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
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	14 Dec 2024	04 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Case Workshops	16 February 2021
Kurds and Kurdistan: topic ban clarification	25 February 2021

Motions

Case Workshops

Initiated by Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures

Motion: Make workshops optional

Arbitration Committee cases shall no longer have a workshop as a default. Arbitration procedures will be modified to indicate that the workshop phase is optional, at the discretion of either the drafting arbitrators or the full committee.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Support

1. As proposer. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Happy for the flexibility if needed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
3. More flexibility seems like a good thing. Regards SoWhy 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

Workshops have, in many cases, become counterproductive, serving more as place for involved parties to snipe at each other as opposed to the actual crafting of proper proposed decisions. In looking onto this, it became clear that there actually are no rules for workshops. They simply became a standard part of cases at some point without any apparent policy or procedure outlining how they are to be used. This is but one of several ideas we have been discussing and there will probably be more motions to follow to more clearly establish what workshops will look like when they are still used. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I am somewhat reluctant to remove the flexibility we have now by codifying it into procedures, even as what we're codifying is apparently flexible, because subsequent changes would need their own vote which would remove our ability to respond in the middle of a case. I don't know why we might need to but I'm also not completely convinced we need to lock ourselves in with a formal procedure. If we're going to formally introduce Workshops into procedures, I think getting the wording right for how we do it is important. So while I am philosophically in favor of this change and the two below, based in no small part on the extensive feedback we've already received from the community at WT:ACN, I would love to hear from our clerk term and L235 before I start voting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is basically what I'm getting at with the third motion, when we do have them the arbs can set the ground rules at the outset, and the participants will be held to those rules. The way it is now, it seems like every workshop works under the same rules, or lack thereof. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I share BK's reluctance to codify much more on this front, but perhaps I could support "Discretionary authority in workshops" on the understanding that this is already status quo, just codified and formalized. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Isaacl: That is indeed the only mention anywhere of how workshops work and what they are for. That is the problem I am aiming to address, for whatever reason, when workshops became a thing they were just there all the sudden. Their initial purpose was for the arbs to draft the proposed decision, but that function has by and large moved to the arbwiki, and a more finished product is usually presented in the PD, while the workshop is just a free-for-all. As to the the overall timeline, that is also pretty flexible, usually being established as the first step once a case is accepted. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm struggling here, because I don't like workshops - however, after the discussion on WT:AC/N, I'm not convinced that they are a Bad Thing^TM. They are useful in a number of ways. The difficulty comes with how to manage the workshops - they can be very stressful for participants, but at the same time any direct action taken against a specific individual gets significant push back - so the line is perhaps drawn higher than it should be. We often find this in civility discussions, people may agree that "generally" level of discourse is lower than would be hoped, but "specifically" it is difficult to point comments that should be removed / updated to improve matters. Given that the entire area of the workshop is to discuss ideas for how to improve a situation, we're always going to have some level of upset.
  So, I agree there are certain types of cases where we should not have a workshop - cases where we are focused on the behaviour of a couple of individuals or perhaps admin accountability cases, and so I wholly support the idea of an "optional" workshop. However, other sorts of cases may benefit more from a workshop, especially those where we are looking at "area of dispute". I guess I'm just not happy about the first sentence, which I'm reading as "by default we won't have a workshop, and so will need to justify having one". Worm^TT(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Kolya Butternut, my thoughts on removal for one or two individuals comes back to a "disciplinary process" approach. In those cases, statistically, if your name is in the case name, there is a good chance you will be sanctioned. It is likely that the case will be taken personally, and be very stressful for those participants. The plausible benefits of the workshop are outweighed by the damage it can cause.

  Thryduulf I agree in theory. However, in practise, this does not work, just as it does not work at other locations where similar complaints come up, say, RFA. As I say, people consider the "general" tone to be low but struggle to point to "specifics". Further, when you do point to a specific low level issue (nipping problems in the bud), the moderator is likely to a) be pointed to another "low toned" comment, or b) simply disagree that there's anything wrong. What to be done? Removal of the comment / Removal of the participant? Both may be seen as overblown except in clear cut cases. Worm^TT(talk) 15:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with this sentiment from WTT. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I share the concerns of Thryduulf and Tryptofish below that this is a further step than we should take just yet. I hope this isn't just quibbling, but wording with more flexibility may help. It may not have been the intent, but this reads to me a strictly opt-in process: "There are no workshops unless the drafters choose to have one". Maybe something more open-ended, like, "There will not necessarily be workshops, and drafters will decide whether they're appropriate for individual cases". Maybe I'm just writing my own motion at this point... --BDD (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  I feel like the wording "the workshop phase is optional" is pretty clear, and I personally do not feel like this is all that drastic of a step. I deliberately kept the wording simple because this should be a very simple process. I would think in most cases it would be a simple, brief discussion between the drafting arbs. All that being said, I'm very used to people not liking the way I present ideas and am always happy to consider any proposed alternate wording. I just felt like we needed to get the ball rolling here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm definitely quibbling about language now! "Shall" sounds like there's a prescription. I agree that "the workshop phase is optional" is clear. Maybe this is as simple as striking the first sentence. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Community discussion of Motion: Make workshops optional

