Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alison (talk | contribs) at 05:52, 25 November 2007 (→(5): comment re. VK and the "Troubles" case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Index

Index

(I) What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? ... If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? (user:east718) Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it? (user:east718) Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why? (Wanderer57) Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused? (Heimstern) What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate? (Heimstern) What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them? (Heimstern) When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson? (Heimstern) Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban? (Heimstern) Two recent cases, Allegations of apartheid and THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Misplaced Pages. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current. What should be done in such a case? (Piotrus) Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in? (Piotrus) If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages? (Piotrus) Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer? (Piotrus) How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR? (AniMate) Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? (Jd2718) To what degree (if at all) should ArbCom look at and treat administrators differently from non-administrators? (Jd2718) Disputes over nationalist conflicts involving multiple editors make up a large chunk of ArbCom business. Why? Do these topics, articles, or editors need to be treated differently in some way by ArbCom? by the community? (Jd2718) If you were granted the power to change exactly one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, would you? Which? (Jd2718) Can you point to a dispute (could have been at ArbCom or Mediation, or even on a talk page) that you've gone into (as an involved party or 3rd party) with a strong opinion, but had that opinion change in the course of discussion? (Jd2718) Why did you enter this significantly after nominations had opened? (I know it sounds accusatory, really isn't meant that way) Is the extended nomination period somehow unfair? (Jd2718) Without specific reference to yourself or other candidates, what qualities, characteristics, or experiences do you think we should be looking for in an arbitrator? Would you view a history of involvement in dispute resolution as an involved party to be a reason to consider a candidacy for ArbCom unfavorably? (Jd2718) Last year the community nominated what looked like a solid bunch of Arbitrators. Yet 10 months later it turns out that several had very spotty levels of ArbCom activity. Do you think that this was at all predictable? And if so, how? (Jd2718) I've seen it written that to be a good arbitrator, a WPian needs to first be a good editor. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment? Do you distinguish between the relative importance of different types of WP work? (Jd2718) Are you 18? 38? 68? Are you a student? Do you have an occupation that lends itself to allowing you time to be involved in ArbCom?

Question from I

(1)

