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 Miniapolis (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 15 November 2015 (→‎Motion: BASC disbanded: Archived to WT:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/0/0
[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
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions 13 September 2015
Motion: BASC Reform 11 November 2015

Motions

Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,

  1. Remedy 1 of the Lapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;
  2. Remedy 2 of the Mantanmoreland case is rescinded;
  3. Remedy 1 of the Waterboarding case is rescinded;
  4. Remedy 1 of the Vivaldi case is rescinded;
  5. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
  6. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
Support
  1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yunshui 雲水 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)  Clerk note: This arbitrator has resigned. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Yunshi's comment below, I think the small risk that this will flare up without the threat of sanctions is small enough and easily countered enough (cf our recent motion regarding Longevity) that we can take it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 23:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support recision except for Mantanmoreland. It's very old, but let's do nothing to encourage its return. Editor misconduct in the other three areas can be more easily responded to via usual dispute resolution mechanisms. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Support since point 6 makes it possible to restore sanctions without having to go through a full case. Doug Weller (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As the committee retains jurisdiction, these can always be reinstated by motion if the need arises.  Roger Davies talk 06:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Enough of these have the potential to flare up that I think this is a bad idea. Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. LFaraone 17:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (removal of unused sanctions)

Proposed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to wait for any community comments before opining here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all pretty old, and a review of the relevant article histories suggests that they may no longer be needed; however I'm mindful of the fact that the sanctions may be the reason that the articles have been so quiet recently. I'm leaning towards supporting this motion, but like Thryduulf would be happier to wait until a few more opinions are in. Yunshui 雲水 08:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sod it, I think the benefits outweigh the risks. The option of reinstatement by request at ARCA does, as Harry points out, make this a reasonably safe gamble. Yunshui 雲水 11:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community comments (removal of unused sanctions)

  • Noting Courcelles' objection, but I would have thought that point 6 (allowing the sanctions to be reinstated by request at ARCA if necessary) covers everyone in the event that disruption returns. Some topic areas won't quieten down until real-world events do (the obvious example being Israel-Palestine), but we shouldn't keep discretionary sanctions lingering around where they're no longer necessary or useful. The alerts and warning notices that editors see whenever they edit an affected article potentially deter valuable contributions and give an impression of a dispute that is no longer there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the state of the US and its jaunts into the middle-east (as well as its treatment of Muslims at home) object to the waterboarding being lifted (no comment on the others). 'Closely related pages' effectively means anything involving state-sanctioned torture. Totally cant see how THAT might flare up... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the last sanction imposed pursuant to a remedy in that case was nearly five years ago (by strange coincidence, I was the admin imposing it), and the sanctions can always be re-imposed if necessary. Besides, most subjects to do with waterboarding as it relates to the United States' foreign policy would probably be covered by the discretionary sanctions on American politics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I would generally follow the school of thought that states 'Its calm because of the sanctions'. However you are right American Politics would (probably, someone will argue otherwise no doubt) cover any US based torture problems. Sadly the US does not have a monopoly in torture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to keep bringing up essentially the same thing every time, but once again we have a problem (a minor one this time, but entirely avoidable) this time caused by someone referring to the "last" item on a list that is still having items added and removed. This small issue and a number of large issues to come can be avoided by the simple idea of designing procedures and sticking to them instead of winging it every time. To be specific, in this particular situation, anyone commenting on a list item should refer to "item number 6" instead of "the last item. Anyone removing an item should replace it with "6. (removed) instead of deleting it and letting a new item take the #6 slot. Please Arbom, there are members of the community who are experts at designing these sorts of procedures. Let us help. We won't step on your authority and you will get to approve all procedures. Whether because of lack of skills, lack of time, or lack of interest, you really suck at this. Just give the word and I will start recruiting experts and drafting procedures (on-wiki, so you can comment and veto at any point in the process). --Guy Macon (talk)
Re "easily corrected"; it was corrected while I composed the above. My point about procedures still stands though. If anyone wants to dispute this, I can document previous problems that weren't so easy to fix. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: What are you talking about? You are the first person to edit this page in over two days --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. When I went back to look at the page I looked at "Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions" (which doesn't have the problem) instead of "Motion: Overlap of Sanctions" (which does have the problem -- in the oppose section) and assumed it had been fixed. Sorry for the error. Does anyone wish to comment on my offer? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't think so. See you next time the lack of procedures causes a problem, and I hope it is a minor problem like this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even after your post above, I still do not understand what your comment relates to. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the merits of the numbering in this motion, you'd like us to comment on your view that Arbcoms (now and in the past) kind of suck at concise and accurate wording. You're completely correct. At risk of sounding like the tedious bureaucrat that I actually am, there is a reason for administrative writing and this is it - for precision, and to avoid doubt when the material is read later by people other than those who drafted it. Whenever there is a badly worded motion, please feel free to offer suggested changes. If they're good, the Committee should adopt them (or explain why not). -- Euryalus (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: Can you clarify if Yunshui explicitly removed his support for this motion? He was active at the time of his vote and comments. I don't see why his retirement would affect his position on the matter. Mike V • Talk 23:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike V: I was not told if Yunshui explicitly removed his support. However, I was explicitly directed to strike his votes on all matters and recalculate majorities by an arbitrator on clerks-l. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: BASC Reform