The only current mention of workshops in the procedures is in the section Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Target timetable for proceedings. Thus will the change be essentially changing step 2 to "The optional workshop phase" and step 3 to something like "within one week of the evidence phase or the optional workshop phase closing"? isaacl (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I was trying to understand, in light of Barkeep49's concern, if there would be any more codification in the procedures beyond changing the target timeline section. Because the format of the case pages is entirely within the discretion the arbitration committee, there may not be any need for additional procedures to be formally written. isaacl (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• When will the decision to include / exclude a workshop be made? Will it be subject to community comment / discussion or just internal discussion of ArbCom (or uniltateral decision of the drafting Arbs? Has consideration been given to how not having a workshop might effect editors submission of evidence? The evidence page has no place for arbitrator comment, so will skipping a workshop mean there is even greater scope for a PD to appear that comes as a shock to participants? Where will arbitrator questions / requests for evidence appear? What about motions relating to cases? I'm wondering about unintended consequences... EdChem (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  I think at least some of these concerns are already addressed in the motion. The drafting arbs would probably make the call most of the time, but if other arbs disagree it will go to the full committee. The committee usually decides on a timeline for cases as soon as it is clear that the case is being accepted, I would think the decision on whether to have a workshop or not would naturally occur as part of that process (which I realize is invisible to non-arbs as it takes place on the mailing list) The signal-to-noise ratio in many cases of recent years has been just awful, that's the motivation behind this. As for discussion, it would just be one less talk page, arbs can still communicate as they do now on the evidence and PD talk pages. In the event that we actually decide to do a temporary injunction (which is pretty rare these days) we can just create a subpage just for that in place of the full workshop as needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• I believe we need to keep an analysis of evidence section separate from the main evidence section. If analysis were to be combined with the evidence phase then we would be virtually guaranteed to need an extension for analysis of the statements of evidence, so at that point we should just separate the sections. Also, it can take too much time to make one's own statement and analyze all the other evidence. I think it makes more sense for arbitrators to ask questions during the evidence phase but leave the analysis to the workshop. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, you said that workshops "simply became a standard part of cases at some point without any apparent policy or procedure outlining how they are to be used", but workshops have been explained before as early as 2005: "The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision."[1][2][3][4][5] I hear you that there is no current official policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC) added diffs Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC) +"as early as 2005" Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The change in the description of the workshop phase seems to have first appeared in March 2009: "Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision."[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, you stated that we should not have workshops for cases about the behavior of a couple of individuals; what are your thoughts there? What I saw at the recent FF and WW case was almost no moderation from clerks or arbs, and almost no participation at all until the very end. I would like to see us try to have workshops for user conduct issues where arbitrators put themselves out there more, not less by eliminating one of the only forums that isn't behind-the-scenes. I understand the concern about push back arbitrators can receive, but I think that if arbitrators were to give light warnings, like we saw on the talk pages of the past case, that could be effective feedback to keep workshops in line. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, I think if we just eliminated threaded discussions from the workshop there would be a great improvement. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the workshops as they are now can have serious problems, but I don't believe that this can be solved by getting rid of the workshops - the sniping and incivility will move elsewhere (the evidence talk page is one possibility, but I'm not sure there will be a single place). Rather I think what is needed is active moderation of the workshop by arbitrators or people who are explicitly appointed by the arbitrators to do the moderation. I don't support this motion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, the workshop, in many cases, accomplishes nothing. I think this is particularly true in cases that are about the behavior of a very small number of editors, or a single admin. Looking at recent cases, the average is roughly eight workshop proposals at each one. Do we need eight different people workshopping what to do about one or two other people, while the drafting arbs are drawing their own conclusions and drafting the "real"proposed decision elsewhere? I really don't think so. That is the kind of case this change is aimed at. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we need eight different suites of proposals? No. Do we need eight different perspectives which the Arbs can use for inspiration, see reactions to, etc? I think this can add significant value. With arb feedback and closing down of anything clearly inappropriate the possibility of harm and distraction is minimised. I also reiterate that the "real" proposed decision should not be drafted in isolation and presented as a complete proposed decision. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This is somewhat orthogonal, but Beeblebrox, would this not count as [s]ignificant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures according to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Modification of procedures, thus warranting notice in a few more places? Isaacl's initial comment notes how scantily mentioned Workshops are, but given the history and precedence (and WT:ACN discussion) it does seem this might be considered as such. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer, I have made the necessary notifications (to AN and ACN). If you feel it needs posting elsewhere, let me know where you think it is also needed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest that the Committee first experiment with the options that are available in the second proposed motion, and only after that consider seeing what happens if you skip a Workshop entirely. Take it one step at a time. There is no need to do this in one fell swoop. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Question, Beeblebrox, what criteria would the drafting arbs look for to enable the workshop? Without an idea of criteria of what arbs are looking to see to judge that a workshop would be helpful, I guess it would just be either arbitrary/personal preference (depending on the drafting arbs) or always disabled. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  I think worm's comments on when they are useful or not are pretty on point. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Excellent idea to give Arbs the discretion to choose. Per WTT, single Admin reviews or 2 party feuds might often not justify the community time + potential prolonged stress from a full length case. Whereas more complex cases might. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• I think this is a good idea, and I don't really understand the hand-wringing on the part of some of the Arb responses so far. Making it explicitly optional and not "on" by default doesn't in any way tie ArbCom's hands.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• So, the last case I remember where we didn't have a workshop was the 2015 case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. I didn't follow the case that closely, but I remember it vaguely because I thought it was unusual to forgo the workshop phase. I recall that at the time there was a lot of frustration during the PD phase of the case (one arb described the case in the motion to close section as "an utter waste of time"), and it looks like several observers commented that not doing the workshop was a mistake. Doug Weller wrote, for instance, that What I'd like to see is Arbitrators making more use of the workshop page, including perhaps some proposals themselves that might go in the PD. A good workshop makes writing a successful PD much easier and exposes possible problem, especially if the drafters use it. Like I said, I don't remember the case that well, but I figure I bring it up as looking back at this case might provide a case study for the kinds of challenges a workshop-less case might produce in the future. Naturally, the ArbCom of today is much different from the ArbCom of 2015, and it could well be the case that the changing culture surrounding ArbCom has also changed our needs. Mz7 (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  As I recall, the workshop phase was omitted for that case in an attempt to shorten it, as none of the facts in question were in dispute. Because it related to the reversal of a block placed to enforce an arbitration case remedy, the arbitration committee had to deal with it, and it chose to hold a case on an abbreviated schedule. No workshop was needed to provide analysis of the facts. As I mentioned elsewhere, personally I think the committee should decide for itself what structure it prefers to use to receive feedback on its proposed decision, and it should have the freedom to decide on a case-by-case basis. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  Those may have been the circumstances, but the links provided by Mz7 do indeed show a lot of sentiment at the time that skipping the Workshop had been a mistake. I actually find that very significant for the present discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  The issue was very divisive of the community, so they'll always be people objecting to any choice made. The problem regarding effectiveness, as I recall (I'm in no mood to re-read that case in its entirety), was not really related to the presence or absence of a workshop phase. The arbitration committee had done its best in the first case that had just closed two months earlier to find a way to break the block-unblock-lengthy discussion cycle for the editor in question, and so unsurprisingly there weren't any new ideas. All possible approaches had been discussed during the first case. isaacl (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• If it were up to me, the Workshop phase would be jettisoned. I've only been involved in one ArbCom case and the Workshop was a travesty because it became a litter box of people who had been obviously chomping at the bit for an opportunity to dig up every grievance they had with one of the parties -- allegations and diffs were plastered on the page that had zero relevance to the specific subject of the case. The holier-than-thous vying to be the one who had a final sway in the ArbCom decision, composing and recomposing dictums for ArbCom, was a farce, with the cherry on the icing being the participation from editors with a history of warnings, blocks, and I-bans. As I see it, whatever the purpose of the Workshop may have been when it was initiated, it now exists as a target shoot. The Evidence stage should suffice. And if ArbCom members can't hang their hats solely on the Evidence presented ... they shouldn't be wearing them to begin with. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 21:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Discretionary authority in workshops

