Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m not necessary
Line 205: Line 205:
=====Motion 5.1=====
=====Motion 5.1=====
That in voting sections of proposed decisions as well as of freestanding motions, an additional "Comments" section will be included following the Support, Oppose, and Abstain sections. This section may be used only by arbitrators for comments on the proposal and for discussion of fellow arbitrators' comments. Posting a comment on a proposal does not constitute a vote on the proposal or change the required majority for the proposal. The use of abstention votes as a vehicle for comments, while ultimately within each arbitrator's discretion, is not recommended. Generally, an arbitrator who posts a comment is also expected to vote on the proposal, either at the same time, or at a later time after there has been an opportunity for his or her comments to be addressed. The Arbitration Committee will reevaluate this change of procedures and consider whether any additional changes are warranted in three months.
That in voting sections of proposed decisions as well as of freestanding motions, an additional "Comments" section will be included following the Support, Oppose, and Abstain sections. This section may be used only by arbitrators for comments on the proposal and for discussion of fellow arbitrators' comments. Posting a comment on a proposal does not constitute a vote on the proposal or change the required majority for the proposal. The use of abstention votes as a vehicle for comments, while ultimately within each arbitrator's discretion, is not recommended. Generally, an arbitrator who posts a comment is also expected to vote on the proposal, either at the same time, or at a later time after there has been an opportunity for his or her comments to be addressed. The Arbitration Committee will reevaluate this change of procedures and consider whether any additional changes are warranted in three months.

'''Enacted''' - [[User:AlexandrDmitri|Alexandr Dmitri]] ([[User talk:AlexandrDmitri|talk]]) 14:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


;Support
;Support

Revision as of 14:05, 19 August 2011

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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
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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Motions

Shortcut

Arbitrator abstention votes

Background

The use of abstention in arbitrator voting has been causing elements of arbitration cases and motions to technically pass or fail while the abstain section contains many arbitrator votes consisting of comments heavily leaning for or against. The Arbitration Committee needs to review its use of abstention in order to ensure that the committee position on an issue is clear and that they have the requisite support to provide legitimacy for that position. Initiating arbitrator: John Vandenberg (chat) 11:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

  • Well, I probably would have gone for discussion before writing motions, but meh. My own preference would be a separate section for each voting proposal called "Comments" where arbitrators who are not yet ready to cast a vote, or who have a broader question about a specific point, could comment. Placing these in the "abstain" column has an adverse effect on the outcome of a vote, in that it reduces the level of support required for a vote to pass. I would go so far as to say that we need to examine whether or not to permit any proposal to pass with less support than the majority of active arbitrators, so that we do not have a perverse outcome such as we very nearly had with the "public email list" vote. I also call upon my colleagues to commit themselves to either supporting or opposing motions more regularly, and eschewing abstention in almost all cases. Risker (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to remove the motions if you think they are distracting. I hope that arbitrators can commit to either one of those. Of course the recent overuse of abstain can be curbed without these procedure changes, however arbs would soon fall back to using abstains again in order to avoid hurting anyones feelings. I agree that we should look at minimum support levels here, as abstentions are the reason this fluctuates and falls to ridiculous levels. The related procedures are Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Committee_resolutions and Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Voting_on_proposed_decisions. We can either say 'abstain' votes do not count for the total, or that a vote doesnt pass without a minimum level of support. (slightly different results) IMO the minimum level is the right way to go, and it should be a percentage of all non-recused arbs, including inactive arbs. If we have a bunch of arbs become inactive, the rest need to put in the time to vote. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is that the proposed motions would force an arbitrator to simply not vote on a particular item if they were not willing to support or oppose, which will hold up voting and potentially prevent items from being passed. –xenotalk 12:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (snicker) that does kind of defeat the purpose of removing abstentions, doesn't it? I am much, much more in favor of a per-item quorum, even as high as half the non-recused, non-inactive arbs... but to require an absolute majority rather than a plurality is dooming many things to non-resolution, and is completely unworkable in any motion where there are more than two competing choices... unless we go back and actually establish how our tiebreaking amongst multiple passing competitive motions works. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough, Xeno, I don't think it is necessarily bad that comparatively unsupported matters fail to pass. I would much rather see a proposal "die on the paper" than pass one that, for example, sanctions a user, or has broad longterm implications because people were unwilling to try to work together to find a better solution. We're supposed to be modeling effective dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    #Motion 5 Add a "Not voting" section for arbitrators to signify they reviewed the element and do not wish to change the voting count or calculation, along with whatever comments they had about how the item could be improved. We should also take each other up on the suggestion to copy edit directly; with a note explaining changes. –xenotalk 02:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is important to consider how Abstentions affect the overall count and process. Please allow me to make an example: If there are 17 ARBs and 1 Supports and 16 Abstain, I believe that a motion (or anything other than something requiring "4 Net") would pass in this case. I would recommend something that has the effect of "any measure with at least 1/4 or maybe 1/3 of the active, non-recused ARBs abstaining remains in a voting state of not yet having achieved consensus". My wording might be awkward here, but hopefully the "jist" of what I am suggesting is understood. --After Midnight 0001 20:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be you are proposing some sort of quorum, which makes a great deal of sense IMO. Where the problem lies is that the number of active arbitrators (as opposed to those who voted) is rather variable and a fixed quorum is a difficult proposition — in particular if we end up like the end of 2009 where a number of circumstances came together to make us end up with barely 7-8 active arbitrators for a while.

