Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

It is a good idea to terminate remedies that are no longer necessary to prevent disruption. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Editor conduct in e-cigs articles

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - –

☖ 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

1. I remember having a number of relevant pages on my watchlist due to the disruption. I have since taken most of them off my watchlist because the disruption stopped. Barring any evidence to the contrary I am inclined to lift this. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. The CT has only ever been used once in 2020 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Izno (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cabayi (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8. talk) 21:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. I'm abstaining on all these issues as I don't have the time to go through them, and don't want my dithering to hold matters up. SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions (Editor conduct in e-cigs articles)

Community discussion (Editor conduct in e-cigs articles)

Based on my AE assessment logs, this CT has shown up ~10 times overall since the case closed, with only one thread involving it in the last five years. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Liancourt Rocks

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - –

☖ 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

1. The CT has not been used since 2017. This is an issue that people are passionate about, but I am not seeing it manifest on wiki --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. I recall discussing this one a year or so ago but it got sidetracked by the CTOP changes. I would have supported removing it then, and support it now. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Izno (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Izno's link below. I agree that the possibility exists that there could be another round of future saber rattling, but we can probably deal with that with lesser measures any admin can take on their own authority.
   talk) 21:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. As with the Senkaku islands motion last year I'm reluctant to lift the CT structure from a topic which is prone to political pot-stirring from different sides. It may have been quiet on-wiki but VRTS has received several emails on the topic. The disputes have not gone away. Cabayi (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I think my response from last year remains the same as this year; I almost typed the same thing. That even includes the fact there are a half dozen emails to VRTS about the naming dispute. Izno (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions (Liancourt Rocks)

Community discussion (Liancourt Rocks)

• Oppose -- this is a long-running international dispute that will come back around on Wikipedia. I recommend leaving this in place vs. revisiting the issue from scratch. It's not as if there's a pressing need to lift this.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the comment about VRT, I would reconsider whether or not this should be revoked. It may be that the disputants are using VRT due to a language barrier, since this is mainly an East Asian (Japan/Korea) dispute. On-wiki, this has two AE threads, 15 years apart (2008 and earlier this year), with the one from earlier this year being closed as moot due to the subject being blocked independent of the thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  VRT has a boilerplate response for Liancourt Rocks, and I find the fact that it has not spread further than VRT to be a reasonable indication that the ticket system is doing a good job of heading off the majority of those opposed to the current name. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That'll only hold true as long as the complainants continue to think VRTS is the place to go to get policy changed. It's not a misconception to rely on. Cabayi (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I am not necessarily relying on it, more making an observation. Primefac (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Longevity

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - –

☖ 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

1. The CT has not been used since 2018. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Izno (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cabayi (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8. This sanction has outlived it's usefulness.
   talk) 21:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions (Longevity)

Community discussion (Longevity)

Wasn't this CTOP issued because of issues with a specific WikiProject? If the WikiProject has reformed or gone inactive, I can see a good argument for lifting the CTOP. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 06:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add onto this, my AE assessment notes show ~15 times this CT was brought up, none of those being in the past five years. Most recent invocation was on July 26, 2018 (Archive 239, thread "TFBCT1"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Medicine

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - –

☖ 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

1. The CT has never been used --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Izno (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cabayi (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. I suspect that the user-specific remedies issued in this case more or less dealt with the problem on their own.
   talk) 21:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. I'm recused on this as I was the party who filed the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions (Medicine)

• Drugs have prices? Thank goodness for the NHS. Cabayi (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (Medicine)

Can confirm what Guerillero says - this CT has never shown up at AE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the Arbs for taking the time to reduce the CREEP from these unnecessary CTOPs. I'll miss SAQ, though. And