In cases where a workshop phase is employed, the drafting arbitrators shall have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding what is and is not permitted during the workshop. Any arbitrator or arbitration clerk may take whatever action they feel is needed to enforce standards of decorum and civility, and to limit "sprawling" outside the scope of the case.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Support

1. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
2. This is a positive step even if it only codifies current practice. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
3. pragmatic and sensible Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Makes sense to codify. Regards SoWhy 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
5. As status quo. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

• Technically, this is already true, but I feel it would be good to formalize it as it has been clear for some time now that behavior at workshops needs to be reined in. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Community discussion of Motion: Discretionary authority in workshops

• Getting clarification on what actually is the scope of a case has been a difficulty in cases that I have watched. Clerks guessing what is or is not within scope is problematic. Arbitrtators appear reluctant to spend substantial time dealing with workshop contributions. The draft presupposes that scope is something that is clearly known / understood and at times I've felt the drafting arbs are the only ones who actually know this. EdChem (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Subject to the caveats that the case scope and workshop rules are clear and arbs are responsive to questions about them, then this is a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Is this meaningfully different from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Maintaining order and decorum on arbitration pages? It's possible that modern clerks are given a somewhat shorter leash, or that modern Arbs have generally preferred giving permission rather than forgiveness, but I think both clauses here are already True and well-known. If the intent is to clarify already-existing policy (WP:AC/P?), I'm not sure it's helpful to limit the wording to workshops. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• I think that this motion is really at the heart of what the community has been discussing. As written, the motion is somewhat broad and vague, which may be appropriate, but that is probably why editors are asking whether it really is anything new. It's important to make clear what specific assertions of authority are being made – either in a revised version of the motion, or, as correctly noted by Thryduulf, as will be necessary no matter what on specific case pages and in answers to questions from participating editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• I concur with all four of the above. This will be a good step toward preventing trainwrecks, but may not be enough in and of itself. BDD's "only codifies current practice" is kind of wishful thinking. While Amorymeltzer is correct that there's already language kind of suggestive of this, it's clearly not resulted in an enforced set of procedural rules, and that is what we need. So, I feel this is perhaps a bit too vague. For one thing, "standards of decorum and civility" isn't really enough. A substantial part of the problem is whether workshop/analysis accusations are actually supported by any evidence, so maybe "enforce standards of decorum, civility, and evidence" or something like that. I'm not sure any of these motions are getting at a central part of the problem, which has been the threaded-discussion nature of the workshop phase. Even the talk pages of these pages don't permit that, so none of the pages themselves should permit it. If you feel compelled to respond to someone's evidentiary/analysis claims, it needs to be in your own section and within your length limits (original, or as extended after approved request).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• In hindsight, intuitive. El_C 19:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Analysis of evidence

In cases where there is no workshop phase, the "Analysis of evidence" section shall be moved to the evidence phase and close concurrently with that phase. Extensions may be granted on request if there are late submissions that a participant wishes to respond to.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Support

1. sensible Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
2. SoWhy 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
3. Subject to the authority of drafting arbitrators to modify or depart from this rule in a particular case. I also think it'd be a good chance to revisit what we actually want in the analysis section, as it varies significantly between cases and drafters. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

• I think the comment from Trypto/Isaac about moving analysis of evidence always to the Evidence page, and thus always subject to word lengths, is intriguing. Some amount evidence that is regularly offered is really more analysis anyway. I know that "evidence" I offered that was cited in the final decision of at least 1 case contained a large amount of analysis anyway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Community discussion of Motion: Analysis of evidence

Although personally I like separating analysis from a plain description of acts with citations, I appreciate that many participants in past arbitration cases have preferred to integrate the two more tightly. Perhaps as a middle ground, consideration can be given to dividing each participant's section into evidence and analysis subsections. isaacl (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox does this motion allow extensions for adding Analysis of evidence, or does it allow an extension for everything to do with evidence? It is probably best to be clear, as although this motion seems to be only about analysis of evidence its current wording could be seen in different ways. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we could make clear which it is when granting any extensions, i.e. "you are granted a five-day extension in order to reply to evidence already submitted." Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that it has long been confusing to the community to have the analysis on the Workshop page. It actually might make sense to always move it to the Evidence page, regardless of whether or not there is a Workshop, and have it stay open for a while after the evidence per se has been closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The analysis section was long ignored until recently—the increasing amount of use may have been triggered by concerns about word limits in the evidence section. (Once upon a time, I believe an arbitrator said, in response to someone asking if they should be placing a statement on the evidence page, workshop page, or one of the talk pages, that they read them all anyway, and a clerk can move it to wherever seems best.) I still think participants should be encouraged to separate analysis from evidence, as I think this helps establish a better common context for discussion. But I also think they should stop arguing with each other about whether or not someone else has breached the format conventions, and focus on their own points. (Note: using more words isn't always desirable; conciseness can be more compelling.) Perhaps having their evidence and analysis together in one section will help with that. isaacl (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Tryptofish above, though support this motion regardless. There is little opportunity for "analysis" of evidence to turn into a Gish gallop of vague accusations if constrained to strict length limits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Timetable and case structure