    The solution might be to have some fraction of arbs considered quorum (as you suggested), but that would make vote counting even more complicated than it ends up now with abstentions. I'm not sure there is a better solution than "try to use abstentions sparingly". — Coren (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • Motions passing: 5.1
  • Motions failed: 1, 2, 3a, 5 (by virtue of 5.1 having greater support)
  • Motions in question: 3 (4-7), 4 (7-3)

Additionally, I would like to make a clerk motion that the Committee adopt one consistent form of alternate numbering; this 3a/5.1 stuff isn't going to fly ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' vote

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

Motion 1

That Arbitration Committee members should not use abstain votes as a vehicle for comment.

Support
  1. Cases are often about shades of grey. It is probably much more useful to deliver clarity in principles, findings and remedies than to present a spectrum of perhaps conflicting views that pass with a much lower threshold. Decisions which pass with a low number of supports because of the high number of abstentions somehow lack the legitimacy of committee consensus. The solution is probably to amend the decision to see what will pass.  Roger Davies talk 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Largely per Roger Davies. If a motion does not enjoy the active support of a majority of active non-recused arbitrators it should not pass, regardless of which venue the motion is proposed; in fact, that is already the standard for any committee resolutions that are proposed on the arbitration wiki. A "comment" section should be added to our standard voting format, where arbitrators should feel welcome to comment. It is clear from many of the comments made in abstention votes that the arbitrator does not support the motion as proposed; however, by abstaining, the net result is to lower the threshold for passing a motion that the abstaining arbitrator does not support. Risker (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I think it's useful. Sometimes we want to be recognized as not supporting things, while not standing in the way of others if you are in the minority... for example in the public mailing list vote, several indicated that they were not willing to use the public mailing list for various reasons, but not standing in the way of others if they wanted to try it. Is it being over used? Possibly. But that's a behavioral thing, and something that can be restrained without taking the option away. SirFozzie (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I use abstention votes in a way that exactly matches their effect: when I do not support a measure, but will defer to the majority of my colleagues. Those tend to be, by nature, the more ambiguous or complicated votes and thus the ones I am most likely to detail my reasoning or comment in detail. — Coren (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per SirFozzie and Coren. PhilKnight (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is unenforceable as written. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I was tempted to abstain on this motion as an illustration of self-reference, but I won't. Instead, I will oppose the motion as being a bit overbroad—but I will simultaneously confess that on reflection, I have probably cast many too many abstention votes in my time on the committee, and I hereby vow to do so less often. That being said, as I have explained to my colleagues before, when I (and I believe when other arbitrators) abstain on an item, it can generally mean one or more of the following:
    (a) I'm really not sure how I feel about this proposal.
    (b) There is an aspect of the proposal that I agree with, so I don't want to oppose it, but there's another aspect I disagree with, so I don't want to support it. (E.g., "User:X has done A and B" if I believe he did A but not B.)
    (c) I agree with the general substance of the proposal, but I don't like the wording.
    (d) I agree that the substance of the proposal is factually accurate, but I don't think it rises to the level of being worth writing up in an arbitration decision.
    (e) (more rarely) I'm recusing myself in one particular aspect of the case, but not the whole case.
    As I seek to cast fewer abstention votes going forward, I think the rare occasions of (a) and (e) won't be affected. For (b), (c), and (d) what would probably happen is that I would wind up proposing alternatives to the proposals as posted. I've been hesitant to do too much of that because having too many alternatives all over the proposed decisions page delays voting and closing out the case (especially if an alternative goes up after some of the arbs have already voted), plus creates first/second choice issues sometimes, plus (frankly) risks annoying the drafting arbitrator if someone proposes alternative wording to half the paragraphs in the decision—but it might make sense to do it more than we have been doing. I may also do a bit more consensual copyediting (e.g., voting with a note "copyedits - drafter or anyone revert if you disagree") where the change is relatively minor, or voting with the note "I propose a copyedit to such-and-such" if the drafter agrees (but then the question is what if some other arb who voted for the original wording prefers it better than the edited one). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A less strenuous oppose than to the rejiggering the voting, but an oppose nevertheless. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose. I certainly agree with Risker and Roger that abstains can be occasionally problematic, but this isn't the solution. As Brad alludes, arbs being more proactive in alternate motions to appeal to everyone might be one option that would be more effective. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. –xenotalk 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concern, that when abstentions are used strictly as a vehicle for comment, they nonetheless lower the threshold required for an item to carry. #Motion 5 should address this by providing a more appropriate section for "holding" comments. –xenotalk 05:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I promise to be more oppositional rather than abstinent in future of need be, but I do think the option is there for a reason. Casliber (talk • contribs) 06:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Motion 2

