Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Archive 2.2

message: Would you guys get a move on? We're having witch trials out there. Or more like popularity contests instead of real hearings of evidence. I know, because I'm on trial for abuse of admin power and I see how others who have similar accusations against them, but greater community standing, are treated differently by "the mob." Naturally, everybody feels entitled to express an opinion, but nobody is required to do the onerous work of reading the proceedings of a long drawn out argument on the talk pages; let alone the proceedings of a dozen talk pages, as in the case of the accusations against Lir, which allege a pattern of behavior. In fact, because people intercalate posts out of chronological order and even sometimes remove or edit them, even when I've participated in a discussion it can be hard to reconstruct from the record how it evolved through time. Nobody who has not committed to being an arbitrator is going to take such trouble (and frankly I pity you guys). It's no different from the problem of voting, but as I'm sure you realize, the stakes are higher when people are being blamed and at risk of being blocked or stripped dishonorably of sysop status. Not to mention it's an endless ordeal for the accused and collosal waste of time and energy for tons of people. As I'm sure you can tell. But anyway, get a move on, pulleeze.168... 03:52, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't hold your breath.  Jimbo has abdicated his responsibility of doing anything about user banning to these people, who don't seem to care that Wikipedia is going to hell in a handbasket.  RickK 03:56, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Jimbo did that so well, as to deny 168 right to go to arbitration himself :-) Good job.
168, Rick, we're doing our best, and going as fast as we can. Genuinely. Martin 18:42, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for speed 

message: These statements about arbitration policy so far are good, except the reference to certioari which I personally think is inappropriate as arbitration is ultimately a contract right, not a judicial discretion, but you guys can call things anything you wish to, there is a similarity with that ancient writ. 
I would like to ask the committee if there are any plans to deal with the question of representation by a member advocate. I originally declined to be on the arbitration committeee so I could be available for members who had a problem but felt that they might benefit from someone presenting their case to the committee for them. This could expand to an Office of Members' Advocates to help members faced with arbitration in variety of ways. Will the committee recognize the right of members to have representation before the committee? — Alex756  talk 23:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll discuss this in the "Trial" section of the agenda, in the longer term. If we vote to accept the emergency session proposed by Jimbo then during that emergency session there will be no formal guidelines permitted or forbidding representation by a member advocate, so I can only recommend that you use your best judgement in the matter. Martin 23:46, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Can members have representation?

message: Thank you for the suggestion. I will draw the attention of the arbitration committee to it when we discuss these issues. Martin 19:09, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really a suggestion.  I'd like something in place very very quickly.  I intend for this to be voted on immediately to handle certain immediate problems.  It can be changed later, after you finish discussing it. Jimbo Wales 21:10, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting Procedure 

message: At "conflicts between users" I just posted this in the context of the (redundant I now see) discussion I started about banning Lir.
:The main problem with Lir is an abundance of evidence of bad faith and, from the instances when Lir is willing to discuss things at all, a record of discussions that are acrimonious and irresolvable. I don't trust this person. Who does? Does anybody actually want this person around? If so, why? I think the burden of proof should be on people who want Lir around. Disagreeing with some others is natural and certainly not a crime, but if Lir can't reach agreements with anybody, I don't think we should regard it as our obligation or responsibility to allow Lir to play here. 
I have never nominated anyone for banning before, and now that I am going through the motions for Lir, I'm getting the impression that I'm thinking about banning differently than the norm, at least differently than the norm that is suggested by the posted arguments and proposals I read. What do you think about the way I am framing the issue above, and about the way I suggest shifting the burden of proof to advocates against the ban, after ample grounds for distrust has been demonstrated? I don't think it should be such a big deal to ban. Yes, we don't want to ban people on the basis of bad evidence, and I suppose reliable evidence takes a while or is hard to obtain, but I don't think the evidence should have to show a capital offence, just that somebody is a drag and doesn't add anything positive to the project. 168... 19:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy of banning...Lir as a timely example

message: Because of the arbitration committee's decision to make their deliberations non-transparent (and therefore secret), I am removing myself from continued involvement with Wikipedia until such time as decision-making processes are made transparent (i.e., the discussion leading to decisions made by committee is make available for all members to read and consider). This lack of transparency sets an extremely poor precendent for Wikipedia's openness and (more importantly for me) constitutes a secret organization, something I will have *absolutely* no part of. A fuller explanation is posted on my user page. -- Seth Ilys 20:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Transparency and secrecy

