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 L236 (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 19 November 2015 (→‎Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions: enact). 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
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0
[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
Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions 19 November 2015
Motion: Temporary CU for 2015 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers 17 November 2015

Motions

Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 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 Remedy 1 of the Lapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;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 Remedy 2 of the Mantanmoreland case is rescinded;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 Remedy 1 of the Waterboarding case is rescinded;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 Remedy 1 of the Vivaldi case is rescinded;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.
Enacted - --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 20:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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). Amended in the spirit of compromise. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:32, 17 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]
  8. I'm not sure I see a huge benefit to removing these particular remedies, but I do agree with removing unused sanctions (with the understanding that they can be reinstated at ARCA). GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:58, 17 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]
  2. Want to expedite things but havne't adequately reviewed to satisfaction. NativeForeigner Talk 03:41, 17 November 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]
  • L235@ Liz@ Isn't this a motion that has passed now (6 is a majority and 7/8 have voted support)? Would be nice to see some more sanction-cruft removed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • The majority is 7 (I just corrected it), and the conditions set by Euryalus haven't been met so their support isn't counted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ive amended my vote in the spirit of compromise, and to get this resolution moving along. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Temporary CU for 2015 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers

For the purpose of scrutineering the 2015 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards Mardetanha, Shanmugamp7, and Einsbor, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results.

Support
  1. Thryduulf (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes (and tweaked header),  Roger Davies talk 03:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. NativeForeigner Talk 03:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As routine as motions get. Courcelles (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Euryalus (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. LFaraone 03:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Discussion by arbitrators (ACE2015 scrutineers' local CU permissions)

Community comments (ACE2015 scrutineers' local CU permissions)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=691438839"