That where Arbitration Committee members make comments to accompany abstain votes, the comments should be limited to providing a rationale for the abstention (for instance, to recuse on a particular aspect of a case).

Support
  1. With a slight system change, perhaps introducing a comments/discussion section in difficult votes to see where consensus lies, we should be able to reduce the need to abstain considerably.  Roger Davies talk 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Roger Davies; however, abstentions are different from recusals, and recusals for a particular question should be listed separately. Risker (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Per Motion 1. SirFozzie (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Also per 1. — Coren (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Again, per motion 1. PhilKnight (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Given the lack of any clear definition for what "a rationale for the abstention" might comprise, I expect this would merely cause everyone to frame their comments in the form of a rationale, while doing nothing to restrict the substance of the comments themselves. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. See my comments on motion 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I guess my concerns for motion 1 extend to this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. –xenotalk 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Prefer to leave abstention as is, and add a "Not voting" section (#Motion 5). –xenotalk 05:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. too complicated. Casliber (talk • contribs) 06:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Motion 3

A motion will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. This applies to both motions proposed as part of an arbitration case and those proposed independent of any arbitration case, with the exception of a motion to close an arbitration case, and is applicable regardless of the venue in which the motion was proposed.

Rationale: Brings the same standard to any other motion as is already in place for committee resolutions proposed on the arbitration wiki. Motions should not pass absent a majority support. Abstentions should not result in the passing of motions that do not enjoy the support of the majority of the committee.
Support
  1. As proposer. Risker (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can go with this. If there isn't a majority, then those who abstain with comments will have to move one way or the other. This should limit excessive abstentions. SirFozzie (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This would simplify how we calculate votes and make arbitration cases more accessible to observers. PhilKnight (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Prefer 3a. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I worry that this will increase delays beyond their already erratic level. I would very much agree that this should be a requirement for the (comparatively rare) process change vote (like this one would be, for instance) but "normal" case and incident handling is would almost certainly be crippled by this for no perceptible benefit. — Coren (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This makes an abstention the same as an oppose. That's not the right outcome, although I can see requiring a quorum of arbs participating (neither abstaining, recused, or simply failing to vote) in order for a motion to carry. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not understanding this rationale. This is the process by which we approve motions on the arbwiki already; why should onwiki motions be held to a lower standard? Further, if one cannot bring oneself to support a motion, why should one's "vote" lower the threshold for support? Having spent the last few years reading all the votes, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that almost all abstentions indicate an opposition to at least some element of the motion or proposal; from that perspective, they are oppose votes being counted as support votes. Risker (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather, they're neutral votes being used to reduce the number of votes in play. Consider a hypothetical committee of 13: 5 support, 2 oppose, 2 recuse, 2 explicitly abstain, and 2 don't bother voting but aren't inactive.
    Step 1: remove the recusals. That gives us a field of 11 (5 support, 2 oppose, 2 abstain, 2 don't vote), where the supports don't pass.
    Step 2a: Under the current de-facto on-wiki system, we remove the abstentions from consideration, such that now 9 arbs are considered--5 support, 2 oppose, 2 don't bother voting--which nets a barely pass, even though only 2 arbs opposed.
    Step 2b: Under the proposed system, abstains would move either to oppose, support, or don't vote. Assume for the sake of argument they don't want to either support or oppose and so simply don't vote. Thus we would have a field of 11 (5 support, 2 oppose, 4 don't vote) and the motion would fail, even though the numerical vote is 5:2 in favor of the motion.
    If anything, the "we need a few more people to vote!" hubbub that goes on in the list demonstrates that the last votes to be cast are the most reluctant. I suspect if we asked, they'd probably generally admit to being of the lowest quality, reflecting the least arb effort in evaluating the positions. That's just a supposition based on my own biases, and might be completely wrong. Thus, I think it's far more intellectually honest to let arbs abstain when they think it appropriate and let pluralities carry the day. I'd still support an absolute majority for fundamental changes in operating procedures, but for day-to-day cases and motions... reality is that everyone can't keep up with everything all the time, and making everything but a support or a recusal for cause into an oppose is not the way to get anything done. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jclemens, we nearly had a motion pass just the other day specifically because of the number of abstentions, on a process that would have fundamentally changed the operations of the committee, and which not a single arbitrator was stepping up to take responsibility for actually trying to make work; all but one of them read as oppose votes, as most abstention votes do. (The one that didn't read like an oppose vote was simply a signature.) The use of abstentions instead of trying to find a middle ground, or to improve a motion, thus leaving the committee (and community) with an approved proposal that not even half the committee thought was a good enough idea to support is very difficult to justify. Other motions could result in sanctions on individual users or topic areas, and again it is difficult to justify this without the support of at least half the committee. I agree with Coren that we really have to get hardline about enforcing our inactivity processes (and arbitrators need to take more personal responsibility for making it clear they are inactive). How is it good for a dispute resolution decision to proceed without at lesat majority support? Risker (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard cases make bad law. Rather than focusing on that one event--which I agree was an unhealthy outcome in that case--how about we go back and look at the regular case motions throughout this year would have failed? I am perfectly fine with routine matters (in which I include desysops and bans--those being within the specific scope of the committee) being supported by half the committee who cares, rather than an absolute half of the committee less recusals. In a perfect world, the entire committee would always care, but my experience on the committee to date has shown that there are always a few arbs who don't vote in a timely manner, which turns your proposed requirement of an absolute half of the committee into a de facto supermajority of those who care. I don't think it's feasible to make arbs care about everything on our plate all the time, and I'd rather have a simple majority vote by those who have taken the time to inform themselves and vote appropriately than to require a bunch of me-too votes from un- or under-interested arbitrators. Consider this, then, a vote for having things handled by a majority vote of self-selected subset of arbs, somewhat as had been proposed by other members who advocated delineating the committee into multiple subgroups... only I'm OK with a fluid redefinition of those subgroups on a case-by-case and motion-by-motion basis. Jclemens (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been a couple of things in the past year that have passed absent a majority, including this recent finding of fact; that is two in a matter of a few weeks. The purpose of raising this now is that, until this year, abstentions were fairly uncommon, perhaps one or two in an entire case. Their usage has progressively changed in the last six months, and it's time to nip this in the bud before we start sanctioning people with what, to almost any non-arbitrator, would appear to be insufficient support. In other words, we've been heading down this path for a while, and we need to correct. As to your point about un- or under-interested arbitrators, in my view this is mainly a self-discipline issue, and I would strongly encourage our colleagues to realistically assess their availability on a case-by-case basis and to position themselves as inactive if they have reason to believe they'll have difficulty keeping up with a case or voting in a timely way. I would also encourage the case clerk to move an arbitrator to inactive status if they have not edited the wiki within the 7 days prior to a PD being posted. Risker (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, but that's not what I asked: how many passing remedies, findings, etc. would have failed had abstentions not reduced the need for a majority? I'm sure I don't have time to go through all that right now, but what you're pointing out is only half the projected effect of the change. While I agree arbs should be disciplined, I don't think compelling votes on everything or nothing will have the desired effect. I expect more arbs will be more inactive on more cases, and thus we'll still have about the same net levels of support for passing motions. If we agree to try a self-discipline approach, per NYB below, and that still doesn't work, I'll be more willing to support such a measure, but I don't think we've exhausted that option yet. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, Jclemens, that passed with 5 supports, 2 opposes and 5 abstentions (most of which were worded as at least partial opposes). There was an impact in that the subject of the finding has elected to retire, at least in part in relation to this vote. I don't have any problem at all with the notion of having only 9 or 10 arbitrators active on a case; such cases often move more quickly, in fact. However, I don't think that assigned teams are a good idea either. Risker (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The concerns discussed above that motivated motions 1 and 2 have been widely recognized by most of us, to the point that I believe there will be fewer abstentions on future motions and proposals than there have been in the past (certainly fewer by me), and a greater number of attempts to improve proposals about which arbitrators have mixed feelings as opposed to the casting of lukewarm abstain votes. If this indeed occurs, then the problem this motion seeks to address may be mitigated without a change in the actual voting rules. I'd be willing to reevaluate this proposal a little bit down the trail once we see how things are working out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my concern above - forcing either 'support', 'oppose', or 'recuse' will mean arbitrators may simply neglect to vote on motions/proposals/case elements/etc. that they cannot bring themselves to support or oppose. And as Jclemens notes, "to require an absolute majority rather than a plurality is dooming many things to non-resolution". I thought that following the internal discussion on this subject, we had reached an understanding to simply abstain less when we really meant to support or oppose, and I think it appropriate to see if that resolves the concern prior to making changes of this nature. –xenotalk 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If a number of arbitrators cant bring themselves to support or oppose, non-resolution is appropriate. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've proposed #Motion 5 so that arbitrators can signify that they have reviewed the motion and wish it to die on the table, as it were. This will make it easier to determine when to put forth a motion to close (or when to go back to the drawing board). –xenotalk 02:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens said it above. Casliber (talk • contribs) 08:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Motion 3a

