Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

Shortcut:
WP:ARBCOMRFC
A user has requested comment on this page, but there is an error in the RFC template. Please review the RFC template syntax and try again

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{templatename | section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time=~~~~~ }}
  • Use the name of the RFC tag name in place of "templatename".
  • Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again.
  • Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.
This page in a nutshell: A Requests for Comment to determine what if any community mandated definitions and changes are required to be adopted for the Arbitration Committee and Requests for Arbitration process.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
There is a is a Summary of statements from the RfC which had significantly more support than opposition, which clearly identifies suggested changes to the Arbitration Policy
Notice: This RfC is being split in stages. Stage one is done: Several sections are now on their own sub-pages, with a summary transcluded into the main RfC. Please discuss how this can be improved before the remaining sections are split out.

A statement from Jimbo Wales about recent events:

I have encouraged the ArbCom to move slowly and thoughtfully. Gather all the facts. Don't have a public argument with each other that confuses people or gives trolls the opportunity to turn more people against each other. Figure out what went wrong, correct it, apologize where beneficial to do so, and build a better framework going forward. You don't get all that done in a weekend, and you don't further that kind of thoughtful and mature process with a hasty statement. I think the important statement has been made: no secret trials, and no convictions without giving the opportunity to present a defense. That's just basic justice, and I will overturn any ArbCom decision to the contrary. (Although, I should point out, there is ZERO chance of the ArbCom doing this in the first place.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Contents

Organization

Due to size, some of the topics have been split out into their own sub-RfCs and a summary transcluded into here. A current list of sub-RfCs can be found here.

Introductory statement

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

What is the Arbitration Committee?

The Arbitration Committee was created in 2004 by Jimbo Wales to help deal with the growing number of serious disputes on Wikipedia that he could not moderate alone. Wales wrote in January 2004:

The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values.

In April 2007, Wales confirmed that the committee could overturn any decision he makes in his traditional capacity within Wikipedia. This effectively promoted the Arbitration Committee to the control of the community. Arbiters are directly voted on by the community in a yearly election process. Wales traditionally appoints all the top "winners" by percentage to the open Committee seats, and has not failed to do so; there is no precedent for what may or may not happen if he attempted to overrule the Community on the Election Process and was challenged on such an action. Some may say he has authority to override the community; however, some may say that per Wikipedia's Foundational principles that all matters not interfering with Foundation matters are settled by consensus (the election process) his "appointing" members to the AC may be just a formality of announcing them and no more. In practice, by our traditions, and by our community norms of all matters being settled by consensus, combined with Wales's statement that the Committee has authority over him, it is reasonable to assume that the Committee is now in practice autonomous and answerable only to itself, the Community that selects it, and the Wikimedia Foundation and board itself.

Traditionally, arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed.

Reason for the RFC.

There has never been a Requests for comment (RFC) on the Arbitration Committee itself and its processes. Initially drafted and made by Jimbo Wales, and then modified over time by the Committee itself, it is historically isolated with all major Committee discussion "behind the scenes" over IRC, private e-mail lists, or other means. In recent times, across several cases, and historically, the role, purpose, workload, and function of the Committee has come under growing scrutiny. A major factor for the December 2007 elections was whether or not Arbiter prospects would have the time to perform the duties they were volunteering for. This RFC will provide an opportunity for the Community to interact in a central discussion, to help shape the future of the Committee, and for how it would and could best serve the Wikipedia community.

Signed: Lawrence Cohen | Talk 19:33, 14 March 2008

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

View by Durova

Per request from retiring Lawrence Cohen, I have moved this draft proposal from user space to Wikipedia space. This is a serious step, one which (partly at my request) Lawrence had delayed for several months. I ask all members of the community to proceed with decorum and dignity.

Various matters must come under discussion. I ask all community members to focus on systemic and procedural issues, rather than reopening particular grievances.