Once a case has been accepted, the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The name 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 be drafting arbitrator(s) for the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as a designated point of contact for any matters arising.

The standard structure of a case will include the following phases and timetable:

1. An evidence phase that lasts two weeks from the date of the case pages opening;
2. A workshop phase, that ends one week after the evidence phase closes;
3. A proposed decision which is published within one week of the workshop phase closing.

The timetable and structure of the case may be adjusted (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) by the initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s) during the case. Drafting arbitrator(s) shall also have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding the running of the phases (e.g. enforce threaded discussions, set a word limit for participants in the workshop phase) to enforce the expectation of behavior during a case. Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case.

Implementation note: upon this motion passing, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Target_timetable_for_proceedings will be removed, the final paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Opening_of_proceedings will be struck, and a new section, with the heading "Timetable and case structure", will be added to the Committee's procedures with the above text. In the announcement for this change, the Committee will note its intention to incorporate the analysis of evidence into the evidence phase as part of the standard structure and to make the workshop phase optional. The Workshop phase will be omitted for some cases, such as those examining the conduct of one or two editors.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Support

1. Per comments below. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
2. This is the sort of thing I could get behind. My only niggle is that the standard structure is with a workshop and you've got that the structure can be "added". I've switched that to removed, which therefore opens us up to the flexibility which I believe we want to have, whilst also keeping the option of a status quo. I'd also be happy with "added or removed" instead. Worm^TT(talk) 10:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

   On second thoughts, added or removed is better as it could refer to analysis of evidence phase. Worm^TT(talk) 10:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

   This tweak is definitely fine with me and I'll just note that the parenthetical statements are designed to be examples and not the full range of how a case may be adjusted or case-specific rules drafting arbs may set. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Yes, this looks reasonable. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
5. Of the four proposals, this one has the most "bang for the buck", giving details without being too specific (or vague) and leaves things open for some measure of discretion for unforeseen circumstances. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
6. I split my motions up because I didn't want the whole thing to fail because of objections to one of the three parts, but apparently I needn't have worried. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
7. I think this provides the committee needed flexibility, without being overly broad. Clearly, workshops have been troublesome, but they needn't be dynamited altogether. We can now use some common sense about whether a case needs a workshop, and if so, what restrictions it may or may not need. I think this will allow cases to produce less drama than in the past. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ — Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. Parking myself here given this is now passing. I've skimmed the proposal and I see nothing outrageous but I've been too swamped with other Committee business to look at the proposal and discussion in sufficient detail. Maxim_(talk) 19:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

This is designed to collapse the three motions above into a single motion, while allowing us to maintain the flexibility that our current procedures and processes allow, and to reflect current practices in terms of how a case is opened. I have included the idea of putting analysis of evidence into the evidence phase but if other arbs don't want this to be standard practice and instead only practice when we don't have a workshop that's fine with me. I'll also note that this is worded in a way that we could have an "Analysis of evidence" phase even in cases where we choose not to have a full workshop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: copy edits made. Substantively, the culture of arbcom, at least from my limited experience with two cases this year and some limited reading of the archives, is that the drafting arbs do check-in with the larger committee. I specifically included actions that drafting arbs have historically done (extending the deadline for a phase, saying yes to threaded discussions) as signposts. Personally, yes I would rather the drafting arbs feel empowered rather than have potential paralysis waiting for a group of people who are, often, quite busy. With the proposal above, I could see, for instance, the drafting arbs deciding midcase to do an "Arb proposals only" workshop in the middle of a case where there hadn't been a plan for a workshop.

