Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 14:29, 27 October 2011 (→‎Clerk notes). 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

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Motions

Shortcut

Omnibus motion amending past decisions

Background

Over the years, the committee has set in place a number of sanctions applying stricter behavioral requirements and a reduced threshold for enforcing those requirements in topic areas where there has been persistent disruption. Those sanctions have had similar but sometimes subtly divergent wording, and evolved over time to what is now a standardized remedy.

This motion "updates" older discretionary sanction remedies (and a few that were the same in intent but were not yet named as such) to refer to the new standardized discretionary sanctions. This will simplify enforcement by using a single, well defined procedure, and the simplicity will also make it easier for editors in those topic areas to be aware of the restrictions. — Coren (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

Copied from User talk:Coren/draft:
  • I for one welcome this motion for standardized discretionary sanctions. This will make AE more consistent and in line with existing practice; current remedies on some of the older cases tie the Admins hands so that they are unable to enact less sweeping measures, such as a time limited topic ban instead of an extended site wide block. This will (for example) enable us to encourage basically good editors who are a little too close to a subject to continue to edit and learn the ropes here, while protecting controversial articles from being hostage to edit wars and battleground behavior. Thank you for taking the time to write and make this motion, Coren. I don't know of any cases which you didn't list which might benefit from this; it looks to me like you've found them all. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with KC that this is a good change. Some of those remedies (Homeopathy, Free Republic, Ayn Rand) does not seem to be used in practice, though, judging from the logs. Maybe they should just be lifted? This seems to be pretty complete. Thanks a lot, Coren. T. Canens (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's always difficult to discern whether the editors in a topic area behave well so that there is no longer need for a remedy or if they behave because there is a remedy in place. I agree that reexamining how pertinent some of those remedies may still be is a worthwhile exercise, but I think that's best left to some other time to keep the omnibus motion simpler in substance as "just a freshening up" of older sanctions to modern standards. — Coren (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine with me. Extra remedies won't hurt things, after all. As long as this is not taken to express the committee's view either way on the continued need for those remedies, there will be no objection from me. T. Canens (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Nitpick: I'm not sure that the word "supersede" is usually used that way...[reply]
        su·per·sede v. 3. to displace in favor of another  :-)
        • Also, it might be a good idea to make clear the status of existing warnings made under the old DS provisions. Especially in cases where there is no substantive change, there's no reason to require yet another warning. T. Canens (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good point, I'll add a provision for this. — Coren (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope you don't mind me dropping by. I remember that some of your colleagues (at WP:ARBCC/PD in particular) have objected to standard discretionary sanctions in the past. Have you all talked about it on your mailing list since? NW (Talk) 20:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well yes, I did a sounding of general support on the mailing list before doing the review. Although, when you think about it, the fact that a standardized discretionary sanction has been used in recent cases makes it no surprise that this review would get good support: the original objections at the time were borne of procedural worries rather than because the cases themselves would not benefit but now that the process exists it's actually easier to refer to it than craft it anew every case.

      That said, this is a draft and the real motion (even if it's this one verbatim) will be put to a vote by the whole committee anyways. — Coren (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi NuclearWarfare. I have a feeling you may be referring to me. During the Climate Change case, there was a need to address some other issues as well that did not fit into the usual "discretionary sanctions" finding, which was part of the reason for the much more specific one at that time. Many of those issues have now been resolved in other ways. Personally speaking, I've spent some time following the activities at WP:AE and came away with the impression that this may assist enforcing administrators, particularly in the face of some of the extensive wiki-lawyering that occurs there. That impression is borne out by the posts above, so from that perspective I think this is a net positive. As to Timotheus Canens' point above, I agree with Coren that it is probably better to take care of this aspect of the old cases before worrying about lifting the remedies entirely right now. There remains the potential to do that in the future. Risker (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excellent. I don't spend as much time at AE as the other two who have commented, but I definitely agree with them. NW (Talk) 01:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Coren's idea to 'freshen up' the sanction provisions of the older cases. Anything that makes these provisions uniform will make them easier to enforce. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question:

For the lay person: This sounds as if any uninvolved admin with out an AE may apply a sanction on an editor they deem to be in violation. Am I understanding this correctly.(olive (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Not quite. A contentious topic comes up for an Arbcom decision, and as part of that, discretionary sanctions are applied, which has always meant that any uninvolved administrator may enact the penalty described in the sanction, on an editor who has previously been warned that the topic is subject to discretionary sanctions. The exact wordings of the discretionary sanctions have changed over time - originally the only sanction was a block, but they now allow for AE topic bans, which the older wording did not include.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes sense, I think. On editors sanctioned in an arbitration any single uninvolved admin may block(has always been able to), and now topic ban?
As an added comment although this probably isn't the time. What constitutes a warning either for an editor not sanctioned but working in a contentious area that has been dealt with in an arbitration and also perhaps for editors sanctioned, is pretty loose and also confusing for many editors. I wouldn't mind something strongly and clearly worded so editors know they have been warned and have done something that merits a ban. Four year old warnings on something vaguely related, warnings by involved editors, and in one instance an editor was told the arbitration was warning enough are all unclear pointers. If an editor is trespassing on forbidden ground, a clear warning on their talk page would probably clear things/ behaviour up quickly in the case of editors unaware they have been seen to trespass. I'd go so far as to want a template with a warning on it posted on a user page, but realize this could feel threatening and over bearing. I think I've brought this up before but thought I'd mention it again. I don't think what we have now is clear, and my own feeling is that the warning aspect has been abused and can be abused. A thought. (olive (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Regarding warning, there are apparently conflicting requirements. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions says:
  • Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;
I read that to mean that the warning isn't just about the existence of DS, but about the specific misconduct which could lead to the application of DS. OTOH, the main text at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions says:
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
That does not include the language about "identify misconduct" and implies that a general warning about DS is sufficient. Perhaps that discrepancy could be addressed.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall I support the motion, though I would agree with some of the comments above that the concept of what constitutes a formal warning is still a bit ambiguous. For example, if an editor was a party to the arbitration case where the sanctions were authorized, do they still need to be formally warned about the possibility of sanctions before an administrator can take action? And if so, do such warnings need to be logged to the case page, considering that the editor's name is already on that page? Another question has to do with who can issue a formal warning (can any editor do it, or does it have to be an uninvolved admin?). We also have issues come up related to the logging of warnings: With some arbitration cases, warnings are logged. With other cases, there is no place to log warnings (but probably should be). Personally, I think that: Warnings are not required for situations where an editor was already a participant in a case, but a log should be kept on the case page for all editors who were not parties, along with a diff of the warning. As for who can issue a warning, any editor can issue a reminder about the possibility of discretionary sanctions, but only uninvolved admins should be allowed to formally log such warnings (though the question comes up about whether if a non-admin has issued a warning, can an admin then issue a sanction, or must a warning be admin-issued to be valid?). Lastly, I don't think that a full warning template is always necessary, but any warning should definitely include clear language, a link to WP:AC/DS, and a link to the relevant case. --Elonka 22:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the advantages of using this remedy by reference (i.e., by pointing at the page describing it rather than repeating its text) is that if we make tweaks to clarify questions like those you just raised, the tweaks would then be uniformly applicable without having to revisit cases like we do now.

      Incidentally, I agree with most of the interpretations you made above except that I think you're placing more importance on the process of warning than is needed (or useful): the point of the warning is to avoid anyone (especially new editors) from being sanctioned without having had a chance to learn about and abide by the current restrictions; if they are demonstrably aware of them, protests about the procedure are hollow wikilawyering of the worst sort. Obviously, parties to the decision cannot make credible claims of ignorance; warning them is unnecessary. While it's easier to follow a clean procedure (warn by admin, log for easy reference), I don't see it as an absolute requirement of a warning. If the editor was told that an arbitration decision and discretionary sanctions applied to their editing, and given a pointer to both, then they would have a hard time convincing me that they weren't warned. — Coren (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Perhaps Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions needs to be altered to bring it closer to the standardized DS.   Will Beback  talk  02:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've probably been most responsible among the arbitrators for insisting that discretionary sanctions include a requirement that contributors who are editing problematically first be warned before sanctions are imposed. This requirement serves the purpose of ensuring that editors who are close to being sanctioned have an opportunity to either respond to the administrator's concerns and/or change their behavior; it also reduces the number of substantive claims of unfairness and procedural claims of lack of notice, either sincere or feigned. The warnings requirement should be interpreted in a common-sense manner consistent with these goals. Thus, if a party to an arbitration case seriously misbehaves in the relevant topic area one week after the case closes, he or she might reasonably be understood to already be on notice, especially if he or she was criticized in the decision. On the other hand, if it is two years after the case closed and the former party has had no problems in the interim, a warning would be in order. Obviously, there will be intermediate cases. On balance, if there is fair doubt about whether to give the warning, the more prudent course will usually be to give it: either the warning will solve the problem (in which case sanctions aren't needed), or it won't (in which case a sanction can then be imposed without further worry). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Coren: I agree with your comments in principle, however in practice, if the 'warning' editor is 'involved' or if sanctions are general rather than specific what you have is a potential playing field for gaming the system. I'd suggest clarifying what is meant by warning, or get rid of it altogether, but whatever is decided, both those warned and taken to AE, and those filing an AE should be very clear about meaning, and that doesn't seem to be the case now. (olive (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