Matters worthy of consideration include:

  • Scope of the Arbitration Committee mandate
  • Appropriate circumstances for conducting arbitration cases privately
  • For editors under scrutiny, appropriate means of rebuttal and response
  • Appropriate circumstances for conducting arbitraton case reviews and clarifications privately
  • Appropriate timing for announcement of closed arbitration decisions
  • Decorum and conduct of arbitrators
  • Security and leaks of arbitration committee discussions
  • Scope of the Committee mandate for actions not directly related to sanctions on individual editors

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. DurovaCharge! 00:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. --Barberio (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. — MaggotSyn 06:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. •Jim62sch•dissera! 15:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia's Arbcomm should be striving for "transparency" not secrecy, fairness not "a pox on both your houses", objectivity in the finding of facts not a subjective "close enough, probably" type attitude, and so on.
  6. Yes to all concerns. Ameriquedialectics 15:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. DGG (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. We do need to look at this. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Worth looking at. Kelly hi! 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Open discussion cannot hurt. It's like the marketplace of ideas, First Am. and what not. JeanLatore (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. It is long overdue for the community to take a serious look at this issue, especially in some of its recent decisions/proposed decisions ArbCom has moved towards policy-making. I would say that the question of how and by whom the arbitration policy WP:AP can be modified should be considered as well. Nsk92 (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Time is right for a wide ranging discussion on all the elements listed above RMHED (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Endorse looking at the 8 listed matters worthy of consideration, but there may be other items which should be considered. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Naturally. However, this isn't an exhaustive list. Celarnor Talk to me 01:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. Chetblong (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. Yep, some re-tweaking definitely needed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Review is good. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  19. Doc Tropics 15:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  20. Clear guidelines can only help. Fainites barley 18:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  21. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) - I agree with Fainities.
  22. Neıl 龱 10:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  23. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  24. Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  25. No process ever improves by neglect. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  26. Sensible Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  27. Noroton (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  28. John Smith's (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  29. I strongly endorse looking at all these things. Unless it absolutely can't be, the processes here should be built from the bottom up. Since ArbCom wasn't created in a bottom up way, the community should approve of aspects that are good, and change the aspects that are bad.--SJP Chat 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  30.  RGTraynor  02:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  31. Wizardman 02:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  32. Agreed, regular check-ups are always good idea. --LaPianista! 03:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  33. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  34. Endorse. — Athaenara ✉ 05:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  35. --Michael X the White (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  36. StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  37. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 15:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC). Commonsensical.
  38. -- Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 19:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  39. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  40. Paul August ☎ 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  41. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Statements about what works well in the current Arbitration Committee process

Views specifically about what you feel works well, and/or to the benefit and service of the community, under the current setup that we have.


To see, respond to, or add to the statements and responses in this section: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Statements about what works well in the current Arbitration Committee process.


Statements about what does not work well in the current Arbitration Committee process

Views specifically about what you feel does not work well in the current Arbitration Committee process, and/or to the detriment and dissservice of the community, under the current setup that we have. This is not a forum to air grievances about specific past or present Arbiters, but perceived 'bad' actions may be cited as examples.

Views by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

First view by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

From the moment they are written down, there is a marked unwillingness to change wording of findings of fact and so on, even if part of it is demonstratably in error. For instance, in the "Franco-Mongol Alliance" case, a statement that good faith was presumed persisted, even in light of a statement by the user in question on the talk page that, in order to get around a technical copyvio problem on commons, he would avoid giving the source in future. The arbitrators tend to vote on whether it seems about right, and almost never change votes, leading to flawed and ill-phrased findings, once written down, to not be changed.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. •Jim62sch•dissera! 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Even the Supremes manage to reverse themselves or modify their decisions.
  3. JeanLatore (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC). Clarity and diction of arb cum rulings could improve. JeanLatore (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. The fact that they rarely if ever reverse themselves as new material is presented is prima facie evidence that the current system is broken, or at least not functioning optimally. Any reasonable person would be expected to be judging these cases based on the evidence presented, and the evidence is not presented all at once or even before the voting is commenced many times. Because Arbcomm does not seem to be open to reconsideration of their positions, the procedure does not look to be functioning well.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary:

