderation of the workshop by arbitrators or people who are explicitly appointed by the arbitrators to do the moderation. I don't support this motion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the workshop, in many cases, accomplishes nothing. I think this is particularly true in cases that are about the behavior of a very small number of editors, or a single admin. Looking at recent cases, the average is roughly eight workshop proposals at each one. Do we need eight different people workshopping what to do about one or two other people, while the drafting arbs are drawing their own conclusions and drafting the "real"proposed decision elsewhere? I really don't think so. That is the kind of case this change is aimed at. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need eight different suites of proposals? No. Do we need eight different perspectives which the Arbs can use for inspiration, see reactions to, etc? I think this can add significant value. With arb feedback and closing down of anything clearly inappropriate the possibility of harm and distraction is minimised. I also reiterate that the "real" proposed decision should not be drafted in isolation and presented as a complete proposed decision. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is somewhat orthogonal, but Beeblebrox, would this not count as [s]ignificant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures according to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Modification of procedures, thus warranting notice in a few more places? Isaacl's initial comment notes how scantily mentioned Workshops are, but given the history and precedence (and WT:ACN discussion) it does seem this might be considered as such. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amorymeltzer, I have made the necessary notifications (to AN and ACN). If you feel it needs posting elsewhere, let me know where you think it is also needed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that the Committee first experiment with the options that are available in the second proposed motion, and only after that consider seeing what happens if you skip a Workshop entirely. Take it one step at a time. There is no need to do this in one fell swoop. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, Beeblebrox, what criteria would the drafting arbs look for to enable the workshop? Without an idea of criteria of what arbs are looking to see to judge that a workshop would be helpful, I guess it would just be either arbitrary/personal preference (depending on the drafting arbs) or always disabled. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think worm's comments on when they are useful or not are pretty on point. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent idea to give Arbs the discretion to choose. Per WTT, single Admin reviews or 2 party feuds might often not justify the community time + potential prolonged stress from a full length case. Whereas more complex cases might. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a good idea, and I don't really understand the hand-wringing on the part of some of the Arb responses so far. Making it explicitly optional and not "on" by default doesn't in any way tie ArbCom's hands.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Discretionary authority in workshops

In cases where a workshop phase is employed, the drafting arbitrators shall have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding what is and is not permitted during the workshop. Any arbitrator or arbitration clerk may take whatever action they feel is needed to enforce standards of decorum and civility, and to limit "sprawling" outside the scope of the case.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a positive step even if it only codifies current practice. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. pragmatic and sensible Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments
  • Technically, this is already true, but I feel it would be good to formalize it as it has been clear for some time now that behavior at workshops needs to be reined in. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion of Motion: Discretionary authority in workshops

  • Getting clarification on what actually is the scope of a case has been a difficulty in cases that I have watched. Clerks guessing what is or is not within scope is problematic. Arbitrtators appear reluctant to spend substantial time dealing with workshop contributions. The draft presupposes that scope is something that is clearly known / understood and at times I've felt the drafting arbs are the only ones who actually know this. EdChem (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject to the caveats that the case scope and workshop rules are clear and arbs are responsive to questions about them, then this is a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this meaningfully different from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Maintaining order and decorum on arbitration pages? It's possible that modern clerks are given a somewhat shorter leash, or that modern Arbs have generally preferred giving permission rather than forgiveness, but I think both clauses here are already True and well-known. If the intent is to clarify already-existing policy (WP:AC/P?), I'm not sure it's helpful to limit the wording to workshops. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this motion is really at the heart of what the community has been discussing. As written, the motion is somewhat broad and vague, which may be appropriate, but that is probably why editors are asking whether it really is anything new. It's important to make clear what specific assertions of authority are being made – either in a revised version of the motion, or, as correctly noted by Thryduulf, as will be necessary no matter what on specific case pages and in answers to questions from participating editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with all four of the above. This will be a good step toward preventing trainwrecks, but may not be enough in and of itself. BDD's "only codifies current practice" is kind of wishful thinking. While Amorymeltzer is correct that there's already language kind of suggestive of this, it's clearly not resulted in an enforced set of procedural rules, and that is what we need. So, I feel this is perhaps a bit too vague. For one thing, "standards of decorum and civility" isn't really enough. A substantial part of the problem is whether workshop/analysis accusations are actually supported by any evidence, so maybe "enforce standards of decorum, civility, and evidence" or something like that. I'm not sure any of these motions are getting at a central part of the problem, which has been the threaded-discussion nature of the workshop phase. Even the talk pages of these pages don't permit that, so none of the pages themselves should permit it. If you feel compelled to respond to someone's evidentiary/analysis claims, it needs to be in your own section and within your length limits (original, or as extended after approved request).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Analysis of evidence

In cases where there is no workshop phase, the "Analysis of evidence" section shall be moved to the evidence phase and close concurrently with that phase. Extensions may be granted on request if there are late submissions that a participant wishes to respond to.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. sensible Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments
  • I think the comment from Trypto/Isaac about moving analysis of evidence always to the Evidence page, and thus always subject to word lengths, is intriguing. Some amount evidence that is regularly offered is really more analysis anyway. I know that "evidence" I offered that was cited in the final decision of at least 1 case contained a large amount of analysis anyway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion of Motion: Analysis of evidence