We still have the outstanding question of whether or not warnings need to be logged. It is my opinion that having a log of official warnings is helpful, especially when there are multiple admins dealing with problems in a topic area (so we don't have to go trawling through a user's talkpage history to find out if they've ever been officially notified). The log should be posted by an uninvolved admin, and record the names of those editors who were not parties to a case, along with a diff of the warning. Additional warnings to the same editor do not need to be logged to the case page, though Newyorkbrad is correct that if some time has passed, a new warning may be appropriate before issuing a sanction. --Elonka 04:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question that logging the warning on the case page is a good thing from a management point of view, as it makes it much easier to keep track of who was warned when more than one administrator is involved. What I worry about is that if we make it a requirement, it opens the door to wikilawyering around what is, ultimately, a clerical technicality and a convenience. My opinion is that warnings should be logged on the case page, but that having failed to do so does not invalidate the warning in any way. — Coren (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. It is also worth remembering that some cases, like ARBMAC, originally had no official warning logs at all, and admins just added such a section later on their own initiative, as a matter of convenience. One other thing to keep in mind is that there have historically been two very different approaches to "warnings": neutral "notifications" worded merely to inform an editor of the existence of the sanction rule, without accusing him of actual misconduct (e.g. {{uw-balkans}}), and actual warnings saying that "you've been doing something wrong and there's a concrete danger you'll be sanctioned if you continue" (e.g. {{uw-balkans2}}). I've always found the second approach a lot more useful. Because in these areas there are typically quite a few editors who honestly aren't aware to what extent their own conduct can be perceived as problematic (the borderline between "taking a robust stance in fighting disruption from nationalist fringe-pushers" and "being a disruptive battleground editor oneself" is sometimes difficult to pin down!), so a "notification" of the first kind may be of little help and may not really fit the purpose of these rules. I would much prefer if "warnings" in the sense of these rules were always understood to be only those of the second type, but, if admins wish to continue using "notifications" also of the first type, I'd suggest those be preferably not logged, because an entry in the log may be perceived like a kind of "scarlet letter". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had exactly the opposite experience. With notifications, considerably less time is spent arguing about whether the notice was a "stick" or not; the "this is not meant..." verbiage allows editors to continue without feeling the need to become defensive - and they generally improve their behavior without having to spell it out for them. If not, a personal note rather than a templatized "warning" has the positive results of the templated warning, without the downsides to the template itself. Again, with notifications; we found on the Sarah Palin page, at least, that the log of notifications was extremely helpful in preventing what editors perceived as "badgering" behavior; the log section includes a caution not to notify anyone more than once. Without the log, there is the possible issue of repeat notices, meant to be informative, but taken as harassment by the editor receiving them. Admittedly, that would not be an issue if no notices were given, and only warnings; but in the case of certain specific sanctions, like the 1RR on Abortion articles, some good editors have run afoul of the sanction simply because they didn't know about it. A friendly "heads-up" kind of notice prevents this from occurring. While I feel that given our differing points of view on this indicates that for now, at least, this is probably best left to the discretion of editors and admins on any specific given article/topic under sanctions, as a general rule I find that when informative notices become more widespread and are phrased so as not to be accusatory, the general atmosphere surrounding such notices becomes less tense; editors are more likely to take the notices in stride, seeing that they are being offered as information rather than as rebukes, which tends to provoke a fight or flight type response in some editors. Of course more egregious violations may require a warning, but it is easy enough to add a comment to the notification to address specifics about the editor in question's infractions. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like what Killer C is saying very much in part because she assumes the most positive of editors rather than the worst. Most editors I think (and hope) want to do a good job and do not want to run afoul of arbitration so a friendly notice seems appropriate.