  1. I would have to disagree with that. Arbitrators do sometimes change their views, but just because they don't more than 50% of the time doesn't mean it's a problem. When giving sentence in the courts, judges don't change their minds halfway through reading judgment. They, like the arbitrators I'm sure, make their minds up beforehand. John Smith's (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Do not endorse because I believe a statement in the Franco-Mongol case was mischaracterized above and that good-faith interpretation was possible there. Endorsing same user's second view below. JJB 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Arbitrators frequently disagree with statements of fact on case pages, or agree with them but amend them in their approval. Besides, I get the feeling that we don't always get to see the debate that goes on. Grandmasterka 04:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. In light of JJB's comments and the lack of evidence presented by Shoemaker's Holiday, I can't endorse this summary. "Presumptions of good faith" are particularly prone to being mischaracterized. I do think that ArbCom should always be open to revising its views in light of the facts -- there has just been no evidence presented that they don't already. II | (t - c) 04:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I've seen dozens of rewordings and changed votes. Whether such numbers constitute too many times or too few, or "a marked unwillingness" or "almost never", I don't know. Paul August ☎ 18:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Second view by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

When mistakes are made, the arbitration committee handles dealing with them poorly. They often insist they were right after all, and refuse to make the simple apologies that would largely solve the problems. Their main alternative, silence as an official response, also does not help matters.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. "Ignore the trouble and maybe it'll go away". Or maybe refusing to validate certain worries with even a prefunctory response will just piss the worriers off even more. Who knows! --Badger Drink (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Endorse because I think the flaw in the Franco-Mongol case was ArbCom's failure to state which evidence it considered probative, rather than the failure alleged by this user; I stated this failure formally during the review of this case and would ask folks like John Smith's to review the review. JJB 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Arbcom's non-responsive response to this whole rigmarole (took week(s) of silence to get it, and to me, it reads like a lot of legalese basically saying "We handled OM the way we handled OM. What do you mean, that sentence is meaningless?" ) has only made this whole thing worse. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary:

  1. I would certainly want to see evidence of this for such a serious allegation - I would have to oppose it in the meantime. John Smith's (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Third view by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

The arbitration committee has several times this year acted in ways that prevented or highly prejudiced a user who was not yet able to give evidence. The OrangeMarlin case came with a statement by FT2 that they did not feel like going through the effort to read the user's evidence: [1]. In the Durova and MatthewHoffman cases, highly prejudicial voting began against the accused before the accused - then administrators in good standing - were able to provide evidence.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I've seen this myself. They've even done some shoot-first-maybe-ask-questions-later proposals that have me concerned. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Barberio (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Filll (talk | wpc) 14:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC) This is atrocious behavior. And editors are called "dogs" and worse, with no apologies, by sitting Arbcomm members.
  5. •Jim62sch•dissera! 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Yep.
  6. Chetblong (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    # (will strike if/when ArbCom confirms the FT2 ruling was bogus) Are we to believe ArbCom had so little trust in their own impartiality and investigative prowess, that they thought Orangemarlin would successfully "smoke" them if he had a chance to defend himself?!? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Struck as promised. According to this official statement, the Committee had agreed that secret action against OM was unwarranted. This is now an FT2 problem, not an ArbCom problem. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Doc Tropics 15:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. The MHoffman case was also out of process (there are other similarities, but I'll refrain from pointing that out here), one of the main differences being that it mostly took place out in the open. R. Baley (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. DGG (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC) This applies generally to all proceedings as well as the one that immediately gave rise to this RfC. It is not moot.
  11. Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC) - it seems to be simptomatic of a broader problem of not closely reviewing the workshop and talk page discussions of evidence. Where much of the real argumentation and explaination occurs.
  12. --Cube lurker (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. Kww (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  14. Very strongly endorse. — Athaenara ✉ 05:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  15. SashaNein (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  16. Endorse re the OrangeMarlin case. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 15:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  17. Strongly endorse. It is surely a basic requirement of any fair legal process that defendants must, without exception, be given a chance to defend themselves. --Merlinme (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  18. This view actually has hard facts to back it up. Grandmasterka 04:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  19. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  20. Nsk92 (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral view:

  1. I lack the knowledge of these cases, but certainly the process must be seen to be applied unless there are exceptional circumstances. John Smith's (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Don't know about this. JJB 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. No idea of what this is. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. That's not how I see the Durova case. The facts in the case were very clear, and the direction we had to go was also pretty clear (though adding Giano issues to the mix muddled things up some). Though some people wanted to extend the case to issues involving the OMG sekrit list, the Committee from the start did not consider the nature of the list germane to the case. We knew what had occurred, and we knew what had to be done, and we did it. I was quite saddened that Durova desysopped herself; we certainly weren't going to do anything of the sort -- we sure don't desysop people for one bad block. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Seeing as you have decided to mention my name, let me join the party. "we certainly weren't going to do anything of the sort -- we sure don't desysop people for one bad block" are you sure that is the truth, jpgordon? So what exactly were you going to do? please don't answer unless you are going to tel the truth. Giano (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    We were going to exactly what we did: recommend strongly she be more careful in the future. Why would we do otherwise? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    You went far beyond recommend strongly, JP. You censured me: the strongest action possible short of restrictive sanctions. And the Committee wrote up and voted upon that while a litany of other accusations against me were in formal evidence--many of which were frivolous--before it was physically possible for me to rebut them. You also allowed the situation to move from the start of RFC to voting over Thanksgiving weekend. Was arbitration even necessary? I had already undone the block with repeated apologies and done my best to make amends; I was demonstrating every sign of having learned from the mistake. Arbitration is supposed to be the final step in dispute resolution when other means fail: you denied those other means the chance of success, then denied me the opportunity to defend myself. DurovaCharge! 00:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    Hm. Clearly I need to re-evaluate what transpired there. Thanks for the correction. (Though it does seem to me the specific language was "admonished"; I guess that might be vague enough that I saw it as a strong suggestion, but you saw it as a censure. I think I'll try to avoid "admonitions" in the future.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Guettarda

Twenty-seven hours after the Orangemarlin "decision" was posted, members of the arbcomm are apparently waiting for FT2 to explain his position. Only Kirill has chosen to speak up. And that's the problem with the arbcomm. I understand how that sort of a culture can develop - after all, everybody criticises their decisions at some time. Shared suffering builds bonds.

While I have disagreed with Jimbo on several occasions, he truly understands the value of keeping the community at large (and the content producers specifically) happy enough that they won't walk away. Too many people miss the fact that the community could evapourate overnight. In the end, it's held together by nothing but goodwill. The arbcomm (among others) seems to have developed a sense of entitlement, a civil service mentality in a volunteer project. And that, I think, poses a problem.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. I too am baffled by the silence of the arbs. Either they agree with FT2 that the postings were made in their name, or they agree with KL that they weren't. There is no need to wait for FT2, they should speak William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Still waiting for lifesigns from the committee... Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Maybe they're all just too busy working on drafting those IRC policies and procedures! --Badger Drink (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Endorse it is taking far too long for the Arbcom members to respond. There have been a few gnomic comments, and pleas for patience, but no visible attempt (that I have seen) to respond to the community's concerns. DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. To the extent the Arbs remain silent and keep this so-called "decision" up, I cannot see how it is possible to maintain confidence in the institution. However, it apparently was their decision, and so it remains their option to rescind. In fact, the only hope for the institution to maintain any credibility in the eyes of many in the community is if they rescind. Otherwise, this RFC will naturally become less a project aimed at reform and more of a project aimed at the ArbCom's abolishment. Ameriquedialectics 15:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Endorse to a limited extent. I can understand why ArbCom would want to wait to make a full statement, and I'm okay with that. However, either the Committee or FT2 need to make a statement confirming the Orangemarlin ArbCom is bogus -- posthaste! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Endorse - I am hugely relieved by Jimbo's recent comments (below), and I agree fundamentally with the points he raised. However, Guettarda's original staement remains a source of significant concern, both short-term and long. Doc Tropics 15:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Partially Endorse - there was certainly a miscommunication between members of Arbcom and the general community. 27 h is much to long to give reports from individual members of Arbcom to their "electorates". Community then could have better understanding what was going on. I think the information blockade was a wrong step. Obviously 27 h is to little to give an official statement of the arbcom signed by a majority of members Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. Endorse. Specifically: "sense of entitlement" / "civil service mentality" may be gratifying for those who experience it but, when the arbitration which the encyclopedia needs is careless or convoluted and delayed, rather than expeditious and thorough, the encyclopedia is indirectly sabotaged. — Athaenara ✉ 06:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. SashaNein (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. --Michael X the White (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. True. I almost never see them on the case except for accepting/rejecting the findings.support

