Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Original announcement

This has been a very bad decision. Undue weight was given to Brad being a bit stubborn, uncommunicative, and a bit uncooperative, and short shrift was given to the opinions of the many people who thanked him, gave awards to him, feel themselves and the project indebted to him, and the quite serious disruption to important projects and harm to the entire project that results from this action. Several of the "charges" against Rich seem to be very petty indeed. The words used to support "abusiveness" on his part were the kind of thing more mature Wikipedians would laugh off and take on the chin for the sake of the project. How many of us have suffered much clearer cases of "abuse" but didn't feel the need to push a formal process to have the person banned, effect on the project be damned, just because you have been insulted? And this man was very useful! This was no ordinary editor. His bots do the work of thousands of manhours in very short time and move the whole increasingly unweildy project forward by keeping an eye on thousands of things, catching serious errors that had stood for a very long time, making a mockery of the project. For more details, check out his user and talk pages, look at the praise for and accompishments of this good Wikipedian. For the other "offensives", they these ten administrators point to nothing that can be shown to have harmed the project, it was all depicted as a sort of defense of principles, only, and a look at the long list of accomplishments, praise, and Wikilove was not given due weight! There was even a kerfuffle about him changing tiny bits of whitespace, my lord, who cares? Let it go, for crissake, or better said for the sake of the project. Please run the process again, this time taking into consideration a thourough investigation into his accomplishments and the serious disruption to the project that results from this rash, uninformed, disruptive, and punitive decision. Chrisrus (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant Rich above where you said Brad. Kumioko (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Let it go, for crissake, or better said for the sake of the project." That would have been excellent advice to have given to Rich when he used his administrative privileges to do things like adjusting whitespace or capitalization against consensus and/or prior community restrictions. Wikipedia has a high tolerance for individual idiosyncrasies, which tends to evaporate when people try and use administrative and bot operator privileges to enforce theirs on the entire project. It is unfortunate that prior dispute resolution failed to communicate this message to Rich. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe the benefits from his bots and abilities are important to consider when banning such important bots as helpful pixie bot and femto bot and others that we all rely on when deciding what to do about such things as whitespace adjusting. Let the committee consider both when coming to their decision this time. This is not just a case about unauthorized whitespace adjusting, it's also about lots of very important and good things that are done as well. It was not right to make such a decision without weighting the pros and cons properly. Chrisrus (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dangerous notion, that the transgressions of an editor can be mitigated or even absolved purely on the basis that they have a certain weight of good contributions. This mindset would allow the doctor that saves a hundred lives to murder his wife, or the soldier who protects his country by serving overseas to steal from people's homes. It sets double standards for editors that are entirely unreasonable - Rich is allowed to break the rules, but someone else isn't, and the decision isn't in any way related to what they actually did wrong, but how many brownie points they've earned? That's an untenable position for one to hold if it is one's goal to maintain the fairest possible environment. There should be no special treatment. It shouldn't matter if Jimbo himself broke the rules. If the rules were broken, an appropriate and consistent response should be given.

As for Rich's bots, nothing his bots do can't be done by bots written by someone else. He isn't indispensable - nobody is indispensable - and that's a good thing. Others will step in to fill the void. I looked at the BAG page last week and already saw a proposal or two for bot tasks to replace HPB. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to have the fairest possible environment. We're here to build an encyclopedia. I don't have enough understanding of the issue one way or the other to weigh up the damage he was causing over the good he was doing, but my instinct is that the former was outweighed by the latter. I am not confident in the decision anyway. Egg Centric 22:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're here for everyone to build an encyclopedia. That doesn't happen when the environment in which you're doing so isn't conducive to teamwork. Fairness is an essential component of meaningful collaboration, because its absence breeds contempt and an 'every man for himself' mentality. This is basic leadership knowledge, really. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c_ I thought the idea was leave the damn whitespace and similar non-rendering cosmetic issues alone. And those bots did a mix of useful and useless stuff, and of the useful stuff, nothing jumped out at me as being especially important that couldn't be done by someone else without much fuss (and anything important and hard to replicate shouldn't have been approved without published source code). I commented for a while in the workshop (then disengaged because of RL stuff etc.) and supported somewhat different remedies, but I think we will get along ok without those bots. More importantly this decision makes me feel like arbcom's eyes are starting to open about automation misuse, compared to some earlier decisions that didn't do enough. Wikipedia is not a programmers' playground.

A quibble: I don't think the reminder to Elen should have equated Rich with his bots. Blocking a bot that's causing problems shouldn't be considered a big deal in general, unless there's wheel warring or similar involved. I can accept that in this particular situation it would have been better for someone else to do the block. So the remedy's rationale was mostly ok but I think it should have been framed as "Elen advised" rather than "reminded" (since reminding implies there is a pre-existing notion that someone didn't remember). 66.127.55.46 (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point - Elen didn't forget, so much as think of the bot purely as a chunk of malfunctioning code, rather than an extension of Rich (who I wouldn't have actually blocked, regarding myself as WP:INVOLVED). It was a mistake in that it's obvious when you think of it that the bot could be seen as Rich-by-extension, so it was always going to be contentious. I certainly shan't do it again, should I find myself in that situation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, but that comment cuts both ways. The main reason (from my reading) that Rich was desysopped was because he unblocked his own bots – who's to say he wasn't working under the same misapprehension (i.e. that bots are not users-by-extension, just bits of code)? Jenks24 (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now again, I thought the problem was more editing through protection, and various things to do with deletion/recreation, other than one?? cited instance where he unblocked the bot without taking any notice of the problem...? Again, don't want to impinge on what was in the decision makers heads. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see editing through protection mentioned at all in the final decision (and rightly so, see workshop discussion). I also see no mention of deletion/recreation. It's interesting that you say there was only one instance where unblocking his bot was improper, as that was also my understanding – the FoF states that he did it "on many occasions", though fails to cite specific instances. Makes the case for desysopping him look rather flimsy. Jenks24 (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibited

I don't see "prohibited" on Wikipedia very often, so I'd like a clarification. Is this just another way of saying "banned", or is there some significance to this usage? Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibited is the same as banned. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a bad feeling about this...

I hope that I'm proven wrong, but I don't think the automation restriction will work well. I think the suggestions on the talk page of the proposed decision (by CBM, IIRC) would have been better for all involved. Anyway, I have the first of what will probably be many questions about this automation restriction: I notice Rich has (without requesting it) been given the rollbacker userright; would using that be considered a breach? What about Twinkle? Huggle? Semi-automated scripts? Jenks24 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it's not a perfect solution, but it is the one we cobbled put together in an attempt to deal with the situation. The essence is that the community had expressed concern about Rich's use of automation and trusted tools, and those concerns had not been adequately addressed by Rich; as such the Committee have taken away Rich's access to the admin tools and prohibited him from using any other form of automation. This, by implication, would include the Rollbacker, Twinkle, Huggle and AWB tools. Rich is advised to edit manually and in a manner that could not be mistaken for automated. If in doubt if he is permitted to use an aid he would be advised to avoid using it, and if he feels he needs or would like to use it, to seek clarification if he can use it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you cobbled it together does this suggest this is temporary, and you are going to come up with a better solution given time? Egg Centric 22:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I didn't mean to suggest hasty or temporary - I had misunderstood the phrase "cobbled together" to mean put together out of the available material rather than the "ideal" material. I think the solution is understandable and workable and not too complicated. That doesn't mean that it is faultless, or there won't be an attempt to subvert it, but it is what we have, and will work with the right attitude. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, cheers Egg Centric 12:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the work done by NewYorkBrad, and the control panel and bug logging system was thrown away. Reverting to prohibition of what is not understood is a standard trope, first exemplified in this case by R2D2's "This Gordian Knot needs cutting" remark way back. Simplistic solutions, worse wrong simplistic solutions, rarely work. Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, I'm disappointed with your answer, but at least it's clear. Thanks.

On a side note, if the decision was just "cobbled together", what was the rush? I know each year incoming arbs pledge to get through cases more quickly, but surely if the solution was imperfect, a few more days could have been spent discussing and trying to improve it? Jenks24 (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rollback a form of automation? suddenly I've got a bad feeling about this... Rd232 ^talk 22:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe SilkTork meant cobbled as in crudely constructed instead of quickly constructed. Arbcom has never found a good definition of automation to deal with editors who do quick/mass edits that are controversial. See Betacommand and Lightbot for two multi-year examples of trying different restrictions that ultimately failed. MBisanz ^talk 22:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but surely the point still remains that if it is crudely constructed, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interests (including ArbCom's) if some time had been spent refining it? Jenks24 (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ instructive. That set of pages documents a small part of the efforts of dozens of editors over 3 years to refine the definition of automated editing as applied to that user. They failed, as did Arbcom in at least three cases on that user. Time won't refine this matter, only rather crude and blunt restrictions. MBisanz ^talk 22:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to contradict my colleague here, and of course I wasn't in on the decision, but I thought the discussion had concluded that because Twinkle and Huggle can't be 'hacked' but have to be used out of the box, and Twinkle certainly forces the user to confirm the edit, they would be OK. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the talkpage was that Twinkle, Huggle and Rollback would be included in the restriction. The alternative proposal (that was being drawn up but wasn't implemented) did specify their inclusion: "No automation on the main account. This includes semi-auto editing, AWB, Twinkle, custom javascript, everything." . I'm seeing "any automation whatsoever" along with "any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so" as a bright line that is easy to monitor. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP lets anyone nobody Me! use Twinkle it should be fine per common sense. Pushed to its illogical extreme "no automation" would preclude using brower spelling auto-correct. Nobody Ent 22:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated spell correctors can make mistakes so they need to be checked. I have a spell checker which underlines what it thinks are spelling mistakes, but allows me to make the decision. We have different spellings for British and American articles, and sometimes we use quotes that may have archaic or incorrect spelling. So, yes, it would make sense for Rich to turn off any automated spelling changes and allow his browser to instead indicate what it thinks are spelling errors. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of rollback, specifically, may be something Arbcom wants to nail down, because among the non-admin rights restored to him after the close of the case is - you guessed it! - rollback. If it is the case that arbcom feels that rollback is subsumed under "automation Rich is banned from using", it may be better for an arb or clerk to remove that right, rather than leave him with it and see drama happen when someday he accidentally or absentmindedly clicks the button. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SilkTork, for the purposes of restrictions like this one, rollback is automation, and, as such is prohibited from those restricted from using all automation. If this becomes contentious, though, it would be better to discuss this as a formal clarification request than here... Courcelles 14:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Guerillero | My Talk 16:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very liberal interpretation of the meaning of the word "automation". Malleus Fatuorum 11:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that was a very polite way of putting it, Malleus, thanks. I happen to agree: automation is about affecting multiple articles in rapid succession, and it's not really possible to do that with rollback absent MEATBOT like behaviour, or some other automation scripted to invoke rollback in such a manner. While I appreciate Guerillero's promptness, I fear that the discussion had not reached a point where his action was yet needed. Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it also looks like indecent haste to further humiliate a fellow editor who's become unpopular in certain quarters. As I said further down on this page, one of the most disturbing aspects of ArbCom decisions is that they're entirely predictable, based as the evident preconceptions of those voting. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I think that what this illustrates (and I'm speaking to the below conversation as well) is that requests for clarification are best handled on Arbcom's "Requests for clarification" page. We have a discussion here and a premature request for amendment, when in fact all that is needed is a formal requests for clarification. It was not my impression that "votes" were conducted or binding interpretations were to be made on this page, when we have others designated for that purpose, but if my colleagues disagree, we may need to alter the structure of this page to facilitate that, which would end its usefulness as free-form discussion. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apologies to all involved. I'm still pretty unfamiliar with the whole ArbCom process (this is the first case that I have followed at all), so I didn't know there was an official process for requesting clarification. I just saw that Rich had been given a userright which he may might unconsciously use and thought it best to get some quick clarification before someone claimed he was violating the restriction. Should I (or someone who knows what they are doing) open a formal request? Jenks24 (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I have been an opponent of these restrictions from the start so what I am about to say is goign to come as no great surprise but here goes. Contrary to what is said above and in the Arbcom ruling it wasn't the whole community that had a problem with Rich's edits. It was certain members and somem powerful admins and arbs. There were a lot of us that think that the Arbcom decision is extreme, was poorly constructed, poorly written and will be even more poorly implemented. The purpose is and always was to stop Rich from editing Wikipedia. They tried to ban him but the vote didn't go their way so they did the next best thing and worded the ruling in such a vague way that nearly anyone with half a brain could argue that almost anything he does is a violation of it. This ruling is a recipe for disaster not only for Rich but for other editors in the future and for Wikipedia in general. They blocked his bots and revoked his ability to use automation. Fine. This ruling should NOT also restrict his ability of using tools that are available in the GAdgets menu of preferences or in at least some of the available rolls such as File mover, Rollbacker or the like. I agree I may be alone in this but thats how I feel. At this point I completely question even having a need for an Arbitration committee in Wikipedia and if someone where to ask me I would say we should shut the group down and write it off as a failure. Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an ordinary editor. I could not disagree more with the above summary. Arbcom are elected and did what they were elected to do. If you don't like it do something at the next Arbcom elections. Stop soap boxing. Leaky Caldron 15:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I intend too but I also should be clear that I think that we need to do a better job of screening next time. It is becoming clearer that selecting the most popular Wikipedian to be an Arb is not the best path to follow for the future. Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's become very obvious with this case and others that there ought to be no place for ArcCom as it's currently constituted. This case is by no means the first time we've seen these post hoc amendments to the terms of some sanction or other, but it needs to be the last. Malleus Fatuorum 11:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• hm, maybe using browser or computer also counts as automation Bulwersator (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: "So, yes, it would make sense for Rich to turn off any automated spelling changes and allow his browser to instead indicate what it thinks are spelling errors." - So whether or not he does that, all that is needed is waiting for Rich to make a spelling mistake that could have been an automatic update from another common spelling mistake, and that shows enough reasonable appearance of automation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have difficulties with outlining exactly what sort of edits someone using "automation" is allowed to do. There were problems with restrictions on Betacommand. There is a lack of clarity regarding if Wikipedia:Rollback is something that Rich should be allowed to use. There were problems with Rich using edit summaries that were not clear, and in using tools that made edits without a full consideration of what is being done. The Rollback tool doesn't just undo one edit, it "rolls back" a whole series of edits done by the same contributor, using a standard edit summary. It is worth reading through the guidance in Wikipedia:Rollback to get a feel for the sort of concerns there are regarding its use. Is it automation? It appears to some, me included, that it is. Would it be wise for Rich to use it, or to use an automated spell checker? He can edit without these tools. He can manually undo someone's edits, or manually correct spelling. It takes a little longer, but then there would be that extra degree of consideration which manual editing appears to encourage, and which some people seem to feel Rich does not always display when editing through automation. The point about the restriction on automation is that Rich is not prohibited from making the same edits manually, he is simply prohibited from editing via a tool which automatically makes edits, be it Rollback or an automated spell check, as they can make errors if not checked carefully. He is being encouraged to take more care, to slow down, and to use specific edit summaries. Yes, if there are people who will watch him carefully for any sign of using automation, then he would be advised to avoid as much as possible any appearance of using automation. Such is the nature of the situation. I note that the Rollback function has been taken away and then restored. I'm not sure that we yet have clarity regarding if that tool is restricted, so I would advise Rich to avoid using it until there is some consensus. Given the circumstances there should be no penalty imposed on Rich if he does use it, but as he doesn't actually need it, it would make sense to wait until the matter is resolved. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'We (the ArbCom) have difficulties' - full stop. But well. I expected this answer of you, SilkTork, you are expecting him to edit carefully. So, if Rich is using a spell-checker appropriately, in other words, he is using automation, he will make no spelling mistakes, and in the next 500 edits he makes, he will absolutely NO spelling mistakes. Oh wait, he was not allowed to use automation. But if he makes NO spelling mistakes, it is very, very reasonable to say that it appears that he is carefully automatically checking his edits for spelling mistakes. But if he makes the same spelling mistake twice, he will be blamed for the same.

