Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019): Difference between revisions

**:{{ping|BU Rob13}} - thank you for the context, could you clarify ''"because of the amount of arbitrators who chose to abstain or recuse. That is equivalent to an oppose"'' - I knew this about abstentions (and it makes sense), but is that also the case for recusals? That actually seems counter to the purpose and could cause various issues. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 13:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

**::Sure. In all ArbCom votes except votes to suspend or remove an arbitrator, both recusals and abstentions are treated as if the arb doesn’t exist, lowering the amount of arbitrators needed for a majority as applicable. In this one specific case, though, the arbitration policy specifies two-thirds of all arbitrators must vote for suspension or removal for it to occur. There is not really any such thing as a recusal or abstention on such a motion under the current policy, and declining to vote on either basis is essentially like a “pocket veto”. That isn’t changed in this amendment because I expected the change to be controversial and unable to be ratified. In particular, there is a real risk that allowing recusals or abstentions could result in a very small number of arbs removing another arbitrator. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small>₁₃</small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 13:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

* The watchlist notice definitely worked in increasing participation. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">has returned</sub>]] 19:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)