message: I think one of the key tasks for an arbitrator is to figure out "what happened," and I think figuring that out can be a very difficult given the existing ways the Wikipedia site has for presenting data. But the data is there, so I think with a little hacking, it might not be too hard to produce three new features that would make the task much easier. All three features would be manually advancing "slide shows," in which each slide presents exactly the view you see when you click "last" on a page history to see what changes a user made. The first slide show I propose is a "Page slide show," which would show each new comment that appeared on a page in chronological order and show who made the comment. This would solve the problems of intercalation and revision, including retroactive censoring. In using this feature, the arbitrator just specifies the page and the start date. The second feature I propose would be a "User slide show." This would be based on "User contributions," but instead of showing a table or history, it would be a manually advancing slide show displaying all the changes the user made to whatever pages he or she made them anywhere on Wikipedia in chronological order. The arbitrator just specifies the user and the date. The last feature I propose is a "Multi-user slide show." This would be just like the user slide show, but it would show the changes made by several users in the order they were made. This could be useful in cases where two or more users are at odds with one another, and an arbitrator wants to be clear about who did what when and to whom, in particular for the sake of understanding who was being offensive and who was being defensive. To use this feature, the arbitrator would specify the user names and the start date. It's a little 1984, but I think it's vital information for the job we're giving arbitrators. My impression is that all the data is already provided so that anybody, with enough patience, could obtain the same information. It's just too impractical to do right now with the current software. If people are squeamish about the 1984 aspect, I suggest the feature be available just to arbitrators.168...|...Talk 17:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful software features for arbitrators

message: I am user X, in terms of the various "cult" articles this week.
:"User X, limit your reverts to article A to one per day."
I am in a slow-motion reversion war with a couple of contributors who insist on slapping the cult label on the Unification Church. They don't seem sufficiently concerned with Accuracy or Neutrality, to suit me. (But it's just barely possible that I'm biased :-) --Uncle Ed 14:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rulers should first apply the rules to themselves

message: Perhaps it should be clarified whether any action will take place if
there is a plurality but no majority among the mediation committee.  
I assume from the current text that only those actions with majority
approval would be taken, even if this means taking no action save a statement that agreement could not be reached...  +sj+ 16:36, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)
: Yes, that's how we've been doing things up till now. After the vote we'll clarify that (but it's probably a bit off to be editing mid-vote. Martin 17:10, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cases without majority agreement

message: I've knocked up a few proposed alterations - thoughts?
James F. (talk) 03:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed alterations 

message: The text says "Arbitrators will recuse themselves immediately that they believe that they have a conflict of interest." Is this grammatically correct? I had changed it to "Arbitrators will recuse themselves immediately if they believe that they have a conflict of interest.", but it was quickly reverted. 
When two independent clauses are combined with "that", it is usually short for "so that" or "in order that", as in "I bought you a rose that you might forgive me", but this is obviously not your intended meaning here. Wouldn't "if", or perhaps "in the event that" be a better way of putting it?  – Quadell (talk) (help) 23:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
: This is perfectly normal and understandable usage of English, IMO. It was added in this edit: , the wording having been worked out in private deliberations amongst the Committee. However, people on IRC disagree with me, so...
: James F. (talk) 23:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immediately ''that''? 

message: Has anyone considered creating several arbitration sub-committees each composed of experts in a particular field to resolve disputes on articles within that field?
-- selket Dec 9, 2004
: Well, Arbitration is not involved with content, so specialist sub-Committees wouldn't make sense. Also, Wikipedia is far too vast to have a Committee populated with experts in every, or, indeed, anything significantly more than any, field covered.
: James F. (talk) 13:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Forum for Encyclopedic Standards was kicking around some ideas for editorial arbitration, but nothing has come of them yet. You may want to join in (or kick off) the discussion at Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/Editorial arbitration. —No-One Jones 13:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Areas of Expertise 

message: Are any non-arbitrators subscribed to the arbitration mailing list? —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  mailing list 

message: I note that the project page is linked prominently from Recent Changes.  The reason for this is unclear.  Perhaps someone could make the requested community response a little more clear, or perhaps remove the link.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was left there after the failure of the revote on amending this policy. I've removed it now. --Michael Snow 22:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link from RC 

message: Since it would significantly affect the current policy, I'm noting that I've made a major proposal regarding the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections. --Michael Snow 04:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed overhaul 