So he is violating your utterly stupidly worded restriction, one, which when it was put up for amendment, one of your colleagues was suggesting that we should have asked for clarification (now, that is nice, ask for clarification on a restriction only a few days after it is applied, if that is not proof that it is wrongly worded), and where your other colleagues are now trying to overturn yet other colleagues of you because it is misinterpreted. And that was already told to all of you before the case closed, that wording needed to be adapted! And you know what, it is because you don't care to see what is going on, you only care about one thing. And I know no-one in ArbCom is going to concede this, but it is utterly clear: ArbCom's ONLY goal is to get Rich banned (which yet another colleague of you made blatantly clear while discussing the Proposed Decision). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If ArbCom had wanted to ban Rich, they'd have done so. The post-case problems arise precisely because a number of people (including me) argued against a ban as the only way to enforce a ban on automation, and ArbCom listened (I think). So the problems are to some extent the price of not-banning; I hope we can all muddle our way through this difficult territory, to avoid having to ban. Attacking ArbCom does not help that objective. Rd232 ^talk 16:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually RD they did try but couldn't garner enough support by the members of Arbcom so it got voted down. That doesn't mean that they didn't try though and ended up banning him from automation. Which is still a form of ban with such loose wording on the restriction that they left the door wide open to ban him later. Kumioko (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the bouncing ArbCom decision

So, not only do we have the follow the bouncing arb count on Rich's case, now we have a follow the bouncing ArbCom decision. Above, we have two arbitrators...out of ten (or was that 9? or 11?) deciding that the rollbacker right is "automation", and Rich's rollbacker rights are stripped. Neither arb member indicated they were speaking on behalf of the entire arbcom that sat the case, just unilaterally posting their opinions. Nevertheless, the case is retroactively modified to strip his rollbacker rights. I wonder, how much of this arbcom decision is going to be retroactively changed? What traps are awaiting Rich to stumble into unawares that he is doing something wrong because there's no actual decision saying it's wrong? What if he'd used rollbacker already? Since the case was retroactively changed (though, of course this "decision" is not posted on the case...very professional), would Rich now be banned from the site because he had used rollback? Thankfully, he didn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions such as this one are clearly designed to ease the path for future blocks and bans, so it's likely that Rich's days are numbered. His only real hope is that that doesn't happen before the next ArbCom elections. Malleus Fatuorum 11:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are not going to change the system. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ones last year and the year before certainly didn't, so I remain sceptical that this year will somehow be strikingly different. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. But what's obvious is that arbitrators largely vote in accordance with their own preconceptions, often with very little regard to the actual evidence presented, or its quality. So different people could at least change that. Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The damage is done, and it will perpetuate at least until the next ArbCom elections (unless the community starts disallowing more damage). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this case, as with several others of the last few months have shown us several things. These include but are not limited too: That not everyone in the community believe that Arbcoms decisions are above reproach, that the Arbcom process needs some significant redesign and rethinking and that we need a process by which even an Arbcom decision can be overturned. Every society needs a system of checks and balances, Wikisociety is no exception. Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, the revocation of Rich's rollback rights on the basis of only two arbitrators' say-so was a mistake which I am trying to have corrected. AGK [•] 18:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that it was done, the problem is that it was done because the case was poorly worded and allowed it to happen. Here we are only a couple days out from the determination and the case and already there are disagreements about whats covered and whats not. Someone even filed an amendment to make the definition more precise and enforcible. Its only a matter of time before more is questioned.Kumioko (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• AGK, I appreciate the effort. I sincerely do. But, whether rollback is restored or not, Kumioko is correct. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• AGK, thank you for that, you know that you could just restore it (but I am sure that you first have to discuss this secretly somewhere off wiki - oh the transparency of ArbCom!). But rollback is just a symptom, we will have this discussion for anything, up to typo's (whether making typos shows lack of care, but also lack of automation; or whether not making typos shows the use of automation) or the html-interpreting browser, or the WikiMedia software auto-features (templates to name only one) - did you know that Rich since implementation of his restriction already used automation a couple of times? Not just appearance, they are. That restriction needs to be wiped of the planet, and, if you are so inclined, maybe we could re-discuss other options. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't ArbCom just hurry up and be perfect already? It's high time that they started handing down decisions with which everyone is satisfied and which never need any kind of amendments. Seriously, stuff happens and it's not worth getting worked up over. Nick-D (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a decision has been made after decision makers quibble for several weeks (in the past, some of the quibbling has been over very petty things of no consequence), one must be rather naiive to assume people will blink without expressing their frustration over more significant problems with a decision; one would have thought that the purpose of this process was to resolve existing issues rather than create new ones. Anyone can handle praise; the challenge is handling (and learning from) criticism. Perhaps there is too often an unfortunate situation where nothing happens unless people get 'worked up over' it. By no means is that necessarily ideal or the case here, but it's certainly the impression I gathered from reading the above comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, 'be perfect already'. I can live with not being perfect (it is however what the community expected of Rich, it is what the community expects of Rich, and ArbCom has restricted and desysopped Rich for not being perfect), but trying to describe what ArbCom has done here as not being perfect must be about the understatement of the year. It is probably just that because it is ArbCom, it must be the right thing™. It is something to get worked up over, the buck has to stop somewhere. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made this point, with a tongue in cheek query about needing "professional arbitrators and mediators with expert qualification in every subject covered by Wikipedia". Unfortunately one of the Arbs (I forget who) took this as a serious comment. <facepalm /> Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Ooops facepalming got me de-sysopped I forgot. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Decorum and civility, please

I welcome free exchange of ideas, to include criticism of Arbcom decisions, and this is certainly the page to do it. However, the recent posts by some editors upset with the recent Rich Farmbrough decision are stretching the limits of civility and decorum, and I'd like to take the opportunity to highlight a few philosophies of mine, which may or may not be shared by other committee members, and discuss a few facts.

• AGF applies to ArbCom, or at least it should. You are absolutely welcome to disagree with any decision ArbCom makes. But when editors begin posting conspiracy theories, such as that ArbCom is out to "get" a particular editor, it is clear that such comments have strayed from the path of AGF. ArbCom is neither a monolith nor a secret society. We were all elected in a pool, which means that many of us voted against each other in the last election. Yet, for all that, the one thing that we all have in common is that we're trying to do the best job we can for Wikipedia. If you think that the committee as a whole has any other agenda, you really need to take a deep breath and reflect on that thought.
• Consider the endgame: If your intent is to get ArbCom to consider your objections, which do you think has a better choice of actually changing our minds: a reasoned objection that ArbCom's efforts, no matter how well intentioned, are the wrong answer for Wikipedia or a pronouncement that we're out to get someone? Really, if you're trying to get us all tossed out in the next election in six months' time, posting wild conspiracy theories about our motivations is not likely to support that goal. If anything, it might instead garner incumbent arbitrators some "see what they have to put up with?" sympathy.
• We're not lawyers. We're down to one lawyer on the committee, among the arbs who have identified themselves to the committee as a whole, and he was inactive unexpectedly during this case. That means we word things in ways that seemed reasonable to us, but will often be less than perfect. Requests for clarification are made for this.
• We know we're fallible. As volunteers with finite amounts of time, the members of the committee are expected to read case material, deal with off-wiki issues, read and respond to Wikipedia email, and more. I probably average 15-20 hours per week working on Wikipedia issues, the vast majority of it ArbCom business, and I could easily spend again that much time without having time to investigate everything as thoroughly as I would like. I suspect that other committee members may spend more. Even given that allocation of time, not every talk page of every case will be read, let alone read daily, by every arbitrator. Moreover, arbitrators are often asked to adjudicate matters in areas we have little personal knowledge--and this was complicated in this case because two of the most knowledgeable arbitrators in the area were recused and one more was inactive. It would be naive to think that losing our most knowledgeable 20% in the topic area didn't affect the quality of the case.
• We fix stuff brought to our attention. Hammersoft saw an issue with a pending finding of fact and brought the matter to my attention, and the upshot of our discussion was that the overreaching finding of fact was quashed and rewritten during the course of the case, as it should have been. Had he simply made a comment, buried in a talk page somewhere, the issue might have gone unresolved.
• Don't expect us to reverse ourselves immediately, it's just not going to happen unless you have some new, compelling evidence that wasn't available during the case. We do our best to take in all the evidence, highlight the important bits in a proposed decision, and have adequate deliberation and public voting. In some cases, impasses may last for weeks when the committee is genuinely at odds about the best way to proceed, but that is relatively rare. If you've followed any contentious case, you'll find that various arbitrators reversed themselves on any number of issues. Even though some--or even most, in exceptional cases--of the committee may not be happy with the decision, cases have a beginning, a middle, and an ending.
• There is a route of appeal, and that would be to Jimbo. If the committee has gotten something so horribly wrong that it doesn't make any sense at all, and are unable to see that or unwilling to fix it, we should be overturned, and probably take a long, hard look at what led to such an outcome in the first place.