Enacted - –

☖ 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Has only been used twice since 2017. Fully covered by AMPOL --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Izno (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. I actually thought we'd already merged this into AMPOL. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. AMPOL will suffice. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. So long as we're explicitly stating that September 11 conspiracy theories are a post-1992 American Politics contentious topic, and not leaving it open for someone to argue it's a cultural history thing, sure. Cabayi (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8. As the motion more or less says, this is redundant.
   talk) 21:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions (September 11 conspiracy theories)

Community discussion (September 11 conspiracy theories)

Since this was heavily used before AP2 closed, I'm not going to count how frequently it was brought up at AE overall. But it's only been used once in the past five years (Archive 277, thread "Roy McCoy") and even then that was invoked alongside AP2. I agree that the 9-11 sanctions are redundant with AP2. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Shakespeare authorship question

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - –

☖ 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Has not been used since 2018 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Izno (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. There goes one of my favorite obscure CTs (though nothing will ever live up to Tree Shaping). GeneralNotability (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cabayi (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8. talk) 21:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions (Shakespeare authorship question)

Community discussion (Shakespeare authorship question)

This CTOP has been seen at AE 14 times total, none of which are in the past five years. Last time it was invoked was May 03, 2017 (Archive 214, thread "Proximity1"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Removal of Unused and Unusual Remedies, Macedonia

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - –

☖ 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Since the 2018 agreement between Greece and North Macedonia, the topic area has become quite enough to remove the 1RR. I can't find records of Remedy 6 being since before my first term on the committee in 2015. While Remedy 30 was never enabled in the case, no longer reflects the way arbcom handles admin abuse. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Izno (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Reiterating the elements of this that remain a contentious topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. Remedy 30 looks particularly dated. We may need an intermediate step between adminishing and desysopping an admin but labelling someone as having lost the community's trust isn't it. Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8. None of this reflects how these types of issues are handled now, this sort of sanction is a relic of a very different time for the project and this committee.
   talk) 21:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions (Macedonia)

Community discussion (Macedonia)

Motion: Standardizing Unusual Remedies, The Troubles

Enacted - –

☖ 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Paring back to a more standard 1RR without the extra notification requirements, including an article talk page --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Izno (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. With
   Sinn Fein having made the transition to being a mainstream political party a regular 1RR seems more uh, mainstream. Cabayi (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. talk) 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions (The Troubles)

@Guerillero, @Primefac, @Izno, @Barkeep49, FYI: I've copyedited the motion in Special:Diff/1180014953. Please revert if there's anything there you oppose. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a strong need to always put everything in a box, but it is fine if it makes you happy -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

​We all end up in boxes. That, and taxes... Cabayi (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (The Troubles)

Motion: Removal of Unused and Unusual Remedies, Civility in infobox discussions

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

1. Has never been used. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Leaving this as a valid
   editor restriction is appropriate to me. Izno (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Per Izno. I'd support this only incidentally to repealing the overall infoboxes CT designation (if that would be appropriate). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Kevin, Cabayi (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per L235 and the feedback below. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Primefac (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Just as a note I have expanded somewhat (by request) my thoughts on the matter, see this permalink. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions (Civility in infobox discussions)

• I have to think on this, as infobox issues still seem to crop up. It might have died down enough to rescind, though, so I would like to see opinions on that matter. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that this has never been used feels really important. But I am waiting on this for community feedback. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this motion:
  • No longer explicitly listing infobox probation as one of the CT restrictions available; or
  • Explicitly removing infobox probation from the CT restrictions palette?