message: After going through the arbitration process I put some thought into the way it would work when I'm the dictator.  I know there is some huge page somewhere about proposed reforms, but it's unreadable and I don't care to participate. I'll throw this out for anyone to consider.
My goals would be small and efficient case management.  A timeline of two weeks, or less, per case is entirely reasonable with extremely focused charges and evidence.
First, the goal is to write an encyclopedia. Sometimes that means decisions that help the project aren't going to be "fair" to users. Too bad.
===ArbCom administration and case appeal===
*ArbCom would be as many members as necessary or prudent.
*Cases would be heard by an arbitration panel of three ArbCom members.  Members would be assigned in a weighted random manner (weight based on number of cases a member is already on).
*A case could be appealed en banc to the entire ArbCom (or significant subset) but only for problems with the decision or process, not de novo.
===Case initiation and process===
*A case could only be opened based around a single charge.  If someone needs to "throw the book" at someone else, they can start multiple but separate cases.
*A case can only be against one side.  If the charged feel like it, they can file a case against their accuser to be managed completely separately.
*A case must be filed complete with charge, policy basis, evidence, and requested relief. Once filed it shouldn't be added to.
*Process should then be: Defendant Response (strict to the case as presented), Accuser Reply (strict to the response) and then questions to the parties from the ArbCom panelists, then a decision.
*The community should be requested to comment, amicus style.  Comments should strive for clarity and brevity and the issues at hand.  If new issues need to be raised, maybe the amicus writer needs to start their own case.
===Decisions and policy===
*In a decision, ArbCom often makes "new policy" (though usually just clarification). Someone, anyone, has to write that new policy or expand existing policies.  New editors shouldn't have to poke around both policy documents and ArbCom rulings in order to divine policy.
*If a policy is "new" or necessary clarification, the sentence should be light to prevent appearance of retroactivity. "Our goal is to write an encyclopedia. Your behavior doesn't help us do that even though it's not really stated as a problem in our policies.  Stop doing that and if you do it again..."
*Presumably defendants want to contribute to Wikipedia. Therefore ArbCom sentences, like civil contempt, should strive to be coercive and not punitive.  Real trolls don't need ArbCom to get banned.
===Content===
*ArbCom should take on "content" issues when the issue is fairly clear and a decision can be stated in general terms, ie, "The majority of climatologists believe global warming is occurring and is caused by human activity."  That kind of statement should be a guideline for future editors.
*Sometimes content issues might be stated more directly, ie, the statement might be specific to how Wikipedia presents the issue.
*In more extreme cases, ArbCom could say an editor was out of line to various degrees.
*Like "new policy" these kinds of guidelines should be published where appropriate.
===Criticism of the current process:===
*It encourages rambling by trying to consolidate all issues against a user into one case.  ArbCom members get lost trying to figure out what the core problem is.  
*It never ends: the workshop and evidence pages are designed so people keep contributing.  Again, members get lost trying to follow along.  The case becomes unmanagable. Members pile-on to proposed decisions to avoid trying to follow along.
*Everyone who ever had a dog in some edit war gets wrapped up into it. Members can't really decide who was involved and penalize everyone or no one.  The case becomes unmanagable.
*Content is verboten.  Sometimes, people are just wrong.  Crank theorists should be told to take their OR elsewhere. POV pushers should be declared as such.  It doesn't do anyone a favor making vague restrictions on user behavior without being explicit and saying what's wrong.
;SchmuckyTheCat 02:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SchmuckyTheCats Wikipedia Arbitration commentary

message: *It encourages rambling by trying to consolidate all issues against a user into one case.  ArbCom members get lost trying to figure out what the core problem is.  
*It never ends: the workshop and evidence pages are designed so people keep contributing.  Again, members get lost trying to follow along.  The case becomes unmanagable. Members pile-on to proposed decisions to avoid trying to follow along.
*Everyone who ever had a dog in some edit war gets wrapped up into it. Members can't really decide who was involved and penalize everyone or no one.  The case becomes unmanagable.
*Content is verboten.  Sometimes, people are just wrong.  Crank theorists should be told to take their OR elsewhere. POV pushers should be declared as such.  It doesn't do anyone a favor making vague restrictions on user behavior without being explicit and saying what's wrong.
;SchmuckyTheCat 02:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of the current process:

message: Left on my Talk page:
Wikipedia:Arbitration policy was hammered out by the arbitrators during a long process. Please leave it alone. Fred Bauder 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arbitration policy makes it appear that the Arbitration committee has more power than they actually do, and sets tem up for a power grab when an opportunity avails itself. The arbitration policy should be dictated to the arbitration committee, not established by it. Hackwrench 20:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Committee power?