At any rate, thanks to those of you who've disagreed with us civilly. All of you who think you can do better are welcome to run for ArbCom next time around. That's not an idle invitation: the committee needs passionate, knowledgeable, experienced editors who are willing to try and make this relatively outrageous volunteer time commitment work. Agreeing with past ArbCom approaches to things isn't required, and the sort of non-incumbent candidates who tend to do the best in the past few elections were those who make grand promises of sweeping changes while blissfully uninformed about what the job actually entails. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Jclemens, thank you for this. The point is, that the collective of your decisions brings more and more of us to the edge (and have pushed some over it). One of our collegue editors can confirm how excessively angry I am at the way ArbCom has handled this case (I had to let of steam somewhere - the administrator in question is hardly active in meta-discussions because of what is going on in them). I am sorry, it is not my goal to have other editors elected at ArbCom, I want ArbCom to seriously rethink what they are doing and what they have done. You are behaving monolithic, you are giving an appearance of circling the wagons, you are strongly suggesting that you are handling things in secret. Just a quick example: why did the initial proposed decision not contain ANYTHING about your collegue Arbitrator Elen: that gives the impression that you as a monolith were trying to keep that out, circling your wagons in defense of yourself, and discussing that in secret - or is that an initial proposed decision by one single Arbitrator? Another one: One of your colleague Arbitrators says somewhere that they see no other options than desysop and that restriction - but there are no on-wiki discussions of that, so other options were discussed and dismissed in secret?

  Yes, it probably was an oversight to not note Elen's involvement initially--you'll note that I was the one who took that feedback and got something done about it--and without offering any excuses, I think it highlights that this case has dealt a couple of times with the difference in blocking/unblocking bots vs. blocking/unblocking people. I think the community would be better served by clarifying how the expectations differ, because in this case it really felt to me like we were.... discovering (read: making stuff up as we went along) those interactions. The last thing I want to do is make policy by fiat, and I am glad that ArbCom decisions are not binding precedents. In this case, I think we've got a one-off decision, and I would really like to see the underlying policy clarified by the community before this ever comes up again. On the other point, while a few arbitrators comment on workshop proposals--and I try to be one of them, especially when I'm (co-)drafting--most of the rest simply read and vote or comment as they see it. While we can and do deliberate on a mailing list, it's my impression that we spend far more time hashing out the findings of fact. Indeed, while I've seen various sanctions proposed, I've never seen an off-wiki agreement on a sanction outside the very clearly delineated emergency processes. Jclemens (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  An oversight, OK. But that type of oversights is not reflecting well on the process of Arbitration. Anything else that you ArbCom may have overlooked, and which could have changed the outcome of this case? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Going to Jimbo might work, but maybe it is better that the ArbCom seriously reflects on what they are doing, and what they have done, and in which way that damages Wikipedia. Because I, for one, think that this decision has damaged Wikipedia more than all the non consensual edits by Rich Farmbrough multiplied by a factor of 100. This decision has not only taken the dream out of Rich Farmbrough (diff), it has taken the dream out of many of us. Give us back our dream. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You want a dream back? Wikipedia isn't a playground. As it's grown, the ability to work with pseudo-anarchy has suffered. For my part, I'm trying very, very hard to balance the ideals of egalitarian initiative with the reality that spelling everything out and advanced approval is a comfortable stasis into which good ideas can fall and die. If you want to take a lesson from Betacommand 3 and this case, it is that playing fast and loose with rapid changes to lots of articles is not a good idea. The other thing folks overlook in these cases is that most initial sanctions or reprimands make their point and editors stop the objectionable behavior--and I speak as someone first elected to the committee six months after an RFC/U. The thing every editor sanctioned by ArbCom has in common is that they've had opportunities to take appropriate feedback before, and failed to do so. This is the mildest de-sysop'ing I've seen, and even moved me to rescind my customary support for the most severe sanctions offered, but was inevitable because of how inextricably tied automation is to administration. So, to the extent your dream doesn't involve changing trivial things all over Wikipedia without getting BAG approval first, I'm not sure what I can or need to do in order to preserve it. It's my sincere hope that Rich is not banned, to answer another objection above, but does indeed now understand how he is expected to handle such situations once he gets his rights to use automation restored in the future. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit - but this decision, and many others in the past have changed how our regulars will edit Wikipedia. The precedent that these decisions set, again, are damaging to the process of editing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The larger the scope of an edit, the greater level of care that must be observed, and the greater level of consensus must be obtained. As the site has grown in both number of articles and importance, this has become inevitable. Expect any other editors who behave in the same manner to be met with similar sanctions. If that's incompatible with your dream... I'm sorry. But in a tug of war between mass-editing and individual craftsmanship, I will side with the latter. Rich has made many, many edits... but contributed, on average, far less per edit than many of the IP addresses or niche editors who make a few, high-quality edits. If ArbCom must become a traffic cop in order to keep the craftsman editors productive, then so be it. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it is my dream. 'If ArbCom must become a traffic cop in order to keep the craftsman editors productive, then so be it.' - and there you hit the nail on the head. ArbCom now has become a traffic cop (and that is not within ArbCom's merits, ArbCom is the final step in dispute resolution; ArbCom is NOT a traffic cop, if that was the case, the community would have appointed them as such) - but due to ArbCom decisions and the precedents you set, your 'craftsman editors' are seriously hampered in their productivity. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a note, because I am afraid that you are referring to my anger and perceived incivility: ArbCom did utterly ignore the remarks addressed at me by one of the parties in the Rich Farmbrough case during the case, which not only I found incivil but also others, and which were washed away as me having a lack of humour (which I deem an uncivil remark, and a lack of decorum, by itself). However, the 'incivility' of Rich Farmbrough was not washed away as a lack of a sense of humour. Where was ArbCom (or the community) when people were incivil at Δ - no, they only see the incivility by Δ (note there that one of the Arbitrators recused himself in that case because of crossing the swords with Δ). Can you see why I think that we are losing our dream - where is ArbCom there when it comes to asking for decorum and civility? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  For my part, I am not familiar with the incivil comments you're talking about. So, if I'm ignoring it, I have done so out of ignorance. Post or email what you're talking about, and I'll give you a more specific answer. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Some random quotes by several editors and by Elen: "Dirk just made that one up I think, out of sheer desperation." - "just like we ignore the incivility by Elen" - "You know, I don't think I've ever met anyone who actually inhabited a parallel universe before." - "for all your rant about how it isn't above" - "You are not going to get any further by ranting and personally attacking everyone around you." - "It's not just his offwiki comms that are a problem - to be honest it's every time he opens his mouth to say anything but suggestions for technical activity." - "you are an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum" - "Do you want your rattle back yet?" - "I am smart enough to learn from this experience that humour doesn't work with Dirk, or I would guess with you, so I won't try it again." - And it has been documented on the workshop: "and further interactions unbecoming of an administrator", or "How about Elen accusing RF of being "an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum" [15 and asking Rich "Do you want your rattle back yet?" [16]? Maybe it's ok to insult and belittle because it's Rich? How about accusing someone other than Rich of ranting [17], and of living in a parallel universe [18]? How about accusing another editor of six years experience with 21,000 edits of "either not capable of editing, or you are a troll" [19]? How about telling yet another editor "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." [20]?"]. But no word on Elen's continued incivility, which I think is very, very unbecoming of an administrator, let alone of an Arbitrator. You say that ArbCom fixes the problems (and in fact, you did fix the problem with the complete omission of Elen in the PD), but ignore so many others. So all I can see is that ArbCom is not able to perform their work at the level that should be expected of them (it is maybe not their fault, vide infra), and I have to expect that the decisions are really for the best of Wikipedia (again, vide infra). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "It would be naive to think that losing our most knowledgeable 20% in the topic area didn't affect the quality of the case." - WHAT!?!? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That is, Xeno, Hersfold, and Elen of the Roads were absent or recused. They did not participate in any deliberations, or offer suggestions on our wording. We have two bureaucrats, both familiar with BAG and its processes, on the committee--Xeno and Hersfold. You think we could have done a better job if we had the most knowledgeable of our body back and appropriately able to consider the merits of the case in a neutral manner? I do. Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for that admission, Jclemens. My 'WHAT!?!?' was directly related to that, as I expected that was exactly what you meant. ArbCom admids here that they were going to do a crappy job because they did not have the knowledge in house to solve it properly - so the solution you choose it to the best of your knowledge, not necessarily what is the best for Wikipedia. And that is exactly what I mean - you are the 'judges', and you allow all evidence, you don't have the knowledge to break it down, you (have to) take the word of accusers at face value.

  Do I have to presume that missing Elen's incivility in this case and around it (but finding Rich' mild incivility) is also due to the lack of experience of the remaining members? Or maybe it is due to a lack of time? But ArbCom does come to the decisions they make. And I know, you all have the best intentions, you above talk about WP:AGF towards the members of ArbCom - but do I have to WP:AGF to their decisions if they, and you admit that here yourself, are continuously incapable to come to an educated decision, and even if you intend that it is for the best of Wikipedia, due to lack of knowledge and lack of time you may very well come to decisions that are not for the best of Wikipedia - and again, I believe that the decisions that ArbCom makes are sometimes significantly MORE damaging (by orders of magnitude) than the cumulative damage by Rich. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "We fix stuff brought to our attention." - No, you did not: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Proposed decision#Poorly worded metric + vindictive, witchhunting communty = future trouble for many a month/year - that is exactly the thing that we tried to get to the Arbitrators attention and why the above thread is here, and there is a request for amendment less than a week after the case --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  vide supra. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I didn't follow this case (or others of this year) during my inactivity, I think that a number of the above philosophies are sound. But on the same token, I think of these responses on reading some parts of the above:

• I think has been some level of improvement in requests for clarification in recent months/years, but it would not be accurate if I were to say that the requests for clarification "process" (for the lack of a better word) still does not have a reputation for (at least, sometimes) taking excessively long and creating more confusion/issues. I note that a lawyer was on the Committee both in those days, and at present.
• The so-called route of appeal; there has been at least one case some years ago which ArbCom got horribly wrong according to the Community - not only did that ArbCom fail to vacate it, Jimbo failed to do anything about it. I am not for mentioning the name as it would destroy the point of the decision being vacated. It was only after significant pressure from the Community that a later ArbCom vacated it, and even then, they were quibbling about that later. What evidence (I mean something more than some individual unban requests) is there to suggest that something has changed about that route?
• Maybe there is a concern being raised indirectly that some things are not fixed even after being brought to ArbCom's attention? Maybe ArbCom had the best of intentions to improve the project when it was/is giving the impression that it was 'out' to get a particular editor? Someone else would need to substantiate either/both, if so.
• Frankly, as impossible as it sounds, I wonder what would Jimbo do if editors accepted that they will not be able to spend sufficient time as volunteer members of ArbCom (leading to no arbitrators being elected). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ncmvocalist, I think it fair to say ArbCom has evolved with Wikipedia. If you're thinking of the same decision I am, then I would agree. On the downside, with the increased number of banned users, there is an increasing workload at hearing and tracking appeals which isn't reflected in the public work of the committee. I fear that the occasional ban appeal that should be granted will be overlooked among the piles of those which should not be. To your last point, while fewer and fewer editors have been running for ArbCom, the numbers have not dropped below the number of open seats, nor has any election failed to seat the number of expected candidates with the 50% approval cutoff. I think it's a problem of growth much like our editor and administrator retention: multifactorial, and one without any clear solution. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)And regarding assuming good faith, AGF is not a suicide pact, or an eternal wellspring - this last half a year (if not longer) has been filled with ArbCom decisions and actions where I have to stretch WP:AGF to the maximum (including re-banning editors because they were banned before, decisions without any significant evidence, ex-Arbs closing and renaming discussions about Arbitration (discussions that started when they were still an Arbitrator), not willing to provide significant evidence of a decision, arbitrators who do exactly the same as what they blame others for, and decisions which are, knowingly, vague and problematic). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist: what impression does the remark "Given that neither Remedies 3 & 4 are going to pass, I think another alternative, perhaps of 6 or 12 months, should be proposed. PhilKnight (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)" by PhilKnight give you? To me, it sounds like they insist in finding agreement to ban Rich Farmbrough, they just can't get to agreement how. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Silktork, Casliber, and David Fuchs seem to have been opposed to site-banning altogether. I probably should add Jclemens to that list, given that he agreed that a ban is too premature (and seems to have indicated if he was supporting a ban, it would be remedy 3), but that's just my impression. With Risker sitting on the fence, the call for site bans was coming from Kirill, Roger, and Philknight. I think Philknight thought he could get support from AGK and Courcelles (based on their comments in remedy 4) if another ban proposal was put up - if that happened, the site ban remedy would be passing. As to whether this would purely reflect on Philknight, (Kirill, and Roger), or on AGK & Courcelles too (if they had switched) is anyone's guess, but I guess we will never know - seeing the proposal was not formally made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent post. I've met several members of ArbCom in person, and came away impressed by how seriously they take the job, their good humour in the face of having to deal with difficult people and the depth of their knowledge about Wikipedia's processes and norms. The fact that they volunteer significant amounts of their time to try to solve the worst problems on Wikipedia is obviously highly admirable. I don't always agree with ArbCom's decisions, but it's very safe to assume that they're always made in good faith. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist: I agree - but that they showed the consideration to ban him says something in itself - and as you say, it is an impression, I guess we will never know.