As for the statement about making workshops optional, I put that in there to try to reassure people like you and Thrydulf who don't like the direction this committee is going, that this is about flexibility not eliminating the chance for party and community feedback. But the idea that we should open ourselves up to more workshops like we got at Flyer/WW (which I'll note was actually a three party case, something I intentionally thought about when I was wording it because there is indeed nothing magical about two versus three) while we try something is not appealing to me in the least. For that case we had participating editors indicating how upsetting the whole process was to them and arbs saying "We didn't get anything of value" (well actually I did get something of value, the idea that we should rethink the name of GamerGate, but that was hardly of such value as to make the whole endeavor worthwhile). So no I don't think we should try some other partial measure, whose efficacy I expect to be higher on paper than in reality. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I don't understand your question. This proposal gives the committee when opening the case and drafting arbs during the case some latitude to change from the default template. However, no member of the current committee has, that I'm aware of, expressed a desire to change the current evidence phase in any substantial way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EdChem: incorporating a scope into the case is interesting. However, midcase updates of whether there is sufficient evidence is not something I think practical or would support. This would be true for a number of reasons a few of which are: arb attention is hard to get, drafting arbs opinions might not represent the committee as a whole, there's value in the committee just listening rather than jumping to conclusions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we get a version of this where it says "optional" for workshop? Regards SoWhy 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the clause (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) (emphasis added) indicates that any of the phases may be omitted if necessary. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It is also covered by the sentence the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The Committee has a standard structure and timetable detailed but may deviate from it, as it sees fit, when opening a case. Midcase further adjustments may be made by the Committee or by a subset of the Committee, drafting arb(s). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I got that but I think the "default" setting should be "no Workshop unless required" while this proposal makes the default "Workshop unless removed". Regards SoWhy 06:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Community discussion of Motion: Timetable and case structure

First, just some trivial nitpicks: In the second sentence, you might want to change "title" to "case name" or "case-name". And in the third sentence add "a" to "a designated point of contact".

I think that "The Workshop phase will be omitted for some cases, such as those examining the conduct of one or two editors" raises problems. Must it be omitted for every case examining one or two editors? Is three really a meaningful cut-off? More broadly, is the Committee really ready to take this leap before experimenting with case-specific rules set by the drafting arbs for the Workshop phase?

Do the drafting arbs have full authority to change the timetable and structure, or are there things where the whole Committee should be consulted?

Having said all that, I think that it's good to combine three motions into one, and that this motion is very much on the right track. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with this, except that point 2 should say "optional", unless the first motion in this section (that workshops will be optional and not the default) does not pass.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Does this proposal allow for questions to the parties, arbitrators, and "witnesses" during the evidence phase? Secondly, I want to note for the record that no evidence has been presented to show that the case which led to these proposals (WanderingWanda and Flyer22 Frozen) had a workshop which was unfair to the complainee. (But let's leave it at that.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• I feel like eliminating the workshops (which we've had since 2005, see above) for conduct cases, etc., protects Arbcom at the expense of the community. If arbitrators had moderated the last workshop, they could have put a stop to the arguments, but they chose not to. Their solution appears to be to eliminate that difficult responsibility instead of maintaining workshops with new rules. This proposal will lead to even less transparency, and less community engagement. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, would you provide notifications for this new proposal at WP:AN and WP:ACN? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I don't see that they are necessarily needed again. The announcement is still up on ACN, and interested editors may have watchlisted this page. As these motions are all part of a group the wording shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed suggests that when the motions are first proposed a announcement is needed. Second or more proposals for the same group of motions then from my understanding don't need a further announcement. A second notification is likely to be unneeded, but if you disagree do explain why. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I fully endorse Dreamy Jazz's reading of the situation. Worm^TT(talk) 11:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I had made this request over thirty hours before receiving a first response, so I added a notice myself rather than wait, because this discussion seems a bit bureaucratic. I feel a notice is the polite thing to do, because folks who were not interested in the previous proposals may be interested in new ones of which they were not aware. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean this is kind of showing a couple of the situations I've been discussing through these conversations. First, no one person was authorized to speak for the committee and so nothing was said which was frustrating. Finally something was said by both a clerk and an arb and since the answer wasn't what the person wanted to hear the answer was ignored (WTT responded at 11:37 UTC, it was posted to AN at 15:11). If this were happening in a case, rather than in something open like this, we'd then be in a situation where we would need to do something and that could just cause further divisiveness. I think this committee is willing to say that behavior in the case will impact the final outcome, it might just happen in a delayed manner. Now obviously in this situation Kolya was free to do as they wished but because this is low stakes situation I wanted to point to it for why I've been pushing back on people who think the answer is "ArbCom needs to moderate discussions more/better". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say that my post to AN was itself an act of moderation of this community discussion...but I expect we disagree. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No I think we agree on how to characterize this action. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I commented above and did get a response from Beeblebrox (thanks) but I'm not sure that some of my concerns are clear, so I'm trying again. Allow me to preface this with agreement that some case Workshops have become highly combative and dysfunctional. I suspect there are times that a non-drafting Arbitrator might reasonable have opened the page and considered a more enjoyable and productive use for their time, like taking some nail clippers outside to mow the lawn. Reform is needed... but I am concerned about what might happen when the proposed changes are implemented.