Neutral view:

  1. I would agree that just because it is a weekend doesn't mean arbitrators cannot comment. If they are active on wikipedia they should be able to address a matter. That does not mean they need to drop everything else, but if it is important they should state that they are aware of it. Silence is worrying, but even just saying "hello - yes I see the issue and I will get back on it after some thought" is helpful. John Smith's (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per my comments below. I don;t think thios is as yet indicative of issues, but it is certainly an area where improvement is needed. Hiding T 09:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary

comment while a quicker response would have been preferable, the members of ArbCom ARE volunteers, it IS a weekend, and it IS summer in the northern hemisphere - a time when many people take vacations to get away from things- demands for immediate response are childish. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Response This issue arose on Friday evening, it is now Sunday afternoon. Several arbitrators, including FT2, have been active on wikipedia during that time. We have had no indication of when an explanation will be forthcoming. There is nothing to prevent individual arbitrators commenting on their understanding of or participation in the OM case. DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
If the response by Kirill is any example of how individual statements by ArbCom members will 'help' the situation, it further strenghtens my belief that taking time is appropriate. (reformatting, my response ws not intended to be a direst reponse to DuncanHill.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

  1. I have encouraged the ArbCom to move slowly and thoughtfully. Gather all the facts. Don't have a public argument with each other that confuses people or gives trolls the opportunity to turn more people against each other. Figure out what went wrong, correct it, apologize where beneficial to do so, and build a better framework going forward. You don't get all that done in a weekend, and you don't further that kind of thoughtful and mature process with a hasty statement. I think the important statement has been made: no secret trials, and no convictions without giving the opportunity to present a defense. That's just basic justice, and I will overturn any ArbCom decision to the contrary. (Although, I should point out, there is ZERO chance of the ArbCom doing this in the first place.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    I agree that a thoughtful response is better than a quick one, but if it wasn't for you speaking up we still wouldn't know whether to take FT2 at face value or Kirill. But my main point (which got lost in there) is that the first response from the committee seemed to be "I don't want to say anything until FT2 gets his chance to answer this". Considering the distress that the uncertainty was causing the community, that was the wrong approach. If just one other arb had come out and said something that supported Kirill's version of events, I think a lot of the drama could have been averted. At some point, responsibility to the community should trump everything else. It's great that you are here to reassure the community, but it suggests to me that the arbcomm's culture has become too inward-looking. Guettarda (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment – thanks, Jimbo, that important statement resolves the immediate issue, and we can look forward to a properly considered and measured explanation in due course. . dave souza, talk 14:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    I would be interested in clarification on how Jimbo concludes there is "ZERO chance" of the arbcom producing miscarriage of justice. I can easily think of half a dozen cases where the arbcom has failed spectacularly in "gathering all the facts" (or, since the facts were gathered for them, to grok them). The arbcom has turned into an apparatchik institution that can be routed around by community action in the best case, and that breeds wikilawyering and trolling in the worst. dab (𒁳) 07:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    Circumstances do not always allow one the luxury of time. Let us not forget Howard Macmillan's famous "Events dear boy, events" comment regarding what blew governments off course. Yes the arbitration committee should have the luxury of time to consider how to move forwards, but in the immediate aftermath there should be more than stonewalling or a lack of communication. If the arbitration committee or anyone is afraid of uttering even a bland apology and commitment to rectify whatever issues are at hand in a timely manner because they are afraid of trolls, then the trolls have already won. Nobody is asking for a public argument. Honesty, decency and a commitment to doing the right thing are values that should be expected though. Hiding T 09:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Jimbo has summarised it above. Also, some of the comments I've seen regarding this matter seem to be passing judgement without gathering the facts in the exact same way. If the Committee (as a whole) were to adopt a style of making comments without careful thought, not only would it fail to be be effective in its purpose, but this project would also become a greater failure. Casting aspersions does not help. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. I'm baffled by the suggestion that failure to issue immediate comments (and at a weekend, at that!) is in any way a failing of the committee. It was obviously intentional and equally obviously the correct thing to do. This RFC is full of accusations against arbcom that seem to reflect, rather, failings of perception on the part of the accuser. Where there isn't any urgency, quickfire responses are not to be encouraged. --Jenny (recently changed username) 20:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Agree with Jimbo. ArbCom should discuss its statements and get the facts straight before speaking out all disorganized, and starting more drama. Keep things clean and concise so we can read more interesting things. II | (t - c) 05:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who think brand-new incidents should not receive undue weight:

  1. If this incident happened a month ago and it took 4 days for ARBCOM to acknowledge the problem but it was resolved within a week, it wouldn't be a major issue. Let's focus on problems that are old enough that they clearly indicate a problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. Its size and the constraint of making decisions via email make it extremely difficult for the committee, as a body, to act quickly. Paul August ☎ 17:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to View by Guettarda

My main point was that there's something wrong with the culture of the arbcomm, a problem that was illustrated by the fact that they decided to give FT2 opportunity to respond, leaving it to Jimbo to try to calm the community. The committee is an arm of the community, not a body that's separate from the community. The "solution" that they have come up with shows this even more starkly. Rather than dealing with their own problems (an arb who posts fake "decisions", a major fuck up that allowed it to happen) they just vacate the decision and fast-track the issue. And, to add insult to injury, they don't even bother to abide by the rules they came up with for this case; after posting a statement that says that the arbs will wait 48 hours to decide whether to accept the case or not, Charles votes to accept.

Let's get this straight: giving FT2 a chance to respond was a failing of arbcom in your opinion? On "calming the community", well I think the passage of time, a bit of sleep, and a lot of people waking up feeling a little sheepish about what they wrote last night, has the necessary calming effect. --Jenny (recently changed username) 20:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
FT2 posted a fake "decision". Kirill said as much. But we were left with two conflicting accounts by arbs - all we knew was that one of them wasn't telling the truth. We were left with this pervasive uncertainty while the arbcomm circled the wagons. It would have been pretty simple for any arb to say what Jimbo said - we don't do secret trials. That would have cleared the air while they sorted things out. Instead, they said nothing, forcing Jimbo to intervene. This was a failing on their part - that they prioritised one of their members at the expense of the whole community. Guettarda (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll take this discussion to the talk page. --Jenny (recently changed username) 21:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

View by Tony Sidaway (2)

The Committee is slow to deliberate and slow to act, which can lead to complacency and misunderstandings about policy. While this is balanced by the quality of the decisions, sometimes it doesn't work and sometimes people mistake inaction over time for lack of concern.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I agree though quality of decisions is also sometimes lacking. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. They take WAY to long, ans sometimes, even the quality of the decisions isn't even that good. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

  1. I do not believe that the "quality of the decisions" is sufficient - little care is spent in getting the phrasing of finding of facts right, often times only a few small parts of the evidence is looked at, and the rest ignored, and so on. The situation now, in my opinion, has editors waiting a very long time for a decision far worse and more slapdash than those that seemed to be the norm a few years ago. I don't want to name cases. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I agree with the above. While the writer implies that there isn't a lack of concern, merely an implied one, quotes by ArbCom members saying they "don't want to take the time" to look through the evidence seems to point in another direction. Celarnor Talk to me 08:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Arbcom is intended to be slow and give all the people involved a chance to show their versions of the disputes. There are other avenues for dispute resolution that designed to be fast but with higher possibility of error. Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Agreed that speed is not the arbitration committee's priority. They should aim to get cases progressing whenever they can, but no one likes things to be rushed unless there is a key reason. John Smith's (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose: we really don't need knee-jerk instadecisions from the presiding authority on Wikipedia. Like a number of others, I've gnashed my teeth waiting for ArbCom to make a ruling. However, however much the Internet has fostered the cult of immediacy, what's the rush? Let's get it right, not "right now."  RGTraynor  02:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose: Sidaway's statement is baseless and history demonstrates otherwise; Fact finding requires adequate time to discover and verify relevant facts. Thoughtful decisions require adequate time to discuss facts, propose remedies, and reach a consensus. I add that I have observed some knee-jerk decisions from Tony Sidaway that were definitely not constructive.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. what Fahrenheit451 said. dab (𒁳) 07:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. Some of the responses seem to miss what I interpret as Tony's point. For me, he's not saying we should act hastily or in a knee-jerk fashion; rather, he's saying that our deliberate slowness is sometimes too slow; and regardless, some people get the impression that we don't care. I do think we should be at least somewhat more engaged during the workshop process, to avoid that misconception and the resulting bad feelings. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Kelly