1. With immediate effect, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (email: arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will hear appeals only from:

  • Editors who are subject to an {{OversightBlock}} or a {{Checkuserblock}}, and
  • Editors who are blocked for reasons which are unsuitable for public discussion.

2. Any current appeals will continue to be handled by the subcommittee until the appeal has run its course.
3. Community appeals formerly heard by the Subcommittee may be addressed to the community via the editor's talk page or sent to the UTRS mailing list.
4. As before, appeals of Arbitration decisions (including Arbitration enforcement blocks) may be made to the Arbitration Committee itself (email: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org).

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. The recent Ban appeal RFC is pertinant,  Roger Davies talk 18:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. About time. Doug Weller (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now second choice. Doug Weller (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It would be fair to say that BASC is ad hoc at best but the BASC role of arbcom should be limited as outlined above. NativeForeigner Talk 00:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, though I would also be open to moving appeals of blocks meeting points 1 and 2 to the functionaries and ridding ourselves of this "subcommittee" entirely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto,  Roger Davies talk 09:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now prefer the motion below (Motion: BASC disbanded). GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Only if Motion: BASC disbanded below fails to pass. LFaraone 19:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. At least temporarily, as the clerks have just now been told to go and spread the news of this motion. Also, I don't understand "reforming" something that does not exist in practice, and has never existed in my years on the Committee. Better to just flat out abolish BASC, and direct whatever appeals are left under arbcom's remit directly to the committee proper. Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is needed but premature. I've seen no evidence that the UTRS volunteers are aware of this proposal to increase their workload and have the chance to prepare for it. The RFC closure included "a separate discussion should be held on if/what conditions may be applied by the UTRS-reviewing admin." So far as I am aware this discussion has not happened, which if true means that there is no mandate from the community for the UTRS volunteers to actually do anything but unconditionally accept or unconditionally reject an appeal (e.g. they cannot require a minimum period before the next appeal). Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to the above, it has been pointed out (by email) that the UTRS volunteers have not even agreed to take over this work - that is not to say they are necessarily unwilling, but it is not what they volunteered to do and they have not been asked if they are willing to do it. David Fuchs also makes a good point about this removing a level in the chain of appeals, which is not what was discussed at the RfC. These points strengthen my opinion that this motion is putting the cart before the horse. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Until such a time that the community stops remanding appeals of community bans to the BASC or there is a consensus to not hear appeals of community bans by ArbCom, we should not stop hearing them. There is some upside to having a "court of last resort" for community bans; especially when years have passed but someone does not want to brave the day's waves on ANI. (UTRS is a single admin and can not hear true ban appeals anyways.) I support sending blocks of any lengths back to the community. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose DeltaQuad by email. Posted by  Roger Davies talk 23:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose altogether, if the intention is that we should refuse to hear some appeals that we now hear. While the community wishes to send appeals of some bans to us, we should hear them. They make the rules under which we operate, and it would be wrong for us to ignore part of the job that community consensus has assigned us. If they wish to change that, they can, for they have the right to limit our jurisdiction, because we exist under community policy. Whether they should change that is another question, about which I am undecided. Our job would obviously be easier if they did remove this function, but we on the committee accepted the burden when we accepted the position, and we have the obligation do do what we promised. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AGK [•] 21:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (BASC Reform)