I think the distinction matters. Cabayi (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: Removing it from the set of tools we are giving admins. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Cabayi (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (Civility in infobox discussions)

• Infoboxes are still a disputed issue, in my opinion. I believe the overhanging threat of this restriction is valuable in preventing editors on both sides of the question from adding or removing infoboxes rapidly or thoughtlessly. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Espresso Addict. I see several contentious infobox discussions per year where some participants are clearly holding themselves back because they know about this, and those are just the ones I happen across. It could get much worse if the guardrails are removed. --RL0919 (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I am involved having argued that it is not productive to harangue those who develop quality articles when there is no central mandate requiring infoboxes. I'm sure that the above comments are correct in that people are only restrained because they know about this restriction. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• (I was pointed to this discussion on my talk, where I replied in more detail.) While I think that yes, infoboxes are still a disputed topic, I have not seen incivility in these discussions in years. See
  Mozart, for examples. I ask those who claim "several contentious discussions per year", such as RL0919, to substantiate such claim by being more specific. I haven't seen a single one in the years 2019, 2020, 2021, for example, and the 2022 and 2023 discussions remained mostly civil, while lack of civility was the only concern of the arbcase in question. Where, Espresso Addict, have you seen an infobox being added or removed thoughtlessly? I don't think, Johnuniq, that people are restrained by knowing this admin tool, - I believe that most editors don't even know about it. I'd go further: I don't think that most users who came here after 2018 even know that an infobox dispute even existed. I asked last year's candidates if they thought that we still have infobox wars, and they said no. Most users adding infoboxes these days just miss what they normally see in an article, and many are quite astonished to learn about the back story. - If you ask me, I believe the community has spoken, both in number of comments as in quality of arguments, for Mozart, and we might just close a sad chapter of a past, saying that infoboxes are not a CT anymore. We can handle discussions by normal editing processes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There were two logged enforcement actions in

  2022. (Apparently there are two different headers used for logging these? Sometimes they are under "Civility in infobox discussions" and sometimes they are under "Infoboxes". Both headers link to the same case.) This topic does have a much lower volume of dispute than something like American politics or Israel-Palestine, but for the relatively narrow set of people who are passionate about it and articles where it produces conflict, the sanction is still helpful. In any case, five arbs have already stated positions against removing it, so further discussion here may be moot. --RL0919 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I don't know about moot or not, because - as I remember from the first infoboxes case - arbitrators can change their minds. In 2023, we so far had six RfCs,

  WP:CT, and at this point removal seems a disruption rather than adding one. Arbitration may take some more time to accept that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @ArbCom Clerks: would a clerk mind changing them to one heading (probably "Civility in infobox discussions")? Thanks! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• To add to Gerda's list ... Talk:Georges Feydeau#Infobox and Talk:Georges Feydeau#Request for comment: infobox, which to my eyes seems to argue for keeping the remedies active. If that's what is civil while the remedies are in force, I think we still need the remedies. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for that example. I had unwatched the article, and forgotten. Background: Feydeau was TFA on 26 September, and an editor who was new to me had added an infobox that I saw when I woke up. I watch every TFA during its time on the Main page, and so noticed that hours later, it was reverted, edit summary: "Let's just go back to the PR/FAC version - the talk page awaits if people disagree". I disagreed, and went to the talk page. After the next comment, I unwatched, and gave the article a navbox later that day (which I had missed first thing in the morning). I see now that arguments and edit-war developed. Imagine it had not been reverted, imagine! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO Talk:Stanley Holloway#No summary box? and the following section Talk:Stanley Holloway#Rfc re: i-box also demonstrate that incivility in infobox discussions is not solely a thing of the past. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I definitely think there is actionable behavior in the Feydeau conversation. In fact I started to action it before deciding I didn't have the time or energy to do so properly. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation notes: Pruning remedies

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Primefac (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Passing	Support needed	Notes
Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Editor conduct in e-cigs articles	8	0	1		·
Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Liancourt Rocks	7	1	1		·
Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Longevity	8	0	1		·
Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Medicine	7	0	2		·
Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, September 11 conspiracy theories	8	0	1		·
Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Shakespeare authorship question	8	0	1		·
Motion: Removal of Unused and Unusual Remedies, Macedonia	8	0	1		·
Motion: Standardizing Unusual Remedies, The Troubles	8	0	1		·
Motion: Removal of Unused and Unusual Remedies, Civility in infobox discussions	1	5	1		Cannot pass

Notes