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
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)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: German war effort	Motion	(orig. case)	13 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Gamaliel's CheckUser and Oversight permissions	25 May 2016

Motions

Gamaliel's CheckUser and Oversight permissions

Due to Gamaliel's retirement from the Arbitration Committee and his planned inactivity, his CheckUser and Oversight permissions are removed. The Committee again thanks him for his service to the community.

Support

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Qualified support: I'd have preferred a removal for cause, since I consider being under an active arbitration remedy incompatible with the level of trust required to continue as a functionary. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
4. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 12:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

   kelapstick^{(on the run)} 12:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

   Support, noting that I consider that he's lost these under a cloud and would have to apply directly for these tools to get them restored. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

   I agree with Doug that this is under a cloud with an arbcase and a currently passing admonishment in that case. Courcelles (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

6. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We have never removed someone's permissions for planned inactivity, at least that I'm aware of. Also retirement from the committee is not a valid reason to remove the tools. If he has planned inactivity and we wish for the relinquishment of the tools for that reason, we need to approach him directly instead of a unilateral motion. This just rubs me the wrong way. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Recuse

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

• Also, this needs to mention his access to the functionaries-en list... Courcelles (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Community comments

Indeed, the "under a cloud" component here raises interesting questions. The "under a cloud" provision is usually meant to address administrators who resign while subject to some form of dispute resolution regarding their administrative conduct. Would WP:CLOUD even apply, given that it's an essay and not policy? FoF "Gamaliel and the Arbitration Committee" accepts Gamaliel's resignation from ArbCom, but makes no statement regarding "under a cloud". This goes back 10 years, but... this principle lays out that WP:CLOUD can apply to arbitrators as well.

This motion is improperly worded: In this Gamaliel case the motion is poorly worded. Is this under a cloud or is not under a cloud? This needs to be stated clearly. As worded right now, Gamaliel could return to the committee when his period of inactivity ends. This needs to either be affirmed or contradicted in the motion.

Modify procedure/policy? Given that the community expends a great deal of time and effort electing ArbCom members, it might do to have something outlined in procedure or policy regarding the handling of ArbCom resignations. Currently, there is nothing regarding resignations and how they are to be handled. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