  • BASC does not exist. Appeals are decided by a consensus among whatever arbitrators bother to comment, and this may or may not resemble the published list of BASC members. Courcelles (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, that's right but the point is that this motion moves appeals of community bans to the community, which is what the RfC suggested and certainly IMHO where they belong. We've been asked to and we've said we would move as much as we can to the community (I certainly supported that when I ran), and this is a good chunk of our time which would be better spent on cases. Doug Weller (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then why are you supporting doing this by reforming the BASC you admit doesn't exist, rather than abolishing the BASC at the same time as divesting the work? Courcelles (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I'll modify that. It works the way you and Beeblebrox says it does. It exists as a mailing list and as a committee set out at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee. You can argue that it isn't a proper subcommittee as that implies a limited membership. I think that the mailing list should still be kept as a separate list, and nothing in this motion stops that from happening. We could I guess rename the list (although I'm not sure the software will allow that and keep the archives), but I don't see the point. The main difference between the proposal and what you seem to want might only be a change from having appeals sent to the BASC list to having appeals sent to our list. Doug Weller (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keep the list if others find it useful for workflow management , but dispense with any pretending that the BASC as a thing exists. Courcelles (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm finding this line of reasoning very strange. How ever much you argue around it, the fact remains that BASC is a quasi autonomous subset of ArbCom and it functions (and always has functioned) on that basis. And for as long as it functions, it exists, whether or not it is functioning as intended. (cf. Being and Nothingness) A subcommittee with an ad hoc membership is still a subcommittee.  Roger Davies talk 07:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Salvidrim!: Also in the interests of transparency, I've sent you the following email commenting on yours (which you've quoted) to the Clerks. Thanks for your comments. For information, BASC has always been the forum of last resort so all appeals should always have gone first to UTRS before going to BASC. ("BASC is a last resort, available only if other means of appeal are exhausted.")diff What's more, the motion simply reflects the position that is already set out in the "Guide to appealing blocks".diff  Roger Davies talk 06:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WJBscribe and Worm That Turned. New motion posted,  Roger Davies talk 11:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community comments (BASC Reform)

