|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration subpages|
|Archive of prior proceedings|
Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Blocking_Policy_Purpose_and_Goals_-_3RR_and_1RR_blocks. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Proposed Decision Dates
There are three open cases having Proposed Decision dates that are in the past. Would it be possible to assign them revised dates based on the best current information? Also, the date for GamerGate, while in the future, does not appear to be feasible, at least if the older cases will be decided before GamerGate. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Simpler process for submitting a request for arbitration
Submitting a request for arbitration is now easier; simply click a link in the page header and complete the form that appears. The case request will be added at the bottom of the page. The process for clarification and amendment requests is currently unchanged. For the arbitration clerks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Commons fair use upload bot and future bot projects
At the beginning of December I wrote to arbcom-l about a potential amendment to the one-account restriction placed in 2012, in order that I could get the cross-project Fair use bot account running again. Due to unfortunate real life stuff and some recent technical difficulties, I had less time in December to start looking at the migration (moving to WMFlabs needs some re-writing, perhaps a change of 'platform' too) and though I got a reply on the 13th suggesting a public request rather than private emails, I have yet to start looking at detail so I'm unsure how much of my volunteer time this will take up yet.
I believe the process is to raise an amendment request for an Arbcom vote. To future-proof this, and avoid pointless extra votes, I'm thinking along the lines of having the one account restriction amended to allow bot accounts (i.e. accounts with Bot Approval Group reviews on en.wp as well as possibly being approved on other projects using local procedures) which have limited scope and where these are declared and linked on my main user account pages to show that I am an operator/maintainer. As my various bot projects have been focused on images for the last two years, I cannot imagine a situation where anyone would confuse bot accounts with editors, or me editing using my principal account, which would remain the single one used for making edits to articles, or any other type of non-automated edit. If someone has a better way of approaching this, or expressing it, I'd welcome the feedback.
My main concern is timing. Christmas holidays are a good time for me to plan projects, however the first time I tried an amendment request at this time of year, there was a presumption that I was attempting to manipulate Arbcom, as this also happens to be when new committee members come in. If necessary I can prepare the request and then park it (and this bot project) until a date when the committee feel established. I would appreciate some advice on whether this is needed and what date would be suitable to file an amendment request.
- For reference the restriction referred to is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Fæ limited to one account. The way that remedy is worded makes it clear to me (as an incoming arbitrator) that an amendment would be required to allow you to operate a bot account on en.wp. Due to our both being involved with Wikimedia UK, I will recuse from any such request you make during my term unless you explicitly ask me not to. As such I offer no opinion on the best timing or on the likelihood of success. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)