He resigned. He didn't just go inactive. If he'd gone inactive he could come back whenever he wanted. But that's not what he did. We have no power to reinstate an arbitrator once they've resigned. I don't see what this would need spelling out. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Administrators resign from their positions all the time, and re-instate all the time. Can you show where it states this is not possible for arbitrators to do? I can't find it anywhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Administrators aren't elected by the community, for a start, so their positions aren't commensurate. Also, we have Wikipedia:Administrators#After voluntary removal which specifically lays out how an Admin can regain the tools. Not only that, you're wrong about them resigning. They ask for voluntary removal of the tools. Wikipedia:Administrators#Voluntary removal. So, we have a clear procedure for giving an Admin back their tools (not letting them "unresign"). Sometimes elected government officers resign, have you ever heard of a Senator resigning and then coming back? Doug Weller talk 17:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• You wish to determine the basis for this based on a variance in the definition of "resign" vs "voluntary removal"? They are the same thing. You wish to determine the basis of this based on a difference between ArbCom elections vs. RFA? Again, for practical purposes here there is none. If there's no question about this, then why are you mentioning the issue of CLOUD in your support for this motion? It should be a moot point, no? Reality; this isn't laid out anywhere, and a cursory check finds no precedent discussion. If there's no issue of CLOUD, then surely you can point to something, as I've asked, which shows that an arbitrator once resigned can not return? If there is an issue of CLOUD, where is this presented? As I've noted, this is all unclear. It is interesting you compare this to the resignation of a senator. How to fill that vacancy is laid out in the Constitution. Here on Wikipedia there is nothing. Thus it should be spelled out in this motion whether Gamaliel can return once no longer inactive, and perhaps something added to procedure and/or policy for future reference when this happens again. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"Under a cloud" is a bit moot, as ArbCom has to restore the tools by motion (generally meaning by vote) anyway, per the global m:CU and m:OS policies. I assume that this incident would come into question during such a discussion. --Rschen7754 18:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) * And how to fill the vacancy of an arbitrator position is laid out in WP:ARBPOL#Selection and appointment which says "In exceptional circumstances, the Committee may call interim elections, in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections, if it determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators." That's not 'nothing'. You may not see any difference between an RfA and Committee elections, but I do and I'm sure I'm not alone. Once again, he resigned, he didn't just go inactive. He's off the Committee. Unlike Admins asking for the tools back who need Crat approval, something you haven't mentioned, there is no procedure to get back on the Committee. Note the wording for that: "Administrators in good standing who were not considered to be "under a cloud" when voluntarily requesting removal (that is not in controversial circumstances), may request at any time that their administrator status be restored by a bureaucrat". Gamaliel's resignation was in controversial circumstances, - are you denying that? WP:CLOUD is irrelevant, cloud is definite in the WP:ADMIN statement I've just quoted. Now I've seen Rschen7754's statement, he makes a good point. It isn't as easy to get CU and OS tools back as it is to get Admin tools restored. So yes, it's moot in the sense that there would have to be a discussion of the circumstances anyway. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Well then you explain mentioning CLOUD in your support. I didn't write it. In any case, thanks for pointing out the ARBPOL section. I don't think it's complete, but at least you answered the question. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• To make a stab at it, in almost every case where a functionary has resigned or experienced a period of inactivity, the motion to regrant the tools is a mere formality. The last time this happened, the person requesting the tools back was such a clear matter it went from initial request to being posted on ACN/Meta in under 12 hours. What should be clearer is that he may, by being under a cloud, therefore only get the tools back through a new election to Arbcom, or a regular appointment round of functionaries, with all the steps that involves. IMO, it makes it as if he would have to get the tools back as if he were someone who had never been a functionary. Courcelles (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I assume that someone would at least oppose it though, and trigger further discussion. With that being said, I do agree with the concerns about functionaries-en and also feel that the wording of this motion is beating around the bush. --Rschen7754 00:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• The only aspect of any of this where I see any potential for it not being clear cut is Gamaliel's access to the Functionaries list. This is limited to current holders of the OS and/or CU permissions, current arbitrators and (if they wish) former arbitrators in good standing. Currently the Committee has not addressed anywhere I have spotted whether he left arbcom "in good standing" or not. It's a minor point and one I don't have a strong opinion on, but it's the only aspect of this I can see that might be unclear. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a valid point, although just to mention before anyone gets too curious, that traffic on that list in the last year has been pretty minimal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Lending pile-on support to some views expressed above:

• If an arb resigns the only way they should be reinstated is if they win a fresh election.
• Arbitrators are granted functionary tools (CU and OS) as a consequence of their position. If they resign their arbitrator status they may ask to retain these tools but it is not automatic. In this case a majority of the Committee has pre-emptively refused such a request via the motion above.
• If someone doesn't hold functionary tools, they don't need access to the functionary mailing list.

None of the above is a reflection on Gamaliel - it is a view on what seems like logical practice for administration of advanced permissions. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Retired arbitrators (who didn't leave on unhappy terms, but whose terms expired, for example) who don't hold CU or OS may not need access to Functionaries-l, but there are are several of us in that category who are on the list. Historically, Functionaries-l was created when the current arbitrators decided to take the former arbitrators off the main ArbCom-l list, which they had been part of until that time, but wanted to have another forum to consult with them where appropriate. That role for the list is independent of whether a member currently has CU and/or OS, no longer has them (I voluntarily gave them up at the end of my term), or never had them. Removing someone for a specific reason is of course a different issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• A few points. I'm sad to see this motion because I have reason to believe that, if asked, Gamaliel would have tossed in the bits without having his name further dragged through the mud. It is not necessary or even desirable for Arbcom to humiliate and shame people without taking the two minutes to send them an email to see if the same result can be obtained without rubbing salt in the wounds. And Gamaliel unsubscribed himself from the Functionaries mailing list over a month ago. Risker (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Risker. I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but did any of ask Gamaliel to hand in his CUOS? Worm^TT(talk) 11:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, when I saw this motion posted, I took for granted that the option of Gamaliel's resigning these permissions quietly had been explored and that the matter couldn't be handled that way (more specifically, that he might not be reachable because of his inactivity). If that isn't the case then I agree 150% with Risker's comment, and I'd still think the motion could be pulled and dealt with in that fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