• This motion appears to indicate that any decision to exclude a Workshop phase will be made and communicated to the Clerks before the case pages are created to open the case.
  • To me, it is still unclear who will make the decision. Read literally, the motion appears to say that the Committee as a whole will decide on structure, case name, drafting Arbs, etc, and this will then all be communicated to the Clerks. I had the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that drafting Arbs were selected and then they took on the rest of the issues, and that ArbCom as a whole could then alter decisions of the drafting Arbs if deemed necessary, or consider any issues referred to the Committee as a whole by the drafting Arbs. If a workshop / no workshop decision proves contentious, it is reasonable for the community to know if it was taken by the drafting Arbs and is reviewable by ArbCom as a whole if there are sufficient grounds, or if it is already a whole of ArbCom decision (whether by vote or consensus).
  • Supposing that a no-workshop decision is made, will there be scope for input during the case if parties / participants believe that a workshop would be helpful? If so, will this be a public discussion (where?) or will it become a reason for off-wiki / email-lobbying of ArbCom (which I am guessing we not be a positive development from ArbCom's perspective)?
  • Conversely, if a workshop phase is included but parties / others think it is undesirable, will representations to eliminate it / end it early (for example) be entertained?
  • Does this mean that the case request stage, especially once acceptance appears likely, becomes the place to make submissions for or against a Workshop in a particular case? How will such submissions be managed if they eventuate?
  • Will the workshop / no-workshop decision be based on... the expectation of usefulness given the nature of the case? the views of the drafting arbs about workshops in general? the extent of community interest and the submissions made at the case request? the behaviour of parties / community commenters at the case request? guidelines to be developed internally within ArbCom? ...?
• Suppose a case is opened with no workshop. I believe this is likely to alter the behaviour and nature of evidence submissions from parties and others. ArbCom's requests for factual evidence and diffs rather than advocacy in the evidence phase is more difficult to follow when the usual place for advocacy is absent. Calculations as to the balance of defensive content against highlighting problematic evidence from others become potentially more difficult.
• What if a decision to remove the workshop phase occurs further into the proceeding, near the end of the evidence phase, for example? Will this be seen as unfair by parties? Will it lead to re-evaluations of evidence so that things intended for the workshop still get expressed?
• Have you considered opening a workshop with a warning that inappropriate behaviour might not only lead to sanctions against individuals, but possibly an early closure of the workshop?
• I recognise that the role of Arbitrator must be both burdensome and unpleasant (at least at times) and that patrolling case pages for problematic behaviours or to answer questions that seem unreasonable would be frustrating. It is my perception, however, that Arbitrator involvement is helpful to the process, and I fear this change could result in less engagement and more situations where a PD comes as a surprise / shock to parties and the community. One area that is a regular source of misaligned expectations / understandings is case scope. I think that there are workshops that would have been much less problematic if there was clear communication and understanding of (a) what ArbCom saw as the scope and (b) areas where there is sufficient evidence v. areas where more evidence is needed. Communicating this would not only help the parties and participants to focus on what is useful to ArbCom, it would also guide Clerks in trying to curtail / hat / act on threads moving both in unhelpful directions and with escalating heat. In short, those workshops that do degenerate into uselessness are the fault of the parties and contributors but the Arbitrators and Clerks share responsibility for not having managed the pages more effectively. Please, do not allow these changes to become a vehicle for reduced Arbitrator participation in case pages.
• On a related point, the Workshop structure includes a place for Arbitrators to ask questions, and it was (IMO) under-utilised. I suggest that a place be kept for Arbitrator questions and accompanied by a place for questions to Arbitrators, which should be given a prompt response (an answer, or strike as inappropriate, or "is a matter that will be addressed in the PD", or "We aren't going to answer that because XYZ", or ...). This should be included whether there is a workshop phase or not, IMO.
• In fact, a statement (brief) on scope, perhaps as a set of questions that the drafting Arbs see as being before the Committee to answer, would be a useful addition to the evidence page for each case. Perhaps accompanied by an update with a couple of days of the evidence phase to go, indicating (a) which questions appear to have sufficient evidence, (b) which questions would benefit from more evidence, (c) any questions that have become moot / changed or any new questions that have arisen, and (d) perhaps any questions / topics that are seen as unlikely to be included in a PD – this last one could be a way of saying "drop XXX, it isn't going to happen," or of saying "we aren't convinced YYY is relevant, so you need to persuade us with something significant or you are wasting your time." I know more work is not what Arbitrators need, but more guidance could result in more useful / helpful submissions and less extraneous material.

EdChem (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

So Beebs gets thanked and I get no acknowledgement of my ping response? Ok I guess I better reply here then :).

To answer your questions:

Who makes the decisions about opening a case? The Committee discusses and decides. In theory the committee could just agree on who the drafting arbs are and they decide but that's not how it's being done now.

Can parties request a workshop? Yes. The motion says Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case. I would expect this to be done at the talk page of the main case or in email to the committee depending on the nature of the request. If they were to ask a drafting arb or clerk, I'm sure they could get help (and/or a decision) as well.

Can parties ask for Workshops to end early? Yes. See above answer.

Should a desire for the workshop be part of ARC? In my opinion, think one of our messages with all this is that arbs are well positioned to be making this decision. First we have more experiences with workshops than a party will and so will have some ideas about what kinds of workshops are/aren't effective. Second the idea of the workshop is, in my mind, ultimately to help us reach the best case outcome possible. There is definitely value in everyone feeling like they've been heard and had their say, but Workshops are hardly the only place where that can happen.

What criteria will be used? I expect us to use a wide range of criteria. I expect that criteria to be refined as we actually do this over the next couple years.

Will stopping a workshop midcase be upsetting? You're right that this might be upsetting to some participants. This is why, in my opinion, the committee is more reluctant to moderate than those who have expressed opinions here and at WT:ACN would have us be. I expect us to only do that if the decorum of the case has devolved so far as to be necessary or if there were other explainable reasons that made it a wise course of action.

Have we considered opening a workshop with a warning? This entire motion, if implemented is that warning. The wording of the case page could also be adjusted. Something to think about.

I've explained previously why I think some of the other suggestions are not things I could support so I won't repeat myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

EdChem, one alternative to workshops might be for each arbitration participant to workshop the case on their own user subpage. They could post a link on the case talk page for arbitrators to consider as they choose. "Owners" of the talk page would be able to moderate the discussion themselves per WP:User pages#Ownership and editing of user pages. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

EdChem asked about opening a Workshop with warnings about conduct on the page, and Barkeep agreed that it is something to think about. I'd like to encourage the Committee to make significant use of warnings, or special rules, at the outset of a Workshop, as a way to communicate what to do and what not to do on the Workshop page. This can only be a good thing, in terms of preventing unpleasantness before it happens, and it may very well help the Committee in not needing to do too much monitoring and policing.

I also want to echo a very good point that EdChem made, that "It is my perception, however, that Arbitrator involvement is helpful to the process, and I fear this change could result in less engagement and more situations where a PD comes as a surprise / shock to parties and the community." Barkeep responded to that point in terms of stopping a Workshop mid-case, but I believe that it also applies, maybe even more so, to skipping the Workshop from the outset of a case. I get it, that some Arbs are pushing back against this argument, on the basis of not wanting to have to moderate case pages, but I want you to hear the message that there is a pitfall here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Case Workshops: Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Passing	Support needed	Notes
Motion: Make workshops optional	3	0	0		4
Motion: Discretionary authority in workshops	5	0	0		2
Motion: Analysis of evidence	3	0	0		4
Motion: Timetable and case structure	8	0	1		·

Notes

Kurds and Kurdistan: topic ban clarification

Initiated by BDD (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan

Motion: clarify scope of topic bans

The phrase "articles related to" in the topic bans for GPinkerton, Thepharoah17, عمرو بن كلثوم, and Supreme Deliciousness are struck, to clarify that the bans are not limited to article-space.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Support

1. As proposer. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Easy fix. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
3. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Thankfully it is much easier to fix mistakes in the online cases; back in the day when you made a mistake on the 15 metre tall granite ArbCom steles, that was a real pain to fix :P CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
5. Maxim_(talk) 17:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
6. SoWhy 18:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
7. Worm^TT(talk) 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
8. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

• This is the result of a drafting error, which I regret. None of the named parties have exploited this potential loophole, which I appreciate. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  Don't feel too bad; not only did the three of us miss it, the entire committee and those commenting on the PD missed it! Easy thing to miss, to be honest. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)