The current view that ArbCom decisions do not set precedent for future decisions is a major problem. I'm not arguing for a full-on application of stare decisis, but the current application lends itself to accusations of arbitrariness and a feeling of unpredictability when bringing questions to WP:RFAR. ArbCom decisions and findings should be able to be relied upon in regards to similar situations. I think this would reduce workload overall - in cases where applications of ArbCom precedent were unclear or controversial, they could be brought back "on appeal" - but admins and others should be able to rely on these decisions as policy wherever necessary.

  • Expansion - it may help if I give an example of my position - if, for example, ArbCom desysops someone for unjustified, unexplained page protections while involved in a dispute, then henceforth, a steward should be able to desysop another admin who commits an identical offense, simply citing Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration/Protection-crazy Admin. If the situation is different or more complex, of course it should go back to ArbCom. But why they should they re-hear cases over and over that involve identical offenses? Kelly hi! 19:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Kelly hi! 17:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Very sensible. DurovaCharge! 18:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Agree - if we find things work (like the national dispute decisions) there should be no need to hold a case for each one of these disputes unless there's a significant difference. Shell babelfish 20:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. With the caveat that they may choose to take a case to clarify, amend or deprecate a previous precedent (which in itself would be a signal to admins/stewards to suspend applying precedent). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Totally support. I brought this point up on WP:VPP recently and was just verbally chastised by various editors for it. JeanLatore (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Indeed. Gizza © 01:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. —Giggy 04:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. A big step toward smooth running and impartial treatment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. I think precedent should not bind (what I think stare decisis means, there's that pesky latin!). This is not a court or system of justice. But it should offer guidance and should be ignored only with some considerable thought and explanation. Hence I endorse Kelly's statement. However to Kelly's addendum, I do NOT agree that a Steward should ever desysop an admin (except in extreme emergency) on their own say-so on a wiki that has an arbcom or an active community. Regardless of precedent. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Certainly. LaraLove|Talk 16:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Definitely --Chetblong (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. a bit of restraint on what constitutes a precedent, but yes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. Works in real life (see common law), can work here. 5:15 00:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  18. Partially Endorsed - agree that precedents are important. Maybe Arbcom could list for a case all "precedents". Still every case is different one sysdamin locked a page he made a major rewrite a day go, another only fixed a few typos a year ago, the third may lock the page in the version opposite to his own during an article RFC, the fourth only did semiprotection, the fifth locked an article due to BLP issues, etc. Every case is different. Thus, mechanical application of remedies from a precedent is impossible. Still there should be similar punishments for similar crimes Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  19. Even before reading this statement I've believed that ArbCom rulings should set a precedent. We should look at cases for guidance, but we shouldn't blindly follow precedent. We should give this a try, but if people start to blindly follow it, we should strike it down.--SJP Chat 22:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  20. Partially Endorsed: I agree with the concept, but think there should be an associated noticeboard for all such actions to be reviewed by the community.
    Kww (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  21. Endorse in the main. — Athaenara ✉ 06:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  22. Largely Endorse. There should be some clear process where precedents are recorded for use in future cases. A couple of caveats: 1) The ArbCom is not infallible, so these may need to be over-ridden by community action on some occasions. 2) A future ArbComm might disagree with the previous ruling, which is fine as long as it gives its reasons. But in general, it should be reasonable to expect broadly similar circumstances to lead to broadly similar results. --Merlinme (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

  1. A certain way to make things even worse. The commission is chosen because of their presumed ability to take account of the specific circumstances, and goes into great detail for each particular case. They do in general try to follow previous decisions by first declaring the principles at stake. No great art is actually necessary here, for the rules of behavior are well understand--though certainly not equally well followed. The difficulty is to apply this to individual cases. The ones where mechanical or obvious action is needed do not usually come to arb com. For the example Kelly mentions "desysopping someone for unjustified, unexplained page protections while involved in a dispute," a good deal depends on the circumstances. We rightly do not desysop for a single mistake unless it is clear that the person intends to set the rules at defiance--as has indeed sometimes happened. What we do in a case like this is unprotect the page and everyone at ANB/I slaps with a tout, and the person normally has learned better. If someone persists in it, then it is another matter--but still the question is to desysop altogether or suspend. This should not be mechanically applied. I think the quarrel here is over specific applications to individuals, where some of us may feel that arb com was too harsh or not harsh enough. (I think so too--the problem is we won't agree on just which one were wrong and in which direction.) That's why discretion is needed. If the present group is interpreting against the wishes of the community ,others will be chosen. To have a subsidiary officer do it following what he conceives as precedent is fairly sure to make things worse. There are no identical offenses here. DGG (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I think more use of things like "precedent" is a step backward in adapting arbcom to a changing community (we want it to change and then hold as still as possible?). While I have no problem with ArbCom making policy as part of their decisions, I don't think it should be a requirement. Cases should be decided on their own circumstances. Mr.Z-man 20:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. The problem with the idea of formalizing the "precedents" approach is that it squarely moves ArbCom into the realm of making new policy, and what is worse, creates two independent venues for policymaking (regular WP policy/guideline change and approval process on one hand and ArbCom decisions on the other hand). If we had a stable system of laws, where policies are changed very rarely, going by formal precendent might concievably work. But WP policies are very fluid and change quickly. How is one supposed to resolve differences between ArbCom precedents and decisions and between subsequent WP policy changes? Which ones have priority and who and how is going to decide this and reconcile these differences? Sounds rather like a recipe for a disaster to me. Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. No. In a nutshell: we throw too many bones to wikilawyering already. --Jenny 23:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Absolutely not. The Arbitration Committee is supposed to be an ugly and undesirable last-resort method to force a resolution to even uglier problems when conventional dispute resolution is failed. Previous decisions by the arbitration committee are not a short-circuit to dispute resolution in future cases, and we don't need admins citing previous ArbCom decisions as if they were SCOTUS rulings. Common sense is the only law on Wikipedia. We don't need a court system to systematize common sense for us; the lawyering that results only gets in the way of building an encyclopedia. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Surely the committee is free to make decisions as they feel are necessary? In the real world courts are only bound by those of the higher courts - those on the same level disagree all the time. Also arbitrators get replaced - it would be unfair to have the earliest ones bind all future ones. I see where the proponents of this are going but it's a bit too problematic for my view. John Smith's (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Sorry Kelly, I usually agree with most of the comments you make, but not this. Since I have been editing on Wikipedia, I have seen nothing come from the Arbitration Committee that is inspiring or profound. In fact, I have seen nothing that makes me believe anyone of them, or the group as a whole, is even qualified to mediate, let alone set precedent. - Epousesquecido (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. I appreciate the thought in theory, but in practice, this is a horrible idea. The best way to perpetuate and multiply the damage done by a sloppy arbcom decision. dab (𒁳) 07:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Precedent should never over-ride the merits of an individual case. We have always taken each case on its own merits, from article deletion through to editor behaviour. Basing decisions on past precedent has its own minefields, as can be seen in legal systems around the world. Our system is no less flawed, but it is ours and works better than the alternatives. Hiding T 09:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. An extraordinarily bad idea. ugen64 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. I'm not against precedent setting but these should only be used by arbcom as a rationale for its own decisions. One of the problems with using precedents is that no two situations are ever exactly alike. Giving admins the additional authority to judge how 'alike' one situation (the new event) is with another (the precedent) is a bad idea because it not only expands admin powers but it also could, and will, lead to more endless discussions on the validity of particular admin actions. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. Precedent setting makes decision making to tedious and pressured. The particulars of case are important, and AC can change it's mind as well. I don't see it as some sort of "supreme court". Aaron Schulz 18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. As others have said, this is a horrible idea. I don't want to have to hire "Wikipedia lawyers" who have been thoroughly trained in "Wikipedia case law". Next we'd have "Wikipedia judges", who are formally certified in their knowledge of ArbCom case law. No way. I have enough of a load on my back trying to be an active, informed citizen of my community. If ArbCom does want to make policy, they can do it the way that anyone else does: through the Village Pump, and through the editing of our existing policy pages. II