Nick-D, but I am also convinced that Rich Farmbrough is editing in good faith, and Rich Farmbrough and see where that got him. Doing things in good faith and taking that seriously does not mean that they are correct. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, with all respect, I'd suggest that you step away from the computer and go for a walk. Posting the same thing over and over here isn't helping anyone and actually greatly undermines your case. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This request is ironically amusing coming from an editor 1) who characterized my good faith amendment request as a strawman - a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. -- which is back door way of accusing someone of making falsehoods, and 2) appears to think a questionable rollback right removal is not a real problem [1] and seems more concerned with the "please fix it" request being posted in the incorrect forum [2] that the fact something needs fixing. ArbCom periodically blows off the community by running past their decision "deadlines" without having a clerk take, what -- a minute? -- to update the date when it becomes apparent an extension will be required. Civility begets civility, and, as elected leaders in the community, ArbCom should be leaders -- and good leaders lead by example.Nobody Ent 10:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll look at the edit times, you may notice that I responded to the request for amendment before I joined the discussion here. That's because I responded first to the request for amendment before I was made aware of this discussion or the rollback issue. The initial wording of the amendment request, to which I responded, said nothing about rollback or it being anything more than a theoretical. So, to the position of strawmannishness (I love the extensibility of English sometimes): are you asserting that you, in good faith, believed that someone would ban Rich for his use of DNS? I think not, given that you called it "An absurd-for-explanatory-purposes example". So, my feedback for you: when you file a request, please do so with links to the real discussion (if any), articulate real or reasonably foreseeable problems, and do not take offense when "An absurd-for-explanatory-purposes example" is called a strawman in the context of the first two bits of advice.

Yes, I agree that deadlines should be not set, met, or amended appropriately. I favor the first approach, but I haven't gotten around to convincing the rest of the committee and gotten a change made yet. I've been too busy (irony acknowledged) meeting deadlines to get the wording on deadlines changed. Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• By way of a completely non-scientific poll of community sentiment – because it's simply my personal reaction! – I've been following this discussion, and my own reaction to it has been to feel sympathy for the Committee members. And, like so many other things I've seen in the past, it makes me wonder whether the Committee is simply being expected to do too much, whether the current responsibilities should not instead be distributed over some additional groups of persons. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain that some or all of the comments above were directed at me and that's perfectly fine and certainly valid. I have been very vocal in my views of Arbcom lately and I certainly expected someone to say something about my very direct and non tactful statements. Prior to February I would have taken the time to craft my statements to by much more tactful and much less direct but quite frankly since seeing how the community feels about me and my activities I no longer hope nor desire being an Admin or Arb. At one time perhaps but that time is gone. I would certainly not be elected if I ran anyway, eventhough I easily have the knowledge to perform the tasks required of most Admin related tasks and possess several of the skills needed to be an Arb.

With that said, the most recent decision about Rich was neither wise nor fair and just about as vague as a decision can be, as such it can be interpreted in an almost infinite number of ways. I think that it was largely biased and the end was predetermined on the instant the case was filed largely wasting several weeks of editors time. Being a lawyer is certainly helpful but hardly required. What is required is for someone to think carefully and strategically about how to phrase the cases not only for the case itself but for its effects on future cases. This case sets several bad precedent for the future and Arbcom lost a lot of respect and credibility in not only its decision but in the way it was crafted. Additionally the Rich case was only the most recent in a string of what I would consider questionable calls on the cases of the Arbs bringing the questions I identified over the last few weeks.

I would also argue that although Jimbo has the authority to override a decision, he is extremely unlikely to do so. Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Jclemens, you might remember that AGF advice the next time you cast aspersions regarding "the real motivations behind those who opposed my reelection"[3] and similar comments. Just a suggestion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a review of the advocacy posts made in that election, especially in comparison with my initial election in 2010, will support the objective reasonableness of that and similar statements. Out of curiosity, do you feel threatened that I'm not one to give vested contributors a pass for their long service to the encyclopedia, but rather expect them to live up to a higher standard based on their familiarity with the encyclopedia and its policies? Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody would feel threatened by that if you adopted those same principles yourself, instead of applying them only to others. Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You know, Malleus, when you're not using profanity, I find your wit so much more enjoyable. But so as to not distract the discussion here, you are welcome--nay, invited--to hold me to account on my talk page for any instance where I've held double standards. See a problem? Say something. I will ask that you focus on things more recent than the past three months, or older things only if you've spotted something no one else has taken me to task for before. So: speak, I am listening. Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this three-month moratorium something you intend to enforce in ArbCom cases as well? Or is it just a get out jail card for you? Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No moratorium, just a desire to focus on things as they happen, such that corrections can be made appropriately, rather than digging through past mistakes which have either already been recognized or are too old to effectively correct. My primary request is that you say something as soon as you see a future problem, to prevent things from ever getting to that point. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Then to repeat my question, why is the same approach not adopted with ArbCom cases? It seems to me that you're very keen to come down hard on defendants for alleged transgressions that in some cases happened years ago, and certainly more than three months ago. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So, Malleus, I am responsible for everything I do, and 1/15th of what ArbCom does. Maybe a bit more than that, because I have yet to be inactive on an entire case, but the point stands: I invite your review of my decisions, be they personal conduct, or my identifiable contributions to an ArbCom action. I don't have the right to make that offer on behalf of the committee as a whole, nor on behalf of another arbitrator, so thus it is limited in scope to that which I can legitimately promise: to read your critiques of my actions. Now, there are two problems in timing in ArbCom cases: decision lag and recidivism. Decision lag is unavoidable, (or at least, despite multiple candidates promising to speed up arbitration... it doesn't consistently happen) but that's a matter of weeks or months in the deliberation process between the prompting events and the closing of the case. The other one is our "recidivism" clause, which (appropriately, in my opinion) deals more severely with editors who've had similar or related conduct lapses in the past. Past conduct is not punished per se, but plays into the consequences for the current case. In essence, in e.g. the American criminal justice system, a defendant is sentenced based on their past; ArbCom sanctions, for good or ill, work the same way. I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but that's the system as it exists, and I suspect you already know all this. A voluntary self-offer of review necessarily is a different process than a quasi-judicial conduct inquest. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    But your analogy is fundamentally flawed, as ArbCom acts as both judge and jury. In a real criminal justice system the jury decides on guilt or innocence without any knowledge of the defendants past convictions, although the judge will obviously take them into consideration when deciding on a sentence. With ArbCom everyone pretty much knows up front what the outcome the outcome is likely to be; you, for instance, will almost always vote for a block or ban of some sort, based on your preconceptions of the case. Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I will almost always vote for a block or ban of some sort because it is my perception that the committee as a whole, without casting aspersions on any of my colleagues' motivations, is too reluctant to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia by removing editors who drive off other volunteers or have otherwise demonstrated a track record as net negative producers. Arbitrators who want to be reelected cannot afford to make too many enemies; I am not here for a popularity contest, but to do what is best for the long-term health of the project, and if that means I'm unpopular, so be it. You will note, however, that I didn't end up voting to ban Rich at all, nor you until the one ban remedy I "moral[ly] support[ed]" (5.2) had already garnered a majority in opposition to it. As I mentioned above, I'm quite pleased that you're still here, and engaging in a pointed yet civil manner. As a pessimist, I'm always either right or pleasantly surprised (with apologies to George F. Will). Of course, you will also notice that we've drifted far off topic, but my original offer still stands: When I screw up, come to my talk page or email me to let me know what you think I did wrong and how I should have instead handled it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "I will almost always vote for a block or ban of some sort because it is my perception that the committee as a whole .. is too reluctant to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia by removing editors who drive off other volunteers or have otherwise demonstrated a track record as net negative producers" - and as I have stated a couple of times - it is now the community (and through them, ArbCom) who is not acting anymore in the best interest of the encyclopedia, driving off other volunteers, resulting in a track record that is a net negative on the overall production. Maybe it is time to vote for a 'block' or 'ban' on the system of Arbitration, or a 'block' or 'ban' on certain community principles - in stead of banning or blocking editors. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The sorts of comments like the ones Jclemens made above are precisely the problem many of us have been talking about. That the Arbcom predetermines the outcome before hearing the facts because they feel that once the case has been started there must be a problem. This is not the first time someone on the committee has said something like this in the last couple weeks and I find it extremely troubling and unprofessional. This is not the reason why these cases are brought here. Kumioko (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is also bizarre. Deciding at first sight that there is a situation that needs looking at does not mean an or any outcome is predetermined. The two things are unconnected.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I would agree with that statement Roger the problem is, in too many cases in recent memory, Arbcom's decision was clear immediately or within a short time after the case was opened. These cases drag on for weeks but generally the end result can be derived by the outcome of the first 48-72 hours giving the impression that Arbcom had preconcieved notions about what to do with it. In some cases thats fine and could even be desired but in this case and in a couple other recent ones in the last few months, were a lot of discussion and concerns were raised, judgement should be held and all the facts and details considered. Kumioko (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    How can that be? And how was it clear? Arbitrators don't usually participate until most of the evidence is in, which is at least a couple of weeks down the line.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well for one the fact that the case was brought up by a couple folks from the committee, second 99% of the comments on the talk page seem to have been largely ignored, the vagueness of the wording of the case. The fact that the Arbitrators were absent doesn't help the case either. The list goes on. Why would the Arbs need to be here if they already decided in their head what they were going to do, wether individually or as a group? I don't even argue that there was some validity to the case or that Rich did some things wrong. What I have a major problem with is how the case was handled, how it was written and the fact that the majority of the complaints were based on minor edits. Minor edits are not worthy of an automation ban, especially when many of those edits would have had to be done if the article goes through a process of GA or higher. I certainly don't see the point in banning the one that does the minor edit over the one that reverts it. If a minor edit is such a crime here than reverting it should be doubly so. There are just so many problems with this case, how it was handled (even before it got here to Arbcom), the results of the case, etc. The ongoing discussions about it should be a sign of that. This case isn't the first one I have disagreed with its just the first one I took the time to comment on and partially because there have been several I just let pass and later regretted not speaking up. Kumioko (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that I believe that most arbitration cases would appropriately end with one party or the other being banned does not mean that I've decided in advance which party that should be. In the TimidGuy case, for instance, my first inclination was that TimidGuy would remain banned regardless of the initial evidence of improprieties that caused us to open the case. It turned out in the end that one editor was far less guilty than an initial glance over the evidence would have suggested, while another was far more culpable. The committee's job is to deal only with intractable conduct problems that the community cannot resolve through its consensus processes. The arbitration committee will only ban editors who 1) have friends who appreciate their positive side, and 2) have made appropriately encyclopedic contributions; anyone who had neither friends nor contributions would never make it to the arbitration committee: they would be banned by the community without ever needing an arbitration case to achieve that result. Any time the committee ends a case with "both of you go to your corners and don't do that again", we've failed: either we've failed to identify a more culpable party and remove them from the situation, or we've failed by prematurely opening a case when a community admonishment would have sufficed. Our job is to identify and implement (or cause to be implemented, for things that require community to make a decision that is outside the committee's remit) essentially permanent solutions to previously intractable problems. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Again I don't agree. Just because a case is brought to Arbcom does not mean that an editor should be banned to end it. That's one of the reasons people are so leary to come in front of Arbcom, cause someone is going to be banned in the end. There were plenty of solutions offered in this case that would have avoided that but even that isn't the biggest problem with this case. The problems with this case are as much procedural with the way the case was handled, the vagueness of some of the punishments and how the committee interpreted the data they were given. The fact that 2 arbs started the case push the limits impropriety and fairness. The fact that it became a case at all because some editors don't like doing minor edits is another stretch and its arguable that it would have been accepted at all if it hadn't been created by 2 members of the committee. There are just too many peculiarities of this case, along with the string of questionable calls over the past few months, to not bring the question, what in the world is going on in Arbitration. Frankly I continue to be bothered by the notion that you are presenting that a case is being impartially judged when its being made clear that members of the committee have preconceived notions. Members of the committee should not be, in my opinion, "believe[ing] that most arbitration cases would appropriately end with one party or the other being banned". To have such a mindset already dooms the case, the end result and the credibility of the committee and its precisely these comments that many of us are having problems with above and beyond the decision to ban Rich from automation. Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Jclemens is not saying that. What he is saying is that problem editors sometimes escape sanction at WP:AN etc because they are protected there by friends and supporters. ArbCom is often unpopular with the friends because it cannot be swayed in the same way as a noticeboard.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    He may not have meant that but it sure seemed that way how he wrote it. And frankly I'm not sure that isn't what he meant. That aside it still doesn't change the way I feel about how the case, and several others in the past few months were handled. Whether Arbcom wants to hear it is irrelevant but the community is starting to waiver on how it feels about Arbcom and its decisions. Now its up to Arbcom to accept that and strive to fix it or simply brush it aside and continue on course. The decision is really up to you all whether you want to treat this as an attack or an opportunity to identify and work through some problem areas. Even if those problems areas are simply ones of perception and misunderstanding by the community. Arbcom is not above reproach and eventhough it may be painful to admit it at times they are not infallible. Now there seems to be a perception here that I am an idiot and I can't see the forrest for the trees but I have been around a very long time, I have a huge edit count and have editing on a wide range of areas so I do know a fair amount about how the various processes work in WP. The process of Arbitration is, from everything I have seen, read, heard and felt, one of the processes that could use the most work (the RFA process is a close second). Kumioko (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No one in their right mind would claim that ArbCom is perfect. But, given the difficulty of most cases; the difficulty of addressing entrenched and diametrically opposed views; and - this last cannot be stressed enough - the extreme difficulty of the working environment, I don't think ArbCom really does such a bad job.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The fact that you felt compelled to respond with a loaded question only reinforces the point. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is it loaded? There is no "controversial or unjustified assumption" involved. It's entirely logical--if not expected--for vested contributors to oppose someone who has a track record for not according vested contributors any special consideration for violating norms of civility and conduct. You have the choice of answering it, or not. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Signiore Clemens, I opposed your re-election bid. I can assure you I had one and only one motivation: I considered your track record on the committee unsatisfactory. Your track record this year has done nothing to convince me otherwise. Of course, you and your supporters are likely to see things differently, but that doesn't mean that you have any justification for casting aspersions on those who see things differently. Heimstern:Away (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • And how, pray tell, did you oppose my re-election? Did you post half-truths about my actions? Take things I'd said out of context and attempt to use them to paint me in the worst possible light? Simply disagreeing with me or finding my track record wanting and voting against me--as many Wikipedians did--is not what I was talking about. That's part of the democratic process. I fully expected to be opposed on the basis of my track record; what I did not expect was to be opposed on the basis of positions I did not hold, things I did not say, and truly loaded questions, unlike that I posed above. By necessity, this job involves holding people to account who have friends who remain Wikipedians in good standing. I had previously underestimated how partisan some of those could be. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Jclemen's efforts here to shed some light where there was considerable darkness. I do not in any respect wish to demean that effort. I do see within his statements some rather upsetting realities:

• There's just one lawyer on the committee. That's not to say the committee has to be staffed with lawyers. But, from what I've been able to discern the committee, outside of one, lacks any professional experience or training with matters of arbitration or the like in the real world. I saw one post elsewhere stating the committee is vetted for such talents, but in reality this isn't the case. Given what the committee is tasked with doing, the lack of experience in this realm has rather predictable results.
• We as a community have done an exceptionally poor job of making it clear what the real burden is for a potential committee member. If we elect people that are unable to perform to the levels required, we're electing a committee that is hamstrung. We need to be much more transparent about the burdens incumbent on the position. Yes, it is voluntary. But, once elected the burden is real.
• Arbitrators can and do ignore talk pages of cases they are active on. Yes, I brought an issue to Jclemen's attention via his talk page. Is that how it really should be handled? I take from this that if we really want arbitrators to pay attention to something we effectively have to spam their talk pages, rather than keep things cohesively organized on the talk pages of the case. That's troubling.
• We burden the committee with subjects they are not competent to discuss. This is not surprising; pick any judge, anywhere, and that judge will have subject areas for which they have limited knowledge. Yet, court systems manage this scenario. This speaks to a systemic problem which undermines the committee's ability to adjudicate cases.

I think if there is anything we can take away from the RF case, it is that what we have crafted for ourselves in the form of the Arbitration Committee (not the people, the form) is failing. I don't have the answers. I doubt any of us really do. But, the beginning of wisdom is recognition. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth looking at Jclemens' "a desire to focus on things as they happen". It's sad to waste the only people who have any authority around here - arbitrators - on the unproductive activity of sitting in retrospective judgement and thinking up suitable punishments for people for their past misdeeds. You gotta deal with this stuff as and when. And not by deliberating about it among yourselves, but by let's say just one of you, talking to the people concerned and making them see sense, so they can all be empowered to carry on doing their good things and stop doing the worst of their bad things. That leaves the others of you free to deal with some of the rest of the trouble that's sure to be brewing somewhere out there. Sure, if someone just will not conform, then at least a few of you need to get together to confirm that they have to be compelled to leave, but that oughtn't to be the first step in what you do. Victor Yus (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take on things:

Before I start, these are not anyone's fault. They are due, as far as I can see, to the fact that several generations of Arbitrators have come and gone, and the original carefully thought out system has been patched, ignored and misunderstood.

1. There are massive process problems. Let me be clear, many or most of those I have seen would not have affected the outcome in my case.
   1. Arbs should not be able to bring cases.
   2. The committee should compel DR steps
   3. The process is not made clear in simple steps as it unfolds.
   4. There is no arbitrator feedback through the process. Parties are shouting into the void and hence end up shouting louder.
   5. A drafting arbitrator is a bad idea, if (as we have been assured in this case), there is no discussion off wiki.
   6. The time-scales are loose, except when it doesn't suit the committee.
   7. There is no clarity between arbitration and prosecution.
   8. In a case which is clearly a prosecution, there needs to be a right to reply for the defendant.
   9. A messy process where the stages encourage repetition, each stage works with different rules and does not contribute productively to the result.
2. There are execution problems. These are a random smattering I have picked up
   1. The clerks didn't know the time-scales for opening a case
   2. The parties egregiously broke the rules for submitting evidence and yet it was allowed.
   3. Arbitrators, according to Sir Fozzie do not read the workshop
   4. Arbitrators, according to Roger Davies come with a conclusion in mind
   5. Mail was sent to the wrong mailing list
   6. An Arbitrator made ultra-vires rulings during the case
   7. An Arbitrator said he wouldn't be voting, and yet voted
   8. The drafting arb voted for "remedies" that relied upon earlier parts of the proposed decision that had not yet been agreed upon
   9. The drafting arb included remedies more severe than any party asked for, giving the impression of bias.
   10. The raison d'etre of the case was disposed of before the case started. Having an adverse conclusion therefore seems perverse.
   11. The request for interim injunctions just drifted off, and were never closed either way.
   12. Closing off talk page access.

There is more, of course - any of the above execution problems would be grounds for a requesting a retrial. Even detail, like Jclemens saying "we have one only one lawyer" and another arb saying "Some of us have legal training" leaves the poor editor confused. And we are assured there is no off-wiki discussion, yet I am assured that my request for extension was considered off-wiki. I do not propose that ArbCom should have press packs and spin doctors, but fact checking and scrupulous adherence to the truth would really help.

Given the above, it is not surprising that some editors feel that ArbCom is a stitch-up and conspiracy, and far more believe it is at least a massive mess, and have uncharitable thoughts about the process and people involved. Thus does really need to be addressed, and I would strongly suggest that it be done with expert advice from professional arbitrators and facilitators, and moreover bearing in mind throughout both these key points:

• How the arbitration process fits into the general dispute resolution process.
• How to build the process to favour the best outcome for the encyclopaedia rather than delivering "justice" or worse "retribution"

The second point is particularly well illustrated by the Beta process which avoided any proposed solution which addressed the problematic behaviour in favour of binary solutions.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Rich Farmbrough your resilience, with this matter in hindsight, is inspiring. I am glad you are still willing to serve this community after the beautiful people have spoken of your value. The entire community would prosper under a less comely class. I agree with your comments here; they remind me of my own comment titled "Article 35". While I proposed article 35 I did leave 34 for development. You effectively enunciated the other 34, and what we both have is a derelict mechanism that also serves as our mitigation of last resort. We deserve better, and I'm intent on seeing it; but not this time, or the last.My76Strat (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, there is no disconnect between saying some of us have legal training and only one of us is a lawyer. I, for example, have legal training but am not a lawyer. My legal training isn't particularly relevant to serving on the committee, in that most of it has to do with giving testimony as an expert witness and chain of custody matters as they relate to computer forensic investigations. To the rest of your points, I think you have highlighted some real issues and made some reasonable suggestions, but I haven't the time to give you a point-by-point reply, and I think it appropriate for other Arbs to speak on their own behalf, rather than this just being the Jclemens show. Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, for various reasons I think the quasi-legal/courtroom system that ArbCom uses to process cases probably does you (the Committee) more harm than good. You guys really should consider scrapping it en toto. If you would like some ideas on alternative group decision-making processes, I have, and I'm sure many other interested observers do also, a number of alternatives to offer. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abd had ideas along the same lines. His experience came from working with US prisons. Mathsci (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the whole story with that user but after looking through their comments on the talk page and some of the users contribs that looks like a very very poor ban decision. Aside from that I agree with you. This seems like the perfect time to revisit Arbcom's scope, mission and methods. Kumioko (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Absolutely. Court cases, lawyers, etc. - no place for them on a volunteer enterprise. You want guys with the ability to see what's going on right now and where it's heading, and with sufficient people skills to change that. Victor Yus (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone care to propose an alternate system? I'm seeing a lot of "it shouldn't be like a courtroom," but no suggestion for what model to base it on. I can't think of a better one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to scrap the entire process but I do think it needs to be reviewed and redesigned a bit. But I think there are a lot of good ideas sprinkled throughout these discissions. For example, does Arbcom need to do all the things its currently assigned or can some be done by someone else allowing them to focus more on necessary tasks, does Arbcom have enough manpower to do those tasks or do we need to increase the number, does the process need to be done the way its done or is there a better way (like should things go through mediation before arbitration)? These are some of the things I think we need to look at and review. With that said, changes are notoriously difficult and slow to occur on WP and this process would be doubly so since it would likely need some buyoff on the foundation itself since some of the roles of the committee have support and cooperation of the foundation. I think thats one of the reasons why we haven't seen much voice from the members themselves. They largely know that we are shouting at the storm and wasting our time so there is no reason to comment and fan the flames when theres no way we can change anything anyway. Kumioko (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very paranoid view. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its only paranoid if you don't have proof of the conspiracy. There is plenty of evidence that things need to change and the current status quo won't do. Kumioko (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big picture

Remedy: Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.