Although personally I like separating analysis from a plain description of acts with citations, I appreciate that many participants in past arbitration cases have preferred to integrate the two more tightly. Perhaps as a middle ground, consideration can be given to dividing each participant's section into evidence and analysis subsections. isaacl (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox does this motion allow extensions for adding Analysis of evidence, or does it allow an extension for everything to do with evidence? It is probably best to be clear, as although this motion seems to be only about analysis of evidence its current wording could be seen in different ways. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could make clear which it is when granting any extensions, i.e. "you are granted a five-day extension in order to reply to evidence already submitted." Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it has long been confusing to the community to have the analysis on the Workshop page. It actually might make sense to always move it to the Evidence page, regardless of whether or not there is a Workshop, and have it stay open for a while after the evidence per se has been closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The analysis section was long ignored until recently—the increasing amount of use may have been triggered by concerns about word limits in the evidence section. (Once upon a time, I believe an arbitrator said, in response to someone asking if they should be placing a statement on the evidence page, workshop page, or one of the talk pages, that they read them all anyway, and a clerk can move it to wherever seems best.) I still think participants should be encouraged to separate analysis from evidence, as I think this helps establish a better common context for discussion. But I also think they should stop arguing with each other about whether or not someone else has breached the format conventions, and focus on their own points. (Note: using more words isn't always desirable; conciseness can be more compelling.) Perhaps having their evidence and analysis together in one section will help with that. isaacl (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Tryptofish above, though support this motion regardless. There is little opportunity for "analysis" of evidence to turn into a Gish gallop of vague accusations if constrained to strict length limits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Timetable and case structure

Once a case has been accepted, the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The name is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to be drafting arbitrator(s) for the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as a designated point of contact for any matters arising.

The standard structure of a case will include the following phases and timetable:

  1. An evidence phase that lasts two weeks from the date of the case pages opening;
  2. A workshop phase, that ends one week after the evidence phase closes;
  3. A proposed decision which is published within one week of the workshop phase closing.

The timetable and structure of the case may be adjusted (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) by the initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s) during the case. Drafting arbitrator(s) shall also have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding the running of the phases (e.g. enforce threaded discussions, set a word limit for participants in the workshop phase) to enforce the expectation of behavior during a case. Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case.

Implementation note: upon this motion passing, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Target_timetable_for_proceedings will be removed, the final paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Opening_of_proceedings will be struck, and a new section, with the heading "Timetable and case structure", will be added to the Committee's procedures with the above text. In the announcement for this change, the Committee will note its intention to incorporate the analysis of evidence into the evidence phase as part of the standard structure and to make the workshop phase optional. The Workshop phase will be omitted for some cases, such as those examining the conduct of one or two editors.

Support
  1. Per comments below. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is the sort of thing I could get behind. My only niggle is that the standard structure is with a workshop and you've got that the structure can be "added". I've switched that to removed, which therefore opens us up to the flexibility which I believe we want to have, whilst also keeping the option of a status quo. I'd also be happy with "added or removed" instead. WormTT(talk) 10:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thoughts, added or removed is better as it could refer to analysis of evidence phase. WormTT(talk) 10:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This tweak is definitely fine with me and I'll just note that the parenthetical statements are designed to be examples and not the full range of how a case may be adjusted or case-specific rules drafting arbs may set. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, this looks reasonable. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments

This is designed to collapse the three motions above into a single motion, while allowing us to maintain the flexibility that our current procedures and processes allow, and to reflect current practices in terms of how a case is opened. I have included the idea of putting analysis of evidence into the evidence phase but if other arbs don't want this to be standard practice and instead only practice when we don't have a workshop that's fine with me. I'll also note that this is worded in a way that we could have an "Analysis of evidence" phase even in cases where we choose not to have a full workshop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: copy edits made. Substantively, the culture of arbcom, at least from my limited experience with two cases this year and some limited reading of the archives, is that the drafting arbs do check-in with the larger committee. I specifically included actions that drafting arbs have historically done (extending the deadline for a phase, saying yes to threaded discussions) as signposts. Personally, yes I would rather the drafting arbs feel empowered rather than have potential paralysis waiting for a group of people who are, often, quite busy. With the proposal above, I could see, for instance, the drafting arbs deciding midcase to do an "Arb proposals only" workshop in the middle of a case where there hadn't been a plan for a workshop.
As for the statement about making workshops optional, I put that in there to try to reassure people like you and Thrydulf who don't like the direction this committee is going, that this is about flexibility not eliminating the chance for party and community feedback. But the idea that we should open ourselves up to more workshops like we got at Flyer/WW (which I'll note was actually a three party case, something I intentionally thought about when I was wording it because there is indeed nothing magical about two versus three) while we try something is not appealing to me in the least. For that case we had participating editors indicating how upsetting the whole process was to them and arbs saying "We didn't get anything of value" (well actually I did get something of value, the idea that we should rethink the name of GamerGate, but that was hardly of such value as to make the whole endeavor worthwhile). So no I don't think we should try some other partial measure, whose efficacy I expect to be higher on paper than in reality. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion of Motion: Timetable and case structure

First, just some trivial nitpicks: In the second sentence, you might want to change "title" to "case name" or "case-name". And in the third sentence add "a" to "a designated point of contact".

I think that "The Workshop phase will be omitted for some cases, such as those examining the conduct of one or two editors" raises problems. Must it be omitted for every case examining one or two editors? Is three really a meaningful cut-off? More broadly, is the Committee really ready to take this leap before experimenting with case-specific rules set by the drafting arbs for the Workshop phase?

Do the drafting arbs have full authority to change the timetable and structure, or are there things where the whole Committee should be consulted?

Having said all that, I think that it's good to combine three motions into one, and that this motion is very much on the right track. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with this, except that point 2 should say "optional", unless the first motion in this section (that workshops will be optional and not the default) does not pass.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case Workshops: Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion name Support Oppose Abstain Passing Support needed Notes
Motion: Make workshops optional 2 0 0 Currently not passing 5
Motion: Discretionary authority in workshops 3 0 0 Currently not passing 4
Motion: Analysis of evidence 1 0 0 Currently not passing 6
Motion: Timetable and case structure 4 0 0 Currently not passing 3
Notes
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=1008369085"