1. What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? I (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, arbitration works well. So I wouldn't want to change it wholesale. But there are several edges that it's probably common consensus can be improved and would be widely appreciated to improve. First - A first priority has to be "don't leave it worse". That means, for example, in the haste to fix a perceived problem, don't leave it actually with more serious problems for 2009 to fix. Don't let what does work well at December 2007, slip -- and in many ways, a lot does work well. Speed and responsiveness - Then, look at it from users viewpoint. I see a few key areas where some kind of change could be possible, and in which many wish change would happen. Speed and responsiveness is a big one. I work in business, and I'm used to starting in january with a team that feels a 30 day turnaround is about fine, and by June we're working to a turnaround under half of that. Likewise, we've got used to a 6-8 week turnaround on some cases. There's no reason for more than 4, and in many cases we should be able to break 2 or 3 if we discuss and agree how to case-manage them, the timings and processes to establish, and so on. Probably there needs to be discussion within arbcom (who know what the issues are for real) and also communal discussion of the suggestions (to get consensus that allow improvements). I've discussed this with several of the other candidates already, it seems that thoughts of these kind will be held by more than one person. How it works out is down to human nature and interia, but in either case, 1/ I'll be using the skills I have to try and do so, and 2/ if it can't be done I'll be fine summarizing factually, an overview on why not, because the community will deserve to know why a body it has delegated to, isn't delivering as people believe possible -- whether to fix it, collaborate to agree a better way, or at least understand why it wasn't practical. Arbcom is answerable to the community, not the other way round. Transparency and accessibility (= communication and contact) - can probably be improved. Or at least, the perceptions of these can. Arbcom and its members work phenomenally hard. The cases, and the additional invisible problems by email, are a very heavy workload, enough to burn out many experienced committee appointees in a few months. A lot of what Arbcom does must be and remain, a "black box". But this does not mean "set aside communication and explaining". In a way, communication is one of the most important things one can do. Good communication seriously quells disputes, heals divisions, assures all parties they are heard and respected, prevents people feeling that arbcom is "remote" and un-clued-in, explains how good decison making works and what policies mean, and a dozen other things. As an administrator when I started working on AFD, I began the habit of writing full length closes. They were wordy, they were long... but they worked. Over and over, people in the most contentious disputes commented afterwards that they felt it had helped, made sense, clarified what would otherwise have been assumed to be a biased decision by some side or other that it really was carefully considered and so on. It worked in the toughest disputes, almost as routine, it was appreciated by those declined as much as those supported, it took people who were flaming and helped them get to "I understand now", even if they didn't always like it. So I think Arbcom can communicate better, just because I know I do so and have done so, and I'm seeing what it achieves. Not unduely, or to breach privacy, but simply to bridge the gap non-arbcom editors sometimes have felt and described (despite arbcom's best efforts), of communication, contact, and trust. Decisions in tough cases - I'm told in a few cases, the committee, like the community, was split and indecisive. That's to be expected, but a direction, principles and ultimately a decision must be found in such cases, and this must be a decision that gains wide respect from the community. Again, its down to insight, draftsmanship and focus, and that's an area where I have a significant advantage - I've done the drafting for an unusually large number of policy pages, disputes, and sensitive complex matters, a fair bit of my offline life is spent figuring out "whats really going on/what might help this work" in problems, and I think I can help a lot there by simply doing the "donkey work" such as drafting and case summarizing, which I do already on tough matters. I find a good case summary and analysis makes a decision almost obvious, in many cases. If you want a few examples, let me know. Conduct while a case is being heard - in cases of habitual bad conduct and edit warring, problem users often get an effective 'free hand' from Arbcom to persist, while the case is considered and discussed. Its good evidence of conduct, but a case just doesn't (or shouldn't) be accepted at arbcom without good evidence there's a problem already. So there's a limit how much it's helpful to allow more. Especially, people come to arbcom specifically to have problem behavior dealt with. I'd not mind seeing Arbcom issue brief warnings and then temporary injunctions, in cases where there's ongoing escalation or continuing misconduct by an involved party during the case. People can die waiting for the ambulance, so to speak. Or in Wiki terms, become disheartened waiting whilst the bad conduct continues. We can do better, I think, by ensuring once a case is accepted, the worst ongoing abuses (if any) will be addressed even as the case is heard, and not (apparently) ignored. Process and administration - There's a question if the committee is operating the best way - right number of people, right length of appointment, right handling of absence, and so on. I've participated in that discussion so far, and will in future. The questions are things like - does arbcom have the capacity for its present workload? Does it have enough spare capacity not to burn all its members out? Should there be more non-arb checkusers? Should arbcom run two or more "circuits" or should it have one as at present? Should stay on arbcom reduce to a year or two, can members take a break, and what process is used to replace people temporarily or permanently? If someone is absent, how long do we let a case be held up? Is it taking on tasks it shouldn't, or not handling any it should? Things like that. I'm as much on the arb mailing list as you; so I would have my own understanding to gain from those with experience before forming too many fixed opinions. Again, this is what I do for a living, so I'm comfortable looking for ways to help it be better. Standing of committee - Last, one other for now (there's more but these seem to be some of the main ones). The last one is, does arbcom have a role just as a jury/judge in disputes and an advisor in sensitive matters? Or does it also have a de facto leadership role of setting certain directions for the community? In what areas should arbcom have more "say", or less, and who can override who? That sort of thing. I think arbcom's done very well here, but the relationship between committee and community is always going to be one to watch. What does the community expect arbcom to be? I would never say that was "all". Like the community and project, Arbcom grows, matures and changes. It may have internal processes none of us see that prevent it doing its job at times, for example. It has a range of people who must work together. So the above is said with certainty that if I sat down 3 more minutes I'd find another few ideas, and knowing that many people's top wishes aren't on that list. (There's one to do with sensitive information handling which I know is going to be discussed, but I don't know if it's my place to more than allude to it right now, for example. Another is whether editors who through no fault of their own have been attacked or smeared unfairly in cases that come to arbcom, are sufficiently vindicated by arbitration, or whether more needs doing from this direction. A third is in cases themselves, whether fact findings and remedies are always well chosen.) But if the January committee do no harm, leave it no worse, and do address some of these kinds of things effectively during their time, then we'll have been good custodians the coming year and have improved.

Thanks, a good question to start with. FT2 06:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions by east718

(2)

1. Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?

I've answered a fair bit of the "what do I think about arbcom (including case duration) and what would I do" above (1). Take a look, and if you want me to expand on any part of that comment, do let me know, I'll be glad to :) Do Arbcom act too hastily, and facets get dropped...? I'd like to say that on the whole, arbcom seem remarkably balanced at what they do, especially given the complexity of the cases they look at. However this isn't a single-sided question; the question covers several points: Do arbcom get it right, but fail to communicate this, so that people perceive an error of judgement? Are some errors in fact legitimate differences of interpretation, or application of good faith? Do arbcom take the decisional view that rulings aren't expected to be perfect (given the pressures and complexity) but can be reviewed if needed, whilst users expect perfect insight? Are case pages so messy by the time all evidence and counter-accusations are presented, that it's not clear where a decision has come from or if it's well informed? Do arbcom have their own views and criteria to measure what constitutes "successful/appropriate case handling", so that the targets they work to are slightly different to the broader community's? (Ie, with more experience comes hopefully, wisdom in deciding what a "successful" handling might be, what matters, and what doesn't. Conceivably facets might well be dropped through wisdom and clear thinking, and not error, in some cases.) In some cases, is there non-public evidence involved, so that what seems unusual from outside is a partial view? (By its nature, decisions based on such evidence may not be capable of informed review by other editors; this is a communal status quo with high buy-in though.) Are cases well-assessed for acceptance or rejection? (It's easy to look at cases once accepted; what about the acceptance decision though?) Last, the genuine concern: are there cases where significant aspects or points of principle are missed, misunderstood, or mis-assessed by arbcom, or poor judgement arises in the proposals and decisions, that are not covered by any of the above? The striking thing is that 6 of these 8 essentially speak to communication and communications failure, rather than case errors. Most of these can easily be stated, discussed, and reassured, rather than left to create silences and perceptions of concern to others. So quick answers to the above: 1. Perception and communication In my own experience, there are regularly cases where the involved