Case arbitrator one: In the context of the case, automation is clearly intended to be that allowing an editor to modify multiple articles or other pages in rapid succession.

Case arbitrator two, in reply to: Pushed to its illogical extreme "no automation" would preclude using brower spelling auto-correct.

...So, yes, it would make sense for Rich to turn off any automated spelling changes and allow his browser to instead indicate what it thinks are spelling errors.

So I'm told I fucked up by filing an amendment instead of a clarification yesterday (although today they've been merged!) and didn't provide enough diffs in the initial post and am therefore not entitled to good faith, but rather my request is a strawman -- which means intentional misstatement. I don't care anymore -- I didn't write the bots, make the edits, freak out about the edits, participate in the case, accuse ArbCom of conspiracy.... I'm just suggesting that when arbitrators' interpretations of a unanimously passed remedy vary so widely there might just be a problem. If this suggestion is invalid because I didn't properly fill out fill WP-7893 in triplicate then the not bureaucracy pillar has apparently been repealed, and Wikipedia just isn't going to be fun anymore -- in any event I'll just be on my way. Nobody Ent 00:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think substantial evidence was shown proving the proposed amendment was not a strawman. I do think it out of line for it to be referred as such, and I agree instead some assumption of good faith should have been made. I don't think the proposals were merged. They're still there. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Hammersoft, but that's not correct. The reason I called the initial proposal a strawman was that... it was a strawman. It neither linked to nor recapped any actual discussion, but instead posited an admittedly absurd scenario, with no indication that it was anything other than a theoretical question. Is there a better word than "strawman" to describe such a request? Idle speculation? Thought experiment, perhaps? Regardless, I will not rescind my characterization of the initial request as inadequate and not sufficiently formed for the committee's consideration... because... it wasn't. Further amplifications to the request have placed my accurate assessment out of context, and had they been present initially, I would not have made such a statement... because it would not have accurately described the situation presented. Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I could go back and look at the timing of every diff. It doesn't matter. I don't see the need for a sitting arbitrator to speak of another editor's efforts in such a manner as this. It was out of line on the face of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there was a lot of evidence brought up on both sides of the argument but one of the problems I had was that Arbcom not only heavily favored the arguments by the prosecution, they also set some very broad precedents that a re going to have affects outside this case. They basically left the door open to ban Rich at the slightest whims...I go on listing things for the next 30 minutes but that wouldn't change anything until we change the process. Kumioko (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There simply is a presumption of guilt when s.o. goes into Arbitration. Evidence, whether true or false, admissible or inadmissible, significant or minor, all is used as a presumption of guilt (and if there is not enough, then double jeopardy is applied, and/or we just first vote to ban and then scrape together some minor things to justify what we do). You can rebut whatever you want (if one gets the change to do that in 500 words ..), you're going down. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is neither a presumption of guilt nor a presumption of innocence. In any event, ArbCom is not a court; it's a dispute resolution body on a website. Roger Davies ^talk 11:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think that is what we are disputing here, Roger. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• On a website large enough to be a small country, with a population in the tens of thousands and a thriving meritocratic economy.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely, And dealing with the bitterest, most complicated, longest running disputes, usually about the grey areas and usually with highly partisan, highly vocal supporters. By the time, things get to ArbCom, often the only route forward is to prise the parties apart with a crowbar.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Testing whether witches would float was also for a long time seen as the only route forward to test for witchcraft .. I think that like the float testing, this 'route forward' that is preached by ArbCom is actually giving way more damage than what it is supposed to solve. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I see what you're getting at ... and I do agree with you that decisions are made significantly more complicated by the frequent need to factor in the reactions of the parties' enablers/opponents, who will exploit it for their own purposes.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That could very easily be dealt with though, by a shift in ArbCom's deliberations away from an adversarial model towards an inquisitorial one. For instance, the endemic spleen-venting that passes for so much of what is risibly called evidence could be curtailed if only those invited by ArbCom to present their case were actually allowed to do so. Malleus Fatuorum 13:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with that almost entirely, including your remarks about evidence.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that very often when something makes it to arbitration, generally its the last stop for resolving disputes. I do not believe that is the case here though and I also feel that even if it was, it is not the only problem with this case. As has been mentioned before, several of the factors of the case are contentious such as the vagueness of the Automation usage; the evidence mentioned in support of Rich was largely ignored in favor of a couple of editors with a vested interest in the case, etc. the list goes on. I also admit that many of the arguments in the case were from one extreme or the other. One side fervently opposing almost any edits that could be sontrued as minor and the other favors doing most (but not all) of these minor edits and some even prefer a bot does it over a human. What we are left with is a situatin where the botop and the bots where blocked and or banned from editing and the tasks the bots previously performed will now likely go undone representing a net loss for the pedia. I personally have a lot or respect for many of the individuals on the committee but I think the process itself needs some work. I think that a lot of things went wrong with this case and several before it and need to be addressed for cases going forward. I also agree with Malleus and think that this case and others would have been significantly better if the Arbs had helped to guide the discussions rather than ignore them. As someone else put it in an earlier discussion when contributors are shouting back and forth into the void it tends to make things worse and that the Arbs were conspicuously absent from the discussions and appeared to largely ignore them throughout did not help. Kumioko (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "decisions are made significantly more complicated by the frequent need to factor in the reactions of the parties' enablers/opponents, who will exploit it for their own purposes." - do you realise that ArbCom can be exploited itself by opponents? Is your decision a reflection of the community wishes .. or is it a reflection of the wishes of 'opponents'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I really do wish you wouldn't ask me questions that invite me to confirm the absolutely obvious ;) I don't think this case gave anybody entirely what they wanted (including the arbitrators). In this respect, it is like almost all highly divisive cases.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Roger, it gets worse and worse. So ArbCom decisions are more like: "we give the opponents a bit, and we give the defenders a bit". Fair trial, anyone? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No. I didn't say that, or indeed anything like it, and your interpretation is bizarre. Are you really saying that cases should involve no degree of compromise with anyone?  Roger Davies ^talk 13:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, pretty much yeah. IF a defendant is innocent then you don't desysop him because the opponent is asking for that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course not, but equally it means not caving in to those that shout longest and loudest. In the meantime, if I remember correctly, your test for "innocence" (whatever that means in a dispute resolution context) was that someone needed to proved guilty on irrefutable evidence and beyond reasonable doubt.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a court?

On many occasions I have seen people state that ArbCom is not a court. This is even noted in WP:RFAR/G. I think of this along the lines of the oft quoted "adminship is no big deal". The reality is adminship IS a big deal, not matter that Jimbo, years ago, asserted it isn't. The reality with ArbCom is that it effectively operates as the supreme court of Wikipedia. We described requests as "cases". We collect "evidence". There is a panel of jurors (ArbCom members). The final decisions can not be appealed (functionally accurate statement). There are many other parallels.

The problem in not recognizing the reality is in the outcome; cases handling is done in a very unprofessional manner. There are few procedural rules. There is no determination of the admissibility of evidence. Arbitrators who are recused can comment on a case, even submit evidence when they are not a named party to the case. Mountains of evidence can be submitted against a party, and that party (by one of the few procedural rules) has only 500 words to rebut all of it. Clerks can create policy and effectively amend decisions by fiat. There is no cross examination of evidence. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I think it would be a very good thing for the community to look at its dispute resolution process in whole and take lessons from judicial management. Further, the final step in the process needs to be restructured to be more professional. Structuring the system like a court would, I think, solve a great many problems. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, don't panic! These memes are well documented at User:MZMcBride/Memes. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that makes a factual error too. Judge Judy has judicial elements but that doesn't make her the supreme court.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, Judge Judy is acting on her show not as a judge, but as... an arbitrator. Made me chuckle a bit. 174.233.134.195 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that I also think that it would help if there was some input from the Jury of the peers so to speak with the arbs acted as Judges rather than Judge, Jury and executioner. A couple of ideas I have:

• Perhaps we could establish a sort of Jury pool with Wikipedians who would be willing to do such a thing, similar to a WikiProject, where the arbs can draw from.
• It would probably need to be a voluntary basis rather than draftees and be limited in number and scope as well as powers (they wouldn't have access to all the Arb stuff) but I think it would help to eleviate some of the all powerful and out of control mentalities that some of us editors have about what Arbcom has become.
• Should be experienced editors, which could be judged a number of ways but should probably be partially based on edit count, community standing, bot experience, etc.
• Should be a mix of Admins and non admins
• This is just a start and more would be needed if this is ever accepted but it would allow community input on cases in a better fashion and allow the Arbs a little more time to do other tasks. Kumioko (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the judge, jury and executioner soundbyte.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is calling it a soundbyte meant in some way to divert attention from the fact that ArbCom collects the evidence, makes a decision of guilt or innocence based on that evidence, and then passes sentence? Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Judge, jury and executioner" refers to clandestine vigilante actions. The closest analogy to that on Wikipedia would be individual adminstrator actions?

The same person/body making a determination and deciding the remedy is what happens in the vast bulk of court cases. It's only really the United States that has juries for nearly everything. Most cases, including low level criminal matters, are usually heard by a magistrate/judge alone. With ArbCom, it's a panel made up of up to fifteen very different individuals, elected by the community.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect in this context that "more professional" means "more decisons I agree with". However, there are various procedural changes we could make that would make ArbCom much more akin to a court. The first would be to prohibit just anyone standing up and making a speech. A second would be effective restraint of the public galleries, in particular with regard to attacking the judges. A fifth would be a consistant tarif of penalties, to get away from the idea in some quarters that good work totally absolves from culpability.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps even get away from the other side of that coin, expressed by Jclemens above, that good work demands harsher penalties. Malleus Fatuorum 14:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Roger, I don't appreciate the elevation of my comment with your first sentence. I am seeing a rather larger number of procedural and functional issues with ArbCom, and I do believe that as a body it operates in a very unprofessional manner. I noted above several ways in which it did. To dismiss this as an agenda of mine to have decisions more in line with what I prefer is wrong. Please don't do that again. ArbCom is not above critique. ArbCom works for the community, not the other way around. Everyone should feel empowered to discuss the processes by which we handle disputes without being accused of hidden agendas. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not quite clear what the problem here is. If you agree with all of ArbCom's decisions, it seems to me extremely unlikely (self-evident?) you'd be calling for reform. Just out of curiosity, which cases do you think the committee has handled well?  Roger Davies ^talk 15:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem here is your dismissal of my complaint as having a hidden agenda of wanting decisions more in line with my preferences. A little good faith would go a long way here. I'm not out to get anyone, get decisions changed, bring condescension on the committee, etc. I am seeking to find a better way to handle disputes that reach the level where bringing parties feel it necessary for ArbCom to review. Within that context, my personal opinion about any particular individual case is abstractly irrelevant. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In fairness Roger your right I do completely disagree with the results of Rich's case but more than that I disagree with the process and way it was handled. Had the process been handled better and the case better written and determined there would be much less room for argument. As it stands though the whole process and the determination that resulted has so many holes it looks like swiss cheese. Kumioko (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I try to be very hands on with my own cases (and they nearly always over-run, for which I get flak). It may not seem like it but it is surprisingly difficult to get consensus in an arbitration decision, simply because arbitrators have so many different approaches and backgrounds. If there is a great deal of drama, which is what happened here, there is also a very natural human tendency to get the thing out of the way as quickly as possible. It is also possible to write very tight FoFs but, even so, these are usually open to individual interpretation and therefore disagreement. If the case were full of smoking guns, the community would have dealt with it a long time ago.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the fact that there are questions as to whether ArbCom is able to adequately carry out the various roles, including some aspects of prosecution, some aspects of fact-finding judge or jury, and some aspects of judge issuing the sentence, indicates that we simply expect too many roles of the Committee. Taking that observation along with the rather obvious one that they tend to be overworked, we really need to look at dividing their current responsibilities over more than one group of persons. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Readily concur. If 15-20 hours a week isn't enough for an arbitrator to conduct their duties, we have overburdened this volunteer position. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The workload definitely seems excessive, which argues in favor of delegating some of it. On the other hand, we're short of competent people to whom we can delegate these tasks. We're barely able (and arguably unable) to scrape together enough plausible ArbCom candidates to fill the current Committee, so I'm not sure where we'll find staffing for additional committees. I suppose that if the workload were more reasonable, then more qualified candidates might be willing to step forward, but that seems like an optimistic assumption. MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • (@MastCell, so I'll top-post, please forgive me.) Well, it's all your fault, MastCell. And Heimstern's. And Floquenbeam's. You guys were all begged to run for arbcom in the last election. You would have given the voters some truly, uh, plausible alternatives. I'm not saying there weren't any highly qualified candidates, just that there weren't enough. But would you? Nah. You joined Category:Burnt-out Wikipedians instead! That is not the same thing as ArbCom, you know! At least, not entirely. I expect there's overlap. Bishonen | talk 17:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Well, touché. Except that I really am burnt-out, and I'd be one of those Arbs who alternates long disappearances with bizarre re-appearances. And since I actually edit controversial content, I'd have to recuse on everything except road-naming disputes. And I'm unelectable. It is Heimstern's and Floquenbeam's fault, though. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • Hey, I'm so burnt-out I had to lock my freaking account even to stop my self from burning out more, and am using Li'l Away to talk to you now! Surely that qualifies me for burnt-out! Heimstern:Away (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

