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
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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Motion on "net four votes" rule	21 October 2012

Motions

Motion on "net four votes" rule

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

The current procedures on the opening of proceedings are:

A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:

1. Its acceptance has been supported by at least four net votes;
2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request passed the four net vote threshold; and
3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.

Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising.

Motion: Rule for acceptance of case requests (1)

Proposed:

1) That the following is adopted in replacement of the current "Opening of proceedings" procedure:

A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:

1. Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;
2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision; and
3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.

Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising.

• Enacted -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Proposed. This vote should not carry until several days (for community comment) have passed. AGK [•] 22:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Not at all my preferred solution, (I'd much rather scrap all mention of net four) but I've made far too much noise about the silliness of net four to vote against at least lessening its impact and downright stupid results. Courcelles 22:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
3. This is an incremental improvement on the status quo. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
5. As Jclemens says, an incremental improvement, but I think one worth having. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
6. This will work. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

   Second choice in light of my proposed alternative below. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

7. First choice. 22:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Newyorkbrad (talk)
8. First choice. Risker (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
9. Works for me. Kirill ^[talk] 17:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
11. Support as incremental change - would like to see it reviewed in say a year. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Since I feel that changing procedures this close to the changeover of arbs is useful (I'd really prefer to get the new arbs involved in any such discussions), I'm going to vote to abstain, although I support in spirit. SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

• It would be useful to use {{ACMajority}} on case requests. Perhaps with increased functionality to accommodate arb votes, along with the vote key. Perhaps something like:

For the purposes of this request, there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority. (3/0/0/1). Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

I'm in agreement with the addition of an absolute majority; where I am pausing is on the time-scale. As we are rethinking this, should we also consider the short time-scale? We already have a clause allowing for fast-tracking a case if needed, so I'm wondering if we need a 24 hour close for net four. That cases these days are rather more complex than when the net four was written, it sometimes can take more than 24 hours to consider all the implications. It can sometimes happen that those familiar with a situation have already got an opinion, and may be overlooking some aspects that a person new to the situation uncovers. There are also times when the Committee are truly divided on an issue (we are all individuals, and contrary to some views I've seen expressed, we do not have a hive mind), with - say - four in favour of peanut butter, four firmly against, and the rest open-minded; as such, it is possible for the peanut butter conspiracy to quickly and cheerfully support in favour while the anti-peanut butter conspiracy are currently inactive or distracted; so, to prevent a case being accepted, an independent has to insert a hold, or a member of the peanut butter conspiracy, seeing what is happening, has to withhold their vote.

I see the value of net four, as it means an obvious case can be opened/closed without all the Committee having to investigate, but in most other areas of Wikipedia where matters are being decided, we generally allow a longer time for consideration. Seven days for an AfD, 30 days for RfC (though RfC can be closed earlier if consensus is clear), etc. The downside with keeping a request open for longer than 24 hours after the net four has been reached, is that sometimes clearly inappropriate requests are left hanging around, and while they are there, other Committee members may waste their time reading through the case simply to reach the same conclusion that the case is inappropriate. I don't see a problem with a net four agreement to open a case being held for longer, as Committee members would need to familiarise themselves with the case anyway. It's just the inappropriate requests that may be a problem. But what may be inappropriate to one (or four) may be appropriate to another (or four).