I'll say again that in some arbitrations, general wording like, editors have to be collaborative, leaves a door wide open for interpretation, and is general enough to include multiple behaviours. I might think certain behaviors are not collaborative but someone else may not. The non collaborative party needs to be advised that they may be in dangerous territory by someone who has no stakes in the discussion. Right now that so-called , non collaborative party can end up at AE and be sanctioned with out any idea they had been in a jeopardized position. That's not right. Most good editors are not trying to implicate other editors or trap them (I hope) nor do they want to end up at an AE. I can't see that having clear warnings and requiring them can hurt anything , and might lead to less AEs and better discussion page environments. We might also have a list of admins who are willing to hand out warnings with the stipulation that they only issue warnings on pages were they are not involved. If Wikipedia is not punitive we should be doing everything possible to support the continued editing of all editors.(olive (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Clerk notes

  • I'll enact the motion later today (UTC) unless any Arb has an objection. NW (Talk) 04:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motion

To simplify enforcement of older sanctions that are, substantively, discretionary sanctions, the committee hereby amends and supersedes the remedies listed below with the following:
Discretionary Sanctions
The topic is placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
where "The topic" is specified in the list of amended remedies below. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected.

For this motion, there are 16 active non-recused arbitrators, so 9 is a majority.

Support
  1. Proposed; this is mostly a "maintenance" motion meant to simplify enforcement. — Coren (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. This brings a lot of clarity into an area that lacked that previously. (Technically I'm recused on Troubles, but that's less than 10% of this motion, so I don't feel necessary to fully recuse). SirFozzie (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Common sense. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Clarity and complying with general expectations is a good thing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. –xenotalk 23:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. One hopes this may make life easier both for editors and admins in these areas. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Roger Davies talk 03:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments
Although this motion is passing with impressive unanimity and promptness, let's hold it open for a couple of days before the Clerk formally closes and enacts it. Notices that the motion is pending have just been posted on various noticeboards and case pages, and while I doubt that any community comments we receive will talk us out of the thrust of this motion, someone might well have comments that we would want to consider in connection with the wording or implementation. (Comments endorsing the motion as presented would, of course, also be welcome.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Coren has solicited comments from administrators familiar with AE prior to posting this motion, and it is currently passing with all but 3 active ArbCom members from posting (I didn't think we could get 13-0 on just about anything), I have to respectfully disagree Brad. SirFozzie (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the community is unaware of this. I don't disagree with anything myself, just thought I'd mention that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a motion. The community is generally unaware of most motions. Unless someone proposes something exceptionally boneheaded or controversial, even the ArbCom watchers at WR don't pay attention to motions.
My personal cynicism, backed up by my watching of this page during this ArbCom term, leads me to believe that certain Arbs are quite cognizant of how little attention motions get and use that to try to push through things that would never fly in a forum with more eyes on it. However, that aside, this motion neither falls under the 'boneheaded' nor the 'controversial' categories, so unless a party in one of these cases comes in and complains, I doubt this will see any substantive community action no matter how long it sits here waiting. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against keeping this open longer. I would be very much surprised if even the parties to the cases would be concerned about it, but this is just a freshening up for simplicity's sake so there is no sense of urgency either. — Coren (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't mean for this thread to take on a life of its own. It just occurred to me that if I were a non-arbitrator editor and signed on and saw that a notice had just been posted that there was a pending motion on which people could comment, and I came right over to this page, it would be a little disconcerting if the entire discussion had already closed in less than a day. That's not to say that the committee acting, as I said, with impressive speed to address an issue is anything other than a good thing and a good precedent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, were that all our work was this straightforward.  :-) — Coren (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=457661290"