          • [Bishzilla breathes gently on the burnout-boasting little users to burn them out some more. Tolerantly :] Little users burnt-out like matchsticks going pfft! 'Zilla burnout mighty natural disaster like Yellowstone fires of 1988 or Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79! bishzilla _ROARR!! 09:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

            • I guess that just leaves me to run the place, then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    But it's chicken and egg though isn't it. Who in their right mind would be readily offering to spend 3 hours of their day, every day of the week, every week of the year, to devote to ArbCom business? The real surprise is that so many do, but it's no surprise that so many go AWOL for extended periods. ArBCom must devolve some of its authority, or it will undoubtedly grind to a halt for lack of those willing and able to staff it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Arbcom should have 2 non-Admin, non-Crat members. Voted for by the community. Leaky Caldron 17:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One part of delegating is to continue to work towards the Wikimedia Foundation taking back more responsibilities. Another is to do it, within the Wiki-En community, by role. I'd like to see the Arbitration Committee specialize in... arbitration! That is, reviewing the cases that are brought to it at the requests for arbitration page, and requests made later (like ban review) growing out of those cases. Just reviewing evidence placed before it. Not investigation, which should be the responsibility, in part, of the community, and in part, of Checkusers not on the Committee. And ArbCom needs to stop being the omnibus recipient of all confidential e-mails, only those e-mails that are directly related to what has been or what will be an on-Wiki arbitration case. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • @ Leaky - The issue is that there are few to no people who are not admins who can get the community backing (60% or more of the vote in the 2011 election) to find themselves with a seat on the committee. In recent years the closest a non-admin got to that was GiacomoReturned in 2010 with 40% of the vote. I have nothing against a non admin on the committee but there needs to be an electable candidate. After all, non-admins make up a bulk of the electorate. There are only about 1500 admins. If we assume that every person with rollback or the reviewer right has enough edits for suffrage that is somewhere between 4500 and 5500 editors. That's not counting the editors who choose not to have any user rights. The idea that admins have carte blanche powers at the polls is a myth. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It is not unusual in corporate governance terms for allocated places to be set aside for interested parties not normally in an electable position. If there is a view that Arbcom does not always fulfil the requirements of the community (even if it is a minority view) making representation more representative might be a way of ensuring well,....better representation. Leaky Caldron 21:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      While that is true, the community has stated that they feel that no one can serve on arbcom who has under 50% of the raw vote --Guerillero | My Talk 21:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I would be uncomfortable with mandating non-administrators on the Committee, just as much as I would be mandating that non-administrators be disqualified from serving. If there was a qualified candidate who could fufill the criteria and also get enough support to qualify for election, I'd love to see one. But usually, those who wish to serve as Arbs realize that before you can run, you have to learn to walk (adminsitrative tools, DR, etcetera) SirFozzie (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Now that's just bollocks, plain and simple. And pretentious bollocks at that. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      That mythical community is often mistaken, or misunderstood. I am firmly of the belief that had Giano bent a little and agreed to identify himself to the foundation then he might well have been elected. And had he still been around I would have been willing to stand with him as a non-admin candidate at the next election. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Any chance you'll be willing to stand for election without him? I would love to see a non-admin on the committee. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It's something I'm seriously considering; it's about time us little guys had a voice. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      @SF. Your comfort feeling simply betrays a lack of creative thinking and a "rules" based philosophy based on a formal structure of recognition through promotion. Since many of the concerns Arbcom deal with relate to Admin behaviour I would suggest that having a non-admin. representation would be an ideal counter-balance. Leaky Caldron 22:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, LC. We're elected by the community. If the community wants to place a non-administrator on the Committee, they have nothing stopping them. If you'll forgive the charged term, the only quota we have is "Those endorsed by a majority of the voting members". While individual voters may decide that not being an administrator is a disqualifying factor in voting for the position, there's nothing in place. If no non-administrators have been elected to the position, ipso facto no non-administrators have the support of the community for such a position. I'm not sure if WP:ACE2012 is blue-linked yet, but if it's anything like last year, there will be a RfC to determine the size of the committee, etcetera. I would suggest that putting forth a request to appoint one or more positions based on the highest placing non-administrator in the voting, there would be a good place, although I sincerely doubt that any such proposal would pass. SirFozzie (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that you're right, and I see no reason to separate out the highest-ranking administrators from non-administrators in your thinking, other than the obvious prejudice it displays. But time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MF: How would a non-administrator gain access to the Committee, other then the ACE? I don't think you're suggesting that the Committee APPOINT non-administrators, nor do I think a lottery like system would work (although there's a joke in there that considering all the stones that are thrown at us in fufilling our job requirements, that it's more like On the book/play version of the Lottery, rather then what comes to mind, so if you're mandating one or more non-administrators be appointed to the Committee, how you get there? Obviously, I was saying if no non-administrator qualified for the role under normal voting totals, would we then proceed to appoint the highest placing non-administrator, EVEN IF they didn't have the support of a majority of the voting members of the community? SirFozzie (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We may have a crossed wire here; I was talking about a non-administrator being elected to ArbCom under the normal voting rules, not appointed as some kind of lap dog. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have to agree with SF that its extremely unlikely that a non admin would get elected to the committee. Thats somewhat part of the problem. The voting process on WP is largely a popularity contest and doesn't truly reflect ones abilities. I work in the IT field and I work with several guys who are very good at their jobs but complete Aholes for personality. They would never be elected to anything resembling the requirement of popularity, IE they would never be admins or anything else here. There are a number of people in WP that I feel would be good on the committee or as admins but wouldn't win because 5 years ago they did something that knowone remembers until they try and run. Kumioko (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems is that the pool of "top candidates" is quite small - the commitee is still made up of many people who were in it three years ago. From a radical governance perspective, especially an online one where cabals form way too easily, that isn't so good. I think Arbcom should introduce term limits - say two terms (and then with two years before you can stand again). This will increase the pool of viable candidates dramatically. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what it won't address is the problem of lack of candidates. Personally I'm all for term limits; there's far too much dead weight masquerading under the guise of, well, that's for another day. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would. One reason, for example, I don't have any interest in standing is because most of the existing members will be re-elected. So the "new blood" seats are reduced to only a handful. With greater expectancy to be elected then I suspect the candidacies will improve. This, at least, has been my experience of governance reform. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My own impression is quite the opposite of that. I think that very few of the present incumbents stand any chance at all of being re-elected. But as I said earlier, time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two suggestions

Backseat watching this discussion, I think I see two possible suggestions that will help "tune" Arbcom decisions better to the concerns of the community:

First, on each case's Workshop page, have it such that no non-ArbCom can add any proposed principles/FOF/remedies/enforcement to this until ArbCom has posted an initial set of principles and FOF. I know ArbCom will borrow from the suggested ones in their final decision, but the idea of having ArbCom post first means that the community can judge if ArbCom is actually looking at the right factors of the case and the like based on statements and evidence. After that point, they can add their own proposed elements, helping to fine turn or course-correct ArbCom. ArbCom still would post final recommended proposed elements - which may include their original take - after which they can then go on to make the final decision. Also, in some cases, a user-supplied proposed element can influence ArbCom if ArbCom hasn't let their direction on the case known, which could negatively impact the findings.

Secondly, avoiding trying to rush the process in a timely manner. Current practice seems to want to tie up each case within a month. I'd rather see a few extra weeks, or even an extra month or two, taken for a complicated case instead of trying to wrap it up cleanly. I do agree we need limits on the periods when users can contribute to the statements, evidence, and workshop pages to avoid having long-winded and tiring arguments. But particularly once at the workshop stage, this all should be flexible. Maybe a two week period for workshop development, after which it is closed to all but ArbCom, and if they feel that their final proposed decisions need discussion, reopen the workshop for a week or so.

My takeaway from the discussion above and my own experiences at ArbCom is that it tends to be a one-way flow of information. Not to try to extend the court analogy further, a good judge or set of judges is going to give feedback, direct or subtle, to those they are hearing, to provide arguments in specific areas. This does happen at ArbCom sometimes when an ArbCom member asks for more specific information, but I think it can run deeper. This may complicate the process, but I'd rather see decisions that ArbCom and to the best possible extent the majority of the community that are fair assessments of the situation instead of decisions made in haste because there's another case on the docket. If this means that ArbCom has to implement a case queue with only a fixed number of slots (and ergo unable to even consider new cases until a spot opens), so be it. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, you're going to think I'm hounding you or something, but it's just coincidence that we seem to be on the same discussion pages lately. Unless you're in every discussion on Wikipedia, that is... ;) These are good suggestions, but as several people mentioned above, you would all do well to try to drop all of this "court", "case", "evidence", "deliberations", "verdict", "punishment", mentality. The process needs to be about talking, finding common ground and arriving at good solutions. And you don't need the whole committee involved in each matter - people just need to be aware that there is a collegial body in the background that's going to come down on them hard if they won't cooperate with the process. Victor Yus (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is a lot of editors think Arbcom will come down hard if the end up here at all regardless of the charges. Their is a growing concern that if someone is brought before Arbcom the end result Will be some sort of banning, desysopping or punishment of some kind just by virtue of the fact it got here. As has been mentioned multiple times, the Arbs feel that once a case has made it here all other avenues have bene exhuasted and thats not always the case. So once it comes here, by virtue of the Arbs feelings about why the case is here, the end result will be something punitive just for coming and using Arbs time. Kumioko (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I don't think any of these suggestions have a "court" mentality. The only court aspect I bring up is the way that good trials (such as those at the SCOTUS-level) being used by the judges to draw out and direct both sides into getting the answers they need while taking in all that information; that, to some extent, is something I don't see happen much at ArbCom and it would be a good practice to add. Anything else to make ArbCom like a courtroom would be harmful. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you are using terms like "case", "evidence", "findings", and seem to see everything as being directed towards a "final decision" made by ArbCom, as a whole, acting like a panel of judges. The whole paradigm could be so different if a mediative approach were adopted. For one thing it would be more efficient - why have 15 great minds contemplating one issue, when if they divided their resources they could be contemplating 15 different issues. Not just contemplating them either, but proactively addressing them. Victor Yus (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that this is not a court and we need not have all lawyers in the Arbcom I do think Arbcom is a sort of legislative body and decrees from them have longlasting and far reaching effects. Its sort of like the old Admin is no big deal comment. It may have been no big deal at one time but now it clearly is and is taken very seriously by the community. Arbcom in many ways is the same way. Due to the decisions in the past there has developed a stygma of coming out. Several individuals have been cut off at the knees so to speak by the Arbcom and that has been seen and heard far and wide. Rich is only the latest example of what happens when you are brought before the committee. With the committees mentality of Arbitration being the last hope for resolution the end is usually predetermined by that same mentality. Like a court though, we need it to be a more even and fair process (not that our legal system is either mind you). Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, I think anyone who's been around for a while could quite accurately predict what the outcome of any given ArbCom case is likely to be based on the known attitudes of the arbitrators involved. It's hardly an impartial process. Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are terms of art that the ArbCom process has adopted. They can be tied to a more formalized court system but they are also good, clear words that explain the process. We can't avoid talking about ArbCom cases without evoking these terms; we just need to recognize that this is not a formal legal process. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you use terms to describe something that are, as a set, taken from another context it is entirely reasonable for people to react to their use as if they are from that context. If it quacks like a duck... --Hammersoft (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could make up nonsense words to stand in for those...

