Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Motions

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)

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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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...

      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)
        • Good point, I'll add a provision for this. — Coren ^(talk) 14:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)

  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)

• 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))

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)

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))

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)

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.

• Remedy 1.1 of Palestine-Israel articles (All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted)
• Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 as amended. (Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1 of Macedonia (topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1.2 of Climate change (The Climate change topic, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1 of Abd-WMC (Cold fusion and related articles)
• Remedy 12 of Digwuren (Topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1 of Gibraltar (Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar)
• Remedy 1 of Homeopathy (Homeopathy and related articles)
• Remedy 4 of Martinphi-ScienceApologist and remedy 12 of Pseudoscience (Articles relating to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1 of September 11 conspiracy theories (Articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 3 of Transcendental Meditation movement (Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 13 of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand or related articles or pages)
• All extant remedies of The Troubles, as amended and clarified (Articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets)

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)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
4. Support. Common sense. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
6. Support. Clarity and complying with general expectations is a good thing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
7. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
8. Risker (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
9. –xeno^talk 23:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
11. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
12. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
13.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oh, were that all our work was this straightforward.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 15:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)