How about, making it five days instead of one, and when net four has been reached, the request is marked Net Four Accept or Decline, and boxed to mark that the clock is ticking. If the decision is an absolute majority, then 24 hours would be fine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The timing is a separate issue than the threshold, and I fear the discussion may get lost in here. However, to respond to the timing, I'm opposed to anything else that elongates the process of arbitration, and note that a typical request already takes far longer than the articulated minimums before it is accepted or rejected. If anything was really going to be opened as fast as the minimums, it would require the vast majority of the committee to agree quickly... something I've not seen except in the most clear-cut of cases. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Under the motions rules, this motion will remain open until we reach an absolute majority. If the above motion were a case however, it could now be accepted. Motions appear to be more straightforward than cases - there is certainly less to consider, yet we require an absolute majority for motions and only Net Four for cases. As Penwhale indicates below, the time delay is not really relevant if we have an absolute majority. I'm now wondering if it's not the time factor that I'm so concerned about, so much as the Net Four itself, which speedily allows a case to be accepted or rejected by only four Committee members. I'm wondering if removing Net Four and replacing with absolute majority is what is needed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing net four all the way is fine with me, but I think we would need some kind of safety valve, say, "if the request has been active for a week, a case will be opened if there are more accept votes than declines". I absolutely hate the "pocket decline" people can exercise merely by not voting. Courcelles 18:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Aside from inactivity, I haven't seen many cases where that sort of default decline would occur. More often, a case goes net four before I noticed :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is it worth formalizing a maximum period of time for consideration of requests? Perhaps something like this... Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

[...] A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes. A proceeding will also be opened if, ten days after the request was filed, criterion 1 has been fulfilled; if the request fails criterion 1 at that time, it will be declined. [...]

Yes. It might be worth looking at when and how we decline a request. I'm thinking of this as a two way street, but looking again at the procedures, it's just a one way street for acceptance, and there's no guidance for declining. My concerns about time-scales and appropriate quorum numbers relate perhaps more to declining a request than accepting it, though I am still concerned about why we would need to hastily accept a case on a small turnout of arbiters. I don't mind that only four Committee members decide on an issue - I just think that it's appropriate we allow a little more time than 24 hours for others to weigh in (if they wish to). This is the only part of Committee proceedings where we allow such a speedy result on so little participation, apart from a Level 1 emergency desysop of an admin causing serious harm. Given that when a case has been accepted it will require involvement of the whole Committee for a month or more, plus draw in the time and energy of some parts of the community, pausing a moment before committing ourselves seems appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Community comments concerning motion 1

• For those of the community wondering why we don't scrap the "net four votes" rule altogether, I have found an interesting, old discussion you may wish to read.

  The purpose of this motion is to ensure that the net four rule remains in place, but without it yielding the quirky results we see when more than a few arbitrators vote in a case request (namely, that a majority of the committee vote to accept the request but it is nevertheless declined). With this year's arbitrators attending case requests more promptly, and with case requests being held for longer than ever (due to their increasing complexity), I think it's important to fix this procedural anomaly now. AGK [•] 22:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Net four" remains an albatross; but this at least mitigates the absurdity. Good move, guys. — Coren ^(talk) 22:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Is this related to any of the recent declined case requests, by chance? --Rschen7754 23:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Can someone explain the reason for "the lesser of" in the motion? I'm not understanding how "lesser" applies to two "true/false" possibilities. Shouldn't it instead be "either ... or"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah that's a terrible wording. I had corrected that to "either of" in the drafting stage of this motion, and am surprised to see it back here. Courcelles 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I've amended it, but left the typo struck through (vs removed) for transparency's sake. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Um, no, the new phrasing is what is terrible. We do not select "either/or" an absolute majority and net four votes in support. This is not a free-for-all. We do use the lesser of the two, whichever that might be. "Either/or" is terribly ambiguous. AGK [•] 15:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Not really, but lose the of, it's not necessary. Nobody Ent 23:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

