Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/2024 Review

Where would ArbCom like general thoughts for these changes/process left? Ping to the draft Maxim. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC) Reply

I think the talkpage here would be the best place (although I can't think of anywhere else suitable...). Maxim (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Reply

Well for the CTOP consultations (as opposed to final vote) there were general discussion sections. But happy to do it here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Reply

• Is the idea to offer one comprehensive amendment or a series of smaller ones? I think both approaches are mistakes. While only some of the changes are probably very uncontrversial, I think the sum of the parts is potentially troubling (I will go more in depth about one reason for this below) and other parts are likely to be controversial. So an entire up or down vote feels like a high risk manuever and risks the "obvious yes" getting mixed up with the "needs more revision"/"this shouldn't be changed". There is a reason the 2011 ArbPol rewrite began in 2009. It went through a lot of discussion over multiple committee iterations and found consensus. If this is round one of a 12, 18, 24 month process great. But I don't get that sense. And lots of smaller changes would be a huge ask of the community and so a mistake in its own way (and doubly so because at least one revised section has a dependency on another revised section so what if one but not the other passes). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Reply

  At least from the internal Committee side, the feedback was generally uncontroversial, and there were edits done to remove or rewrite the more controversial things. A lot of the proposals were brought up internally, in various forms and iterations, since at least 2022, and seemed to have some sense of popularity; some material even draws on the conclusions of WP:AHRFC, which various iterations of the Committee have sought to integrate into the general documentation.

  Admittedly, perhaps even naively so, I had expected that more of these proposals to be in the "uncontroversial" pile, so a particular utility of an exercise like this one becomes to weed out what's uncontroversial, what may have some merit but needs more work, and what should be laid to rest. Maxim (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Reply

• I think this revision makes one large categorical mistake: it becomes too descriptive of current practice. The reason we haven't had to do a massive rewrite of ArbPol since 2011 is that it is mostly focused on important first principles. Those first principles can then be handled in a variety of ways by different arbcoms over time and those can be handled in the procedures. This revision takes away that gift from future committees by suddenly becoming more prescriptive in demanding that they use 2024 practices. Beyond that some committees are stronger than others and what a strong committee needs and wants are different than a committee which is weaker will need/want. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Reply

  I agree that policy should lay out principles, with implementation details defined in procedures that can be more flexibly changed to best suit the ways of working of the current group of arbitrators, clerks, and other collaborators of the arbitration process. isaacl (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Reply

• I would urge a general pass, either by a WP:GOCE person or by some other system, for simplicity and brevity of language. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Reply
• I had hoped to do a run through of procedures and clerk procedures before I left the committee. That didn't happen and so I'm very glad Maxim has picked up that baton and done the work. The one piece that I would have included had I done the work is to make clear that the Clerks Procedures are a "set of instructions" more than procedures. The fact that any arb or clerk can edit the clerks procedures at any time is a feature. But it becomes a bug when clerks then argue those procedures - never agreed upon or voted upon by anyone - are binding upon Arbitrators and the Committee because the Arbitration Procedures are silent on the topic. When most changes are not even discussed the idea that SILENCE becomes consensus is troubling to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Reply

Is this still open? The header states Editors are invited to participate in a community consultation on the arbitration policy and procedures until 21 August, but 21 August has long since passed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC) Reply

We are discussing the best way forward with this, but my personal triage is that this is low urgency in light of other case business and private matters. Doing this in tandem with higher-urgency items risks too much Committee energy/time being devoted to this at the expense of other important things. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Reply