With them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Risker: Risker, has Gamaliel asked you to get his tools removed? Doug Weller talk 17:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, what Risker said. He's reachable and in contact with the arbs. Because I don't feel like mincing words: what the hell, Arbcom. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This should be pulled asap and dealt with off-wiki, per Newyorkbrad. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• In answer to your question, Doug Weller, yes, Gamaliel did contact me for assistance in having his CU/OS tools removed. Back in April when I noticed he was unsubscribing from mailing lists, I sent him a personal email wishing him well on what appeared to me to be a wikibreak. Since he had also removed himself from the CU mailing list, it occurred to me that he was seriously considering resigning the tools, and like all functionaries I was vaguely aware of some off-wiki issues that may have kept him from posting on-site. Thus, I extended an offer to facilitate communication with one or more stewards who are known for their discretion if he wanted to have the CU/OS tools lifted without a lot of fuss. He reached out to me within the past 48 hours - either a bit before or around the same time that this motion was posted - and asked for my assistance in getting the CU/OS tools removed. Neither of us knew about this motion at the time, and I had already reached out to stewards (and one of them had confirmed he was in contact with Gamaliel) before I became aware of this motion. I see that there is now a delay in the process - I fully expected it to be done last night my time - and I suspect this motion is what has given the stewards pause in proceeding. Before responding publicly to your question, Doug, I took the time to verify with Gamaliel that it was acceptable to him that I reveal the contents of our private email exchange. Perhaps, as well, you or other arbitrators could explain why this proposal to remove tools had to be done as a motion outside of the current case (which I have not read at all). There was no emergency: any of you could have verified instantly that Gamaliel has not used either CU or OS tools for over a month (before he unsubscribed from mailing lists), and there is no indication that he has ever abused these tools. The motion was unnecessary, because Gamaliel was already working to the same objective (removal of tools). Risker (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • • NOTE: I have since spoken with the steward, who was also unaware of this motion. The delay in action was not due to the motion, and I have struck that comment. Risker (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • DeltaQuad, Callanecc, Tarapia tapioco, Cas Liber, Guerillero, kelapstick, Doug Weller, Opabinia regalis, Courcelles, DGG: Arbs, I know you have to discuss this amongst yourselves, but action here in removing the motion (see NYB's post above) needs to happen sooner rather than later. I believe you've been copied in on emails regarding Gamaliel's situation, so the ultimate irony is that in a case about BLP, you're breaching it "the possibility of harm" here. This is very, very real. Thank you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Especially given that the rights have now been removed by stewards at Gamaliel's and Risker's request. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, my own understanding is that we arbs simply assumed they would be withdrawn along with the position, & never thought to consider we were leaving the question open until someone asked afterwards. . All the above is just clean-up of details. The motion does not say anything other than inactivity, and I think is therefore not harmful. I agree it would have better simply been done without discussion. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear that you do not understand the negative impact that arbitration motions against a specific user have on the user, DGG. Gamaliel does not meet the inactivity criteria for either CU or OS at this time; he has only been inactive for five weeks. Never before has CU/OS been removed for "inactivity" via motion without a direct exchange with the user and a suitable opportunity (say a week) for them to voluntarily step down. Indeed, aside from removal directly related to inappropriate CU/OS activity, there has never been a formal public motion for removal of CU/OS. You, as an arbitrator, ought to be fully aware of the external factors that are driving Gamaliel's current inactivity. He has, however, remained accessible and in communication with Arbcom throughout this time. So I ask again: was Gamaliel ever asked by Arbcom to drop CU/OS himself, and was he given a suitable opportunity to do so? Risker (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

No, we dropped the ball here. But Risker, if you'd informed us that he'd unsubscribed from the CU list things might have gone differently. Doug Weller talk 07:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)