Seriously, though, those are the terms best suited to what ArbCom has to deal with. "Case" may imply a court to you, but it implies a medical patient's issue to me. "Findings" mean just that, what the ArbCom found to be the facts. "Evidence" I'll give you, that's pretty much a legal term. I'm not sure what you could replace it with, though. Certainly not "facts" or anything so absolute. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This may surprise people, but I'm entirely with Victor Yus here. Arbcom is supposed to be the last step in dispute resolution. Instead it just creates a venue for people to slag each other off some more (I hope that expression doesn't mean something different in US English). In the very few cases I've drafted, I have tried to come up with more creative solutions, and Arbcom would like more creative solutions. That's why the workshop goes up before the PD - Masem's suggestion is backwards of that practice, although I see where it's coming from. I would like to have the time to be much more interactive. To start with the filing parties and say "OK, tell me what the problem is as you see it", then go to the subjects and say "OK, what's your perspective", and then ask some uninvolved editors "OK, how do you guys see it" - rather than the free for all that we get. And I'd like - rather than the rigid pd format - to be able to broker outcomes. Perhaps that might be seen as plea bargaining (something the UK legal system rejects), but maybe sometimes a better outcome can be found. And I agree with smaller teams - I suggested that when I stood, but there's no support for it among the Committee, who view the involvement of all as a check and balance against the kind of behaviour that Malleus is alleging. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More interactivity is what I'm trying to suggest; as I've mentioned the cases that I have watched as an uninvolved 3rd party, the Arbcom only speak up at, at most, four points; their agreement to take the case, asking any questions during the evidence phase, commenting and providing proposed findings/etc., and voting on final decision. There's nothing molding the discussion, allowing endless strings of evidence to be added, etc.
  • I do like the idea of restricting uninvolved input until the main parties have had their say during the evidence phase, as well as limiting how much they can contributed during the case request phase (a brief statement affirming, denying, or clarifying the reason for the case should be sufficient at this point). But we still need ArbCom during the case to be more responsive and prevent alot of extra text being added that has little to do with the final desired result - and these are things that the clerks can't do without becoming involved. (Case in point, during the last Betacommand case, I asked for clarity to what degree the NFCC issues mentioned during the case request were with the other aspects of the case, but got no response back, leaving me unsure if that was to be considered or not). --MASEM (t) 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too asked for some clarity, specifically what the scope of the case was. I never got a response. As it turned it, it was to cover his entire editing history (whopping huge case of double jeopardy). I was prepared to do a lot for the case, but was hamstrung by ArbCom's lack of response. But, as others have said above and it applies to that case, the outcome was per-determined anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What else was there left to try? Would Rich have accepted editing restrictions given that yourself and Beetstra persisted to the last that he had never done anything wrong? It strikes me that the outcome was 'pre-determined' only in that there were two definitions of acceptable behaviour in play, only one of them was going to be used in the final outcome, and the Betacommand case strongly suggested that it wasn't yours. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that comparing Rich's case to Betacommand is lazy and innapropriate. For one the patterns of editing where different, the (and I use this term loosley) misconduct by the parties was different and even the reasons for going to Arbcom where different other than the link of bot use. Coparing the 2 is really apples and oranges, their both fruit and thats about it. I do agree that Rich made some mistakes and should have taken greater care with some of his tasks but in the end most of the arguments boil down to certain members of the community being overly petty about minor edits to articles. Kumioko (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That exactly. Given Hammer's comment below, perhaps I was thinking of you rather than him. The idea that acceptable behaviour is to hack on with a buggy bot/script, making non-consensus edits that you are already under editing restrictions in respect of. That was what Beta did that eventually got him banned, that was what Rich did that eventually got him banned. Rich is more polite, but it was the same thing that finally got both of them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that ascribing non-existent behaviors to me is inappropriate. I have criticized quite a number of ArbCom's actions in the RF case. That does not equate to thinking Rich did no wrong. In fact, I rarely said anything about his behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears then that I may be mixing some of your edits up with Kumioko's (as above). Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, can you show me then where I say that Rich "never [did] anything wrong"? I friggin' voted in FAVOUR of an edit restriction (that did not get implemented, but that seems besides the point) on Rich Farmbrough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, saying that of others is of course in line with "... it's every time he opens his mouth to say anything but suggestions for technical activity.". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if the problems with arbitration are the lack of professionalism built into the process itself, the paucity of suitable candidates to reduce the workload on the committee, and the failure of our intermediate processes to resolve disputes before they become intractable and hit ArbCom like an asteroidal extinction event... Then what we should do is raise some money, managed on behalf of the community by the WMF, to hire and pay dispute resolution professionals. We can get arbitrators and mediators both, pay them to develop a better process, and then keep them on either to advise or actually perform the process going forward. Nathan ^T 15:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan, that's by some margin the best suggestion I've ever seen from you, and one of the best from anybody on this site. Of course it doesn't have the slightest chance of ever being implemented, but that's something else, in fact it's the leading characteristic of all the best proposals for Wikipedia reform. Bishonen | talk 16:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• By the way, I notice that this noticeboard page features an image of the scales of justice within its title. Having such an image gives the impression that ArbCom wants to present an image of being a quasi-legal body. If this is not the case, then you probably shouldn't have that image in your title. Cla68 (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, indeed, though I've always thought of it as more tongue-in-cheek than factual. But then again perhaps not everyone has my sense of irony. Anyhow, following Lord Roem's use of this beta logo in the Signpost recently, we've been chatting about replacements.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I figured it was probably meant tongue-in-cheek. But, you have to admit, you guys do use some legal jargon in how you phrase things in your announcements and case decisions. Perhaps there just any easy way around that. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, some of it is avoidable, some less so. A lot of it is down to individual arbitrators styles, I suppose.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Incidentally, it would be good to hear suggestions for an alternative logo, focusing on the dispute aspects rather than the quasi-judicial thing.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my suggestions for a new ArbCom logo. These are, of course, entirely neutral! :)

• 
• 
• File:LeYak200198.jpg
• 
• 

The last second from right there is particularly apropos, though I'm sure there's plenty who think the first is more accurate :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the first one but we should change the pink circle in the background into the Wikipedia logo.:-) Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, so modified and added to the above gallery. So what do you think? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed previously at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_6#Change_to_the_image, where my proposal, to the right, was squarely shot down. MBisanz ^talk 17:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

Great addition to the Arbcom team, and a big loss to the Signpost. Nice poaching, you guys/gals. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

Looks sensible. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it is a step in the right direction, I think that parties against whom evidence/allegations are being made should have an opportunity to present evidence in response. This would be separate to the other evidence they would have wished to present - perhaps against other parties. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would say that anyone who is potentially facing a sanction has the right to a full and proper defence. Therefore I propose a modification that arbcom notify any editor whom they are considering taking sanctions against of that fact, and waive all submission length limits. Egg Centric 15:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This, it seems to me, is a strong justification for making everyone who participates in a case a party to it as few participants are uninvolved and (if you unconditionally believe everything posted on the case talk pages) even fewer turn up with clean hands ;)  Roger Davies ^talk 11:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is little point in naming a party to a case unless AC find they did something wrong or they didn't do anything wrong which requires sanction. If they are not involved, or there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of fact or remedy, then I see little benefit to mentioning them as party except to encourage others to misuse the case. How often have party names been amended at the close of a case nowadays? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a real disparity here which has an obvious unfair effect. In one arbitration case last year, I think it was, an editor faced perhaps a dozen people, each of which used their 500 words - say, 6,000 words or so of accusations against him. He had 500 words with which to respond. That simply isn't equitable and it doesn't permit a proper defence. Changing the word limit on individual submissions will have no effect on this problem. Perhaps there should be a rule to facilitate an equitable defence, for instance if ten editors contribute 500 words each against an accused editor, that editor should have an equal aggregate word length - in this case 5,000 words - in which to respond. Prioryman (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps wording could be added to the effect of, "If a party needs more than 1,000 words to present their case, he/she should request an exception and provide a clear justification for why the exception should be granted." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In instances where it's one editor vs about a dozen by the time a dispute reaches ArbCom, it's safe to say that that editor is probably not going to be able to explain away the concerns raised about their conduct no matter how many words they're allocated. That said, Cla68's suggestion is a good idea (and from what I've seen this is how ArbCom typically operates in these instances at the moment). Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Context matters, so editors should be able to explain that context sufficiently instead of limited by unnecessary bureaucracy. That they, by default (unless requesting an exception), need to choose between presenting evidence against another editor and explaining that context does not sit well for good practice. Sometimes they are linked, but it is impossible to encapsulate that in the default option of 500 words. I also don't agree with the so-called "well if it's reached ArbCom, it's safe to say that editor is screwed" - we might as well remove their ability to present anything at all with that thinking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible at all. If you trawl back through cases over the years, you'll see that a great many people manage to present complicated evidence concisely and economically. Something, incidentally, that is exceedingly difficult to deal with (both for arbitrators and parties) is the editor who posts long evidence, and then spends the ten days copy-editing it with dozens of changes.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched ArbCom cases from (what is likely to be) earlier than when you made your first visible contribution on your account, and I find that the very rare occasions where that happens is where an editor has had to unreasonably dedicate many hours of his/her life devoted to such - often, the sort of time most Wikipedians are unable or unwilling to spend on Wikipedia. Long evidence can be difficult to trawl through, but this area of Wikipedia by its nature focuses on individual conduct rather than content alone, so extra work is needed from all sides too. Evidence being copyedited over a long period of time is indeed another issue, but if editors are given specific time limits by which to submit phases of evidence, that would assist editors in avoiding that temptation. For example: (a) editors have x days to present their evidence - they should work on a subpage, and can copyedit as much as they wish during that x days. After that time, the evidence is moved from the subpage to the main evidence page and will not be changed (except for clear typos, or where withdrawing entire sections). This way, editors who are presenting evidence can copyedit to their heart's content for x period of time without being worried that if they are away on the last 2 days, that the evidence will not turn up - it would, as it was what was left on the evidence page. (b) Editors affected or named in that posted evidence then has x days to post evidence on the response subpages to that specific evidence (separate word limit) or to provide any context they wish to. They can once again copyedit their responding evidence in this time, and on the fall of the x period, it will be posted to the main evidence page. (c) After that, arbs will look at the evidence page while the participants finalise their workshop submissions and narrow any points of agreement (and arbs will have a period of time to finish reviewing evidence, workshop, propose and comment in workshop, then PD as always). (d) In cases where an editor is genuinely unavailable, that is where the exceptions would occur - and extra time would be given to those users to post evidence, but by the same token, to named users in the evidence to respond. This is not necessarily ideal either, but I think it would at least be an improvement and somewhat fairer - at least compared to how many participants apparently feel they have been ambushed by the setup so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This motion by ArbCom is rejected by the community. Basket of Puppies 05:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't actually appear to be the case. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In many arbitration cases, whether an editor is a "named party" or not has been a bone of tendentiousness. The committee has usually provided little guidance on who is and isn't a named party until the proposed decision is posted. How will this new evidence procedure account for the perennial "Who is a party?" question? Skinwalker (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal does seem to be a reasonable idea and I generally support it although I do agree wuith some of the comments above that the accused should have an avenue to request additional words to defend themselves particularly in cases where there are a lot of people responding. I'm also not quite sure I like the idea of a clerk rewording it. A clerk could intentionally or unintentionally change the meaning of the statements substantially with only minor wording changes. Kumioko (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely horrible decision! Ten people might be able to levy 500 words of accusations against a user but that user can only refute with a maximum of 500 words? What was Arb Comm thinking?