Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:11, 16 February 2021

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
GamerGate Rename	10 February 2021
Case Workshops	16 February 2021

Motions

Shortcuts

This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

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).

For this arbitrator motion, editors can comment on the motion using the normal format for a Amendment or Clarification request. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Worm^TT(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]

Motion to rename GamerGate discretionary sanctions

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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.

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]
Support Barkeep49 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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]

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]

Case Workshops

Initiated by Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC) at 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.

Support

As proposer. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 16 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]

Community discussion of making workshops optional

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.

Support

Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 16 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 reigned in. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion of discretionary authority in workshops

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.

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

Community discussion of Analysis of evidence

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 ;Support
+# [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
-#
 ;Oppose
@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 ;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 reigned in. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 ===Community discussion of discretionary authority in workshops===

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5