A motion will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. This applies to both motions proposed as part of an arbitration case and those proposed independent of any arbitration case, and is applicable regardless of the venue in which the motion was proposed.

Rationale: As for Motion 3, but removes the special rules for motions to close. There is no reason why what is essentially a motion to limit debate should have a lower threshold than the other motions.
Support
  1. As proposer. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. A bit worried that this might delay the closing of a case, but see Kirill's point as well. Risker (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. For the same reason as proposal 3. — Coren (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Net Four works fine to close cases. SirFozzie (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For the same reasons as 3, above. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Net Four works reasonably well. This would encourage arbs to vote on the closure before other arbitrators have finished voting. I think we do need to review the closure process separately, and look at options like preventing motion to close votes until after the voting has stablised so that arbitrators are approving the combined decision which has majority support. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Net 4 seems to work ok, and in the context of complaints of how slow arbitration can be, this could make arbitration even slower. PhilKnight (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Same comments and caveat as on motion 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per my comments on motion 3. –xenotalk 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternative #Motion 5 proposed below. –xenotalk 05:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Casliber (talk • contribs) 08:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Same as above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Motion 4

A proposal made as part of a proposed decision will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators.

Rationale: Brings the same standard to proposals made as part of a proposed decision as is already in place for committee resolutions proposed on the arbitration wiki. Proposals should not pass absent a majority support. Abstentions should not result in the passing of proposals that do not enjoy the support of the majority of the committee.
Support
  1. As proposer. Risker (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Now that the question below has been settled. SirFozzie (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree that sometimes there are situations where arbitrators need to recuse from a portion of a case. PhilKnight (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I can live with that, even if that means that this will increase committee inertia to a point; but this makes it critical that we are more diligent in assessing activity levels. — Coren (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think this is a better approach than the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

:#Ugh, I want to support, but I cannot. Here, as part of the PD we may have people who are active on most of the case but abstain/recuse from a specific part of the case for a good reason. With a motion, we can just say recuse, here, we can't. I hope that if this passes, we will allow arbitrators to mark an abstention as a recusal and that WOULD lower the level required needed to pass the proposal. That would allow folks to participate without causing the percentage to go higher (suddenly you need 9 of 15 instead of 9 of 16 for example, if someone abstained) SirFozzie (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie, recusal is an entirely different concept than abstention. Recusals are generally made on some form of ethical basis, and should continue entirely as they are now. That is why I deliberately excluded recused arbitrators; people can recuse proposal by proposal as required. We have had several cases where arbitrators recused with respect to one party while voting on proposals relating to other parties, and this has been widely accepted by both the committee and the community. Risker (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just being sure, right now, we normally have Support, Oppose and Abstain in our PD, as long as it's well settled that a recusal will be treated as such (and lowers the majority needed), I have no problem with this. SirFozzie (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I do not believe this is appropriate, per my opposition to 3 and 3a. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Same comments and caveat as on motion 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my comments on motion 3. –xenotalk 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Would prefer #Motion 5, immediately below. The ability of an arbitrator to defer to their colleagues on issues is necessary for the committee to function properly. –xenotalk 05:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Motion 5

That a section entitled "Not voting" be used in addition to 'Abstain'; for arbitrators to comment or signify that they have reviewed the item and do not wish to alter the voting count or calculation method.

Support
  1. Proposed. –xenotalk 02:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This creates a better place for "would support if x" notes that does not lead to problematic acceptances (although I remain unconvinced that this is a general problem as opposed to an occasional fluke). — Coren (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This fleshes out the heart of the issue. Risker (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice to 5.1 Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Getting closer to what we probably need ... Second choice, prefer 5.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. This would simply be an "Oppose" section with a different name. If someone is unwilling to support until certain conditions are met, then they should oppose the proposal, rather than complicating the process by entering a non-vote. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 5.1 Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. prefer 5.1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 08:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments
Oppose Unless I've misunderstood, this would be abstaining by another name. I'd rather keep the "abstain" column and that it is used sparingly. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This would be different because it would not change the majority count. Some arbitrators are presently using the "Abstain" column, when they actually mean to comment about the proposal itself. If they don't make it back in time for the case to close, we run into situations suchlike the recent finding. –xenotalk 02:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woops. I didn't write what I meant. I've fixed it now. –xenotalk 02:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. With that change I think this is worth considering. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that. Moved this to 'Comments'. –xenotalk 02:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Xeno for looking at this from a different perspective. Risker (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since 5.0 and 5.1 are not technically mutually exclusive, votes indicating "Second choice" should probably be considered "oppose" unless 5.1 does not pass (which seems unlikely at this stage). –xenotalk 15:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 5.1

That in voting sections of proposed decisions as well as of freestanding motions, an additional "Comments" section will be included following the Support, Oppose, and Abstain sections. This section may be used only by arbitrators for comments on the proposal and for discussion of fellow arbitrators' comments. Posting a comment on a proposal does not constitute a vote on the proposal or change the required majority for the proposal. The use of abstention votes as a vehicle for comments, while ultimately within each arbitrator's discretion, is not recommended. Generally, an arbitrator who posts a comment is also expected to vote on the proposal, either at the same time, or at a later time after there has been an opportunity for his or her comments to be addressed. The Arbitration Committee will reevaluate this change of procedures and consider whether any additional changes are warranted in three months.

Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. First choice over 5. I believe this should address most of the concerns that have brought about this series of motions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Added a word, as discussed below. Second choice over Equal preference with 5. These are quite close in effect, almost indistinguishable. –xenotalk 20:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC) strikethrough addition 02:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've subsequently realized that 5 and 5.1 are not mutually exclusive (nor are they exclusive with the other currently undecided motions). I would be fine with both 5.0 and 5.1 passing. –xenotalk 14:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My intention was that they be alternatives: that we try 5.1 first and see after awhile whether any further change is necessary. I don't think it would be desirable to implement both 5 and 5.1 at the same time. I'll switch my vote on 5 to oppose, if necessary, to make my view more clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure - there is a case to be made for minimal incremental changes. –xenotalk 15:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a note that a "Second choice" indication on 5.0 should be considered an 'oppose' except in the unlikely event that this motion does not pass. –xenotalk 15:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This appears to be reasonable. In the first instance an arb can comment on a proposal, and then later support/oppose/abstain as appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Let's start with this before revamping everything, shall we? Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal preference with 5. Risker (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Prefer 5. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Casliber (talk • contribs) 08:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes.  Roger Davies talk 10:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This also works for me and is more felicitous in its wording than 5. It's almost as though Brad has had formal training in writings things of this nature!  :-) — Coren (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments
  • Is "An arbitrator who posts a comment is also expected to vote on the proposal, either at the same time, or at a later time after there has been an opportunity for his or her comments to be addressed." necessary? Generally active arbitrators are expected to vote on items, but I think we should leave the option to withhold voting, for whatever reason. –xenotalk 19:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's worthwhile to include the sentence in the motion as a statement of expectations, but I don't think it's indispensible. I also wouldn't object to adding a qualifier such as "generally" or the like. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks - have added "Generally" to the start of the sentence. –xenotalk 20:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=445669062"