Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Archive 2

message: Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales#Response and the discussion at WP:RfArb, I suggest altering the sentence Remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to veto by, Jimbo Wales. to cover the possibility of review of Jimbo's own actions.  Perhaps, Jimbo reserves the right to veto enforcement actions in cases in which he is not a party.
Less controversially, Elections might be moved out of the section on things not yet decided as the current system is generally well received and stable.  Eluchil404 20:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change 

message: Often, requests for arbitration are submitted which involve complex content disputes without clear evidence of behavior problems which can be adequately corrected by arbitration remedies.  In many of those cases, it would be beneficial to impose Wikipedia:Article probation on the articles involved without the time or effort required by formal arbitration.  Therefore I am proposing the following to be inserted as the third paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests and the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#How a request is processed:
: When arbitrators are voting on whether to accept requests, they each may, at their option, either recommend that any or all of the article(s) involved be placed on article probation, or they may object to it.  When the case is declined after 10 days or opened, if at least one arbitrator has so recommended, and none have objected, the article(s) are placed on probation until removed by the passage of a remedy or motion.
I invite discussion on this proposal. I have placed pointers to here on WP:VP/PR, WT:RFARB, WT:SANCTION, and WP:AN. 
It occurs to me that people who think this is too strong might prefer replacing "at least one" (arbitrator) with "at least two" etc. MilesAgain (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather, see the discussion on community imposed probation for Homeopathy at WP:AN.  Arbitration is for disputes that can't be resolved by the community.  If an article is such a problem that many admin endorse taking action and none seriously dispute it, then we can take action without Arbcom's approval. Thatcher 20:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also this, no idea if that section is "archived" or not, though, so this might be the only case recorded here.  x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case? 

message: Please see: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision/Archive1#Procedural question on recusal. Lawrence § t/e 00:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on community-enforced Arb recusal 

message: I've tweaked the policy change ever so slightly to wikilink to the explanation of clerks since they are referenced twice in the text but never defined nor explained.  Given that they exist as a willing construct of the arbitration committee, this needs to be pointed out IMO.  — Coren (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor tweak 

message: There is a is now a Summary of statements from the Arbitration Committee RfC which had significantly more support than opposition. The summary clearly identifies suggested changes to the Arbitration Policy. And where further discussion is needed over the choice between some contradictory suggested changes. --Barberio (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Summary]] 

message: Here are two simple changes that will fix most of the procedural problems that have been plaging the Committee:
====Requests====
Change to:
For a case to be considered accepted and therefore opened by a Clerk, it must meet the following criteria:
*It must have reached quorum; at least five arbitrators must have voted to accept or decline the case;
*it must have strictly more votes to accept than votes to deny;
*it must have reached quorum and majority more than 24 hours ago; and
*it must have been filed more than 48 hours ago.
If all of these criteria are met, the case can be opened. This procedure is ignored where a case is directly referred to the Committee by Jimbo Wales, or where an expedited open is explicitly requested by a sufficient number of Arbitrators with due cause.
===Final decision===
Add:
Arbitrators are considered to be active for a case if they:
*Voted to accept or decline the case;
*explicitely declared themselves active on a case; or
*have voted on any proposed decision of the case
===Rationale===
Right now the system presumes that every arb is active on every case *and* that they oppose everything unless they state otherwise.  No wonder it's near impossible for the committee to do anything.
;Pros:
*It doesn't exclude any arb just because they missed a RFaR while they were away or something; they just have to state they want in.
*Things do not grind to a halt just because it happens that three of the arbs are busy with finals, one is away on business and another is taking a break.
*Any arb can just sit a case out without hindering anything.  (Which is good for breaks, or if the matter is so delicate that even an explicit recusal is possibly fraught with drama).
;Cons:
:I can't think of any!
Discuss. — Coren (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My default position on most issues is that more opinions are better when making decisions. That is the reason that I do not want to do anything that makes the participation of arbitrators less likely. By having a default active, we encourage participation by more arbitrators. I want cases to close in a timely manner, but I'm not convinced that as a general rule having quicker closings should  be more important than hearing the opinions of more arbitrators. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's reasonable, but that presumes that all (or almost all) arbs will eventually vote on all proposal.  In practice, that turns out to basically almost never be the case.  — Coren (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And doesn't your position then assume that if an Arb doesn't vote that the Arb hasn't read the proposal, close or remedy?  As it is, it saves the Arb some time to be able to read it, disagree/oppose, and move on without having to edit in their vote.  (Unless he or she wants to be on record as opposing / has an oppose rationale, etc.)  And given the volume of text that occurs in a given case, time spent not having to edit may be of the essence.  Plus, it may make an inherent bias for an Arb to not act affirmatively, which may actually be a good thing IMVHO.  But this is all just my .02 as an editor.  Good luck to you, Coren!   LaughingVulcan  00:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually a reasonable position; and if the objective of the policy as currently written is to make arbitration naturally resistant to acting affirmatively, it's a decent way of doing it (mind you, a better way to make certain whether an Arb willfully did not vote or was simply absent would need to be found).  However, I think that the slow responsiveness of the AC has been often decried (and often by the arbitrators themselves), and that there is an audible grumbling about the committee acting too little if anything.  I'm pretty sure (almost?) nobody has been calling for the committee to be less active.Mind you, I'm not touching the question of the legitimacy of the committee on its face; a point which has already been brought up by a very vocal minority— this proposition simply presumes that the AC is, and proposes a way to streamline it.  — Coren (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desperately needed fixes to policy 