  • I believe that the motion uses "and" where it should have used "or". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't really make any difference, as the motion is saying that arbcom/BASC will still hear appeals made by this group of editors, and that group of editors. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Precise language is important. If you get it right up front you save a huge amount of time explaining it later. As written, it can be read as requiring that you be a member of both groups of editors or your appeal will not be heard. Yes, you can decide to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the community's desire as expressed here is that BASC should be abolished. Retaining it in this role, which shifts its focus to an entirely different area, seems bizarre. Tranclusion counts for {{OversightBlock}} and {{CheckUser block}} number 205 and span at least eight years. I.e., about 2 possible cases per month. Actual appeals are probably a minority subset of that, thus appeals to the new scope of BASC might be heard once a month. We need a special committee to do something once a month? (struck thanks to Courcelles pointing out other data) The community said abolish BASC. Abolish it. Appeals for oversight or checkuser blocks go to the committee, full stop. Less bureaucracy, less mess. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In practice, I don't think BASC ever produced much bureaucracy (time sinks, on the other hand...) Other arbs could chime in on appeals at their leisure. What you're asking for is essentially abolishing a name and task checklist. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, also, a BASC appeals only requires three arbs, whereas an arbcom appeal requires a majority of active, non-recused arbs. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • (addressing Fuchs) Maybe, but that can be expressed via procedures for appealing to ArbCom, rather than a (in practice) fictitious committee. As noted by others, appeals were routinely heard by one arb, rather than a committee. So, the whole notion that there is a committee to review bans is false. At a place where I used to work, there was a committee that was created to oversee X. Many departments would routinely do X. The departments that tried to do it right tried to go through the committee...which hadn't convened in eight years. This created unneeded bureaucracy, headache and stagnation, waiting for approvals to requests that were never heard. Last I knew, the committee still 'existed'. BASC is in a similar position. It is creating a falsehood, and obliging editors to follow it. ArbCom is free to create whatever procedures it wants to handle its area of remit. But to deliberately create falsehoods that serve to hamper (via increased bureaucracy) rather than enhance the community? Especially when the community has asked for it to be abolished? No. Just no. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a point of order, most uses of those templates are as block reasons in the block log, and those will not show up in transclusion counts. Courcelles (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the last 5000 blocks, fair enough and you are correct. So question; how many appeals does ArbCom get for oversight/checkuser blocks in, say, a month? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • If memory serves well, five would be a very busy month. Usually less. Courcelles (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the way BASC works now it mught get that many in a day, or an hour. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Beeblebrox, I was referring only to checkuserblocks, not general appeals. We never get that flow of checkuserblock appeals, and oversightblocks are exceedingly rare. Courcelles (talk)
          • (edit conflict) Looking at the log of appeals, which is mostly complete but not fully so, we've received 96 appeals since January, which works out as an average of between 8 and 9 a month, but the workload is very uneven (the maximum was 17 the minimum 4). Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right, but I'm primarily interested in how many appeals for oversight/checkuser. It sounds to me like very little traffic on those? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Indeed. The log of appeals doesn't record why the appellant was blocked so I can't give you figures, but from memory they are only a tiny proportion. Which is why we need to make sure the UTRS system can handle the almost all the workload - CU and OS blocks are often easy to investigate as you have a very clear starting point and (generally) a lot less material to read. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • And that goes to my point; if we were starting from scratch, I seriously doubt anyone would imagine creating BASC to deal with the 'problem' of OS/CU appeals. This motion is seeking to do just that. It's a solution looking for a problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • BASC is not a problem in and of itself, the problem is simply the workload of non CU/OS appeals. BASC is actually a good mechanism to handle appeals of CU and OS blocks as it just requires a consensus of interested arbitrators not of all active arbitrators. The other appeals do not require people with the CU or OS right to decide and so this motion is attempting to divest arbcom of that part of its workload - this needs to happen, but not until the structure of what replaces it is in place. Thryduulf (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: When the UTRS system was in place we were usually getting appeals escalated from it. The only functional difference this creates is probably not one of UTRS workload, but that there is no next-in-the-chain appeal process for UTRS decisions compared to now. (This opinion given with the grain of salt that I haven't seen in the nature or volume of appeals has changed since I was on the committee/keeping track of stats.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a former BASC member I can certainly affirm what Courcelles says: BASC doesn't actually exist. The way it actually has worked is that whatever arb wants to comment comments, and then someone decides to unblock or not. And we do appear to have a consensus in the opened-long-ago-but-just-recently-closed RFC I initiated to adress the problems with this process to change the way the subcommittee works. 4-6 weeks is not a reasonable time frame for a response to block appeal, but given howmuch the committee has on its plate in a addition to BASC business that's just how it is. This could change that. It's not perfect, and it's not what I wanted at all, but it's better than how it works now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the spirit of transparency, here is what I replied to L235 when she e-mailed the UTRS tooladmin list notifying us of this motion: "The motion does not seem to consider the possibility that UTRS might refuse this shift in responsibility. We're all volunteers and I don't think ArbCom has the possibility or ordering another volunteer team to take up specific duties if it is unwilling to so so. I'm not saying it will be the case, but the possibility exists and that ArbCom has seemingly failed to consider it worthy or consideration reflects poorly on the intentions behind this motion." The "responsibility shift" I am addressing is not one of workload -- it is that the "last resort" venue would stop being BASC and that would fall unto UTRS. I'd like to hear from the community what they think about the "final resort" for appeals being shifted away from a panel of elected arbitrators and towards single volunteer admins. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd expect the committee to review en banc any appeals of CU/OS blocks as well as of the committee's own sanctions and blocks/bans applied via AE, which essentially negates the point of anything called BASC. I've thought Arbcom should divest itself of reviewing community-placed bans and blocks since before the review panel was called "BASC" so I strongly support this devolution. Risker (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support trashing BASC. With Wikipedia about 14 years old and human life spans around 80, the problem will just grow. My current crazy idea is "Extinction" -- briefly, after three years of an account being banned we simply declare we're done with worrying about it -- we discuss it never again and give the person a do-over -- start from scratch with a new account. Simple, no-fault, low drama ... NE Ent 03:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arbcom is there to arbitrate, but it seems to have ended up as the catch all for a lot of other issues. Ban appeals is one of them. Now, I think it's worthwhile for the community to have an option of ban appeals where they don't have the AN pile-on and can be actually considered - but I don't believe it should be Arbcom that does that. Removing bans from BASC's remit, or indeed just straight up disbanding BASC sounds like an excellent idea to me. WormTT(talk) 10:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add an alternative motion to disband BASC altogether. It's an alternative that may well garner more support looking at where this is heading. WJBscribe (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worm, I might well agree that the appeals should be handled differently, but whether arb com is to handle them is not for arb com to decide. It's a community question. They make the policy for what we are obliged to deal with. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, The community has spoken - with consensus to get rid of BASC. Arbcom has the right to define Arbcom policy, it's always been slightly apart from the community in that respect. The committee has the ability to divest roles, roles are taking away from it's primary purpose - to sort out stuff that no one else can sort out. If other people can sort it out, Arbcom shouldn't be. WormTT(talk) 09:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that extremely confused RfC, the community did indeed vote to get rid of BASC. We had set up BASC as a internal device to deal with the appeals, & Roger has elsewhere reminded me that it was done by ourselves, not the community. The community, thru changing policy, can limit our powers or change our mechanisms, tho they almost never have done so. They did do so in this instance. They have not decided how to replace it--I do not see that any consensus on that was determined. Arbitration Policy still reads
The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:
2. To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
We as a entire committee have therefore been assigned this job, DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=690761897"