---

• Has anyone among ArbCom considered the idea of quorum? As is, with the net 4 bit, you could theoretically have only 4 arbitrators voting to accept a case, and it be accepted. There are all sorts of problems with this net 4 business, and this is just one of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • There's probably a role for that. I favor a more explicit change than this, that uses simple majority of voting arbs (vs. non-inactive, non-recused arbs), in which case the time delay would prevent abuses, because you need a majority of arbitrators (vs. a majority of voting arbs) to fast-track an opening. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Is it common for Arbitrations to switch votes (accept to decline, or the other way around?) Nobody Ent 01:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Not particularly, but it does happen. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It does happen on occasion, but if a case request satisfies the requirements, then fails to satisfy the requirements, then satisfies them again (due to vote changes and the arrival of more voting arbitrators), the time period before the case is opened is reset. In other word, the definition of the committee's consensus is contextualised, so that new opinions are taken into account. AGK [•] 15:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• For the stupid amongst us, could one of you please explain *in* the policy what "four net votes" means? At the moment it links to itself, which is wonderfully self-referentional but utterly useless. Ironholds (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  That is, in the above statements :). Ironholds (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  Support is +1, oppose is -1, and you need 4 points. --Rschen7754 05:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  Four more "accepts" than "declines." Nobody Ent 11:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  What Rschen and Nobody Ent said. Ironholds, the link was obviously a mistake (which I have just corrected). AGK [•] 15:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Seems sensible. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• This is certainly a good move; personally, I like the idea of a quorum, too. Pesky (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• This is certainly an improvement. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Or? Absolute? Is it mathematically possible to have a majority without it being an absolute majority? Or net four and not be a majority? In mathematics the word absolute value means that absolute value of minus four is four. In politics if you have 14 committee members, a majority of absolutely everyone would be eight (total/two plus 0.5 or 1). Since you already say not counting recusals and non-actives, does this mean that if out of 14 members there are 13 who recuse the case would be taken and only have one person to decide the case? Is it ever possible to have net four but fail absolute majority? 104 plus, 100 minus, but that not be a majority, assuming 204 arbcom members? Am I missing something? Apteva (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • With a committee of 15, it's entirely plausible to have 6 supports, 3 opposes, 1 inactive arb, 1 recused, and 4 who simply commented, without expressing any decline/accept preference. 6 is a plurality, but yet not a majority of those voting, nor a "net 4"--which only considers supports minus opposes. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Either of? For what purpose is of there? I will choose either Bob or Mary. I will choose either of Bob or Mary. I will support the Dodgers if either of i) I like them a lot or ii) I like them. I will support the Dodgers if either i) they are still playing or ii) they are not still playing but I am going to pretend they are. Apteva (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Using terms simple and absolute majority implies there are different types of majorities (they're aren't) and are only going to lead to confusion. Please be clear -- you can discuss a majority of active arbitrators or a majority of voting arbitrators or a majority of responding arbitrators.Nobody Ent 01:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Technically, if you look at the voting systems, simple majority = Yay > nay, where as absolute majority means Yay > (Nay + Abstain + Absent + etc...). The usage of the term in the motion, however, contradicts itself... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 14:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Not really a contradiction, as the motion, as written, counts "active, not recused, but not bothering to vote on this case request" as effectively an oppose, rather than reducing the votes needed to accept, as an abstention or recusal would. Courcelles 01:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

---

• Clerks were specifically invited to comment here as it deals with procedures related to their functions, so here I am... I believe SilkTork's suggestion regarding an extended period of time may be worthwhile, as these days most cases involve multiple comments and editors. However, if an absolute majority decides to hear the case, then the time period probably does not need to be extended: So, somewhere along the lines of "5 days since Net 4 is reached, or 24 hours since absolute majority was reached"? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Motion: Rule for acceptance of case requests (2)

Proposed:

2) That the following is adopted in replacement of the current "Opening of proceedings" procedure:

A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:

1. Its acceptance has been supported by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;
2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision; and
3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.

Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising.

Support

1. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Second choice, prefer 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Distant second choice, prefer 1. Risker (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No, the "net four" functionality has the added benefit of having clearcut cases open sooner without needing any expediting, and this removes that for no good reason. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Net four can produce the absurdity of a 9-6 request being declined. This idea could see a 7-0 request get declined, even more absurdly. We still need a safety valve of "more supports than opposes after waiting a while". Courcelles 04:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Agree with Jclemens and Courcelles. This idea would slow down the arbitration process, without any tangible benefit. PhilKnight (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Per the above. I think the net four rule serves as an adequate "fast-track" option, even if it is a bit odd on its own. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
5. The "net four votes" rule is a necessary evil. It takes too long for the entire committee to get round to voting. AGK [•] 21:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
6. per JClemens really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
7. per Courcelles Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
8. Prefer 1. Kirill ^[talk] 01:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Per my vote above. SirFozzie (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

Community comments concerning motion 2

• I echo Courcelles' concerns about jettisoning the "net 4" rule. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Motion: Rule for acceptance of case requests (3)

Proposed:

1) That the following is adopted in replacement of the current "Opening of proceedings" procedure:

A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:

1. Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators; and
2. One of the following applies:
   1. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision, and more than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed; or
   2. Ten days have elapsed since since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.

Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising.

A request will be declined and archived if it meets one of the following criteria:

1. The request has not been accepted according to criterion 1 above ten days after the request was filed; or
2. All of the following apply:
   1. Acceptance of the request has been declined by either of (i) four net (decline) votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators; and
   2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision; and
   3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A request may not be archived earlier than 48 hours from the time of filing unless it is unambiguously frivolous.

Support

1. Proposed. First choice, as I'd prefer having some clear rules for when to turn things down as well. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Third choice, prefer 1 and 2 in that order. Although in most instances we should decide whether to accept a case well before 10 days have elapsed, there are times (such as in the recent Psychotherapies case) where we want to keep a request around for awhile to see if the dispute will resolve by other means. And I don't think we need to adopt an overly complicated set of rules and exceptiosn for when we will accept cases, given that over the past year we have had a record low number of requests. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
3. 3rd choice, per NYB really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Second choice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Prefer motion 1. PhilKnight (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Prefer 1, per my comments below. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
3. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Prefer 1. Kirill ^[talk] 01:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Per my vote above. SirFozzie (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

• I am not getting the ten day for accept thing - as it stands, a case would be accepted after ten days if no-one at all had voted on it. The ten day for decline I get. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I get where this is going, but I dislike putting a hard 10-day limit on accepts/rejects. We should have the option of leaving something open for a while if there's a situation such as "we'll-accept-this-unless-such-and-so-solves-the-problem." Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Jclemens. Risker (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's useful to have guidances/rules for declining. I'm still not with why we need to enforce a 24 hours non-majority quorum decision, and - as with others above - I'm not comfortable with the ten day cut off. There have been occasions when clarifications and amendments have lingered inactive for ages and AGK or someone has had to nudge people on the ArbCom email list to make a decision - has that also been common for case requests? I just looked at the last ten request declines - 11 days, 16 (we asked for a hold), 4, 1, 10, 7, 3, 3, 5, 1 day. The last 10 case accepts: 6 days, 3, 3, 2, 2, 7, 2, 2, 6, 8 days. As we don't have a problem with case requests hanging around, why do we need such short time limits as 10 days, and worse still 24 hours. Our average decision time is 5 days. That's impressive. I would rather decisions to close or open were made on the majority opinion of people who had considered the issues rather than an arbitrary stop-watch. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm holding my vote until Hersfold, the proposer of this motion, can respond to Elen and Jonathan. It's worth noting that the clerks' procedures already specify that requests are considered to have been declined if, after ten days, they haven't attained a majority in acceptance. AGK [•] 21:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Community comments concerning motion 3

@Elen. There's an and at the end of part 1, so both part 1 and one of the provisions of part 2 must be present for acceptance.Nobody Ent 21:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I need someone to draw me a diagram :) So the point I presume is that if the request is ten days old, it gets actioned as soon as it hits either of the approval quotients. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No. When the ten-day mark comes around, it is immediately accepted if there are enough votes to accept it (net four and/or an absolute majority; there's no need at that point to wait 24 hours, thus we can accept cases where the last accept vote came in at 9 days and 23 hours). If there are not, it is declined. A request may also be accepted prior to that point per the rules in motion 1, or declined prior to that point by the same rules in motion 1 (inverted for declining, of course). To respond to Jclemens and Risker above, this isn't intended to prevent that, but as worded I suppose it would. Nonetheless, I'm not particularly attached to this motion and I'm fine with 1 passing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)