message: Right now the system presumes that every arb is active on every case *and* that they oppose everything unless they state otherwise.  No wonder it's near impossible for the committee to do anything.
;Pros:
*It doesn't exclude any arb just because they missed a RFaR while they were away or something; they just have to state they want in.
*Things do not grind to a halt just because it happens that three of the arbs are busy with finals, one is away on business and another is taking a break.
*Any arb can just sit a case out without hindering anything.  (Which is good for breaks, or if the matter is so delicate that even an explicit recusal is possibly fraught with drama).
;Cons:
:I can't think of any!
Discuss. — Coren (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My default position on most issues is that more opinions are better when making decisions. That is the reason that I do not want to do anything that makes the participation of arbitrators less likely. By having a default active, we encourage participation by more arbitrators. I want cases to close in a timely manner, but I'm not convinced that as a general rule having quicker closings should  be more important than hearing the opinions of more arbitrators. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's reasonable, but that presumes that all (or almost all) arbs will eventually vote on all proposal.  In practice, that turns out to basically almost never be the case.  — Coren (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And doesn't your position then assume that if an Arb doesn't vote that the Arb hasn't read the proposal, close or remedy?  As it is, it saves the Arb some time to be able to read it, disagree/oppose, and move on without having to edit in their vote.  (Unless he or she wants to be on record as opposing / has an oppose rationale, etc.)  And given the volume of text that occurs in a given case, time spent not having to edit may be of the essence.  Plus, it may make an inherent bias for an Arb to not act affirmatively, which may actually be a good thing IMVHO.  But this is all just my .02 as an editor.  Good luck to you, Coren!   LaughingVulcan  00:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually a reasonable position; and if the objective of the policy as currently written is to make arbitration naturally resistant to acting affirmatively, it's a decent way of doing it (mind you, a better way to make certain whether an Arb willfully did not vote or was simply absent would need to be found).  However, I think that the slow responsiveness of the AC has been often decried (and often by the arbitrators themselves), and that there is an audible grumbling about the committee acting too little if anything.  I'm pretty sure (almost?) nobody has been calling for the committee to be less active.Mind you, I'm not touching the question of the legitimacy of the committee on its face; a point which has already been brought up by a very vocal minority— this proposition simply presumes that the AC is, and proposes a way to streamline it.  — Coren (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale

message: See discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating (talk).Surprised this isn't linked already. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In hopes the new committee members have this page watchlisted, here's a modest poke to highlight this proposal.  --InkSplotch (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed updating 

message: I see the enforcement cat was added without discussion in October.  I'd prefer to remove the cat, because the nutshell for this page suggests it's not a typical policy page.  Any objections? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting enforcement cat 

message: I was surprised to find the notion that the Arbitration Committee does not rule over content missing from the policy. Is this intentional, or a case of a norm not yet formalised? Comment welcome. Skomorokh 15:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ArbCom isn't actually forbidden from ruling on some content issues (indeed, it has done so a number of times in the past when an interpretation of content rules was the crux of a difficult and otherwise unsolvable dispute).We do, however, avoid ruling on content issues as much as possible as a matter of both tradition and "best practice".  If the only issue in a dispute is editorial concerns, then the other methods of dispute resolution to reach a real consensus are better and more effective in the long term.  — Coren (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I realise this; my question was why this is not reflected in the policy itself. Thanks for the reply, Skomorokh 02:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

text: So would anyone object to adding a line to the effect that the Committe avoids "ruling on content issues as much as possible as a matter of both tradition and "best practice""? Skomorokh 02:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's true, then add it, but perhaps it's time for ArbCom to reconsider its position on this. After all, WP is about creating an encyclopedia - content is ultimately the thing that matters the most (or should be). It's the thing that we all want and need to get right above all else, and ArbCom, as the highest-level decision making entity, ought to be helping to get the important decisions right, not turning up its nose and walking away. Of course the community makes these decisions competently 99.99% of the time, but on the occasions where it fails, the project needs an arbitrator to ensure that we get the result that's right, not the result that suits the people most willing to fight to the death.--Kotniski (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbcom's jurisdiction over content disputes 

message: I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but where does the idea come from that changes to this policy depend on consensus among the Committee, rather the community? (I see that someone has once claimed that Jimbo has suggested it, but is there anything more concerete than that?) Are there any other policies privileged in this way?--Kotniski (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this page as saying "You must obey".  I see it as saying, "Here's the ArbCom's impression of its operating rules". Is there anything on the page you'd like to see changed, Kotniski? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not particularly, I was just intrigued by the box at the top. If there's no ruling behind it being a policy mandated by Jimbo, perhaps we should change the wording of the box to make it clear that it's not a "policy" in Wikipedia's usual sense, but rather what you say it is.--Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've been bold and done that. Probably someone will revert it - I won't mind too much.--Kotniski (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The box at the top

message: I'm rather annoyed to come back and find that there's still been no progress on getting the community requested changes to ArbCom policy enacted. Has this been forgotten about? --Barberio (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which changes?--Kotniski (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: No, it hasn't been forgotten; we're currently producing a combined draft that incorporates the existing drafts with the various new items from our agenda.  Hopefully, there'll be something ready for community feedback in about a week or so. Kirill [pf] 12:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Progress? 

message: The Committee has prepared a provisional draft of an updated arbitration policy for initial community review.  All editors are invited to examine the text and to provide any comments or suggestions they may have via one of the two methods specified on the draft page.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft arbitration policy