Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Statement by Rosguill: Reply |
|||
Line 255:
# I'm willing to accept a case here, with the understanding that there is some evidence of off-wiki canvassing, and if there is no evidence put forward that the participants are likely to be sanctioned making such accusations without evidence. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 14:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
# Keeping in mind North8000's comment, I'm slightly concerned over the current lack of parties but will accept since there appears to be enough of a case here and the input from AE admins. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 04:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
# We should generally accept good faith referrals from administrators to whom we delegated arbitration committee authority, and this was formalized in the forthcoming contentious topic procedures. I'm inclined to believe the referring administrators when they say this is a problem their tools are poorly suited to handle, especially when the authorizing case is nearly 16 years old. For reference, the [[Nagorno-Karabakh conflict|page on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict]] has ''twelve sections'' dedicated to armed conflicts which have occurred since we last looked at this topic area systematically, and that's ignoring the Wikipedia-internal technical and social changes that have occurred over the last 16 years. The best case is we review a case older than many of our editors in order to identify and help resolve issues through a thorough and well reasoned inquiry; the worst case is we arbitrate an intractable dispute potentially involving off-wiki evidence (which is still our job even if it's not as glamorous as passing topic-wide restrictions). On the merits, I think the requesting administrators have made a sufficient showing as to why a case would be justified.{{pb}}The alternative on offer is that we resolve this by motion here through a case amendment, but quite simply I don't believe that's an actual solution. No actual solution-by-amendment has been suggested, and this board's clearance rate is so abysmal that we passed a motion a few days ago in order to sweep our 3-month-old unresolved requests under the rug once everyone's forgotten about it. In that context, I simply do not believe an unstructured "discussion" with no accountability or timeline will actually work because it almost never has. We already have an established procedure by which arbitrators and the community collect evidence and discuss potential solutions: it's called a case and it has an exceptionally better track record than this board does. Administrators who work this area have requested a case because they believe its procedures will yield the best outcomes, and given the track records of this board and cases, I'm inclined to agree with them and support opening a case. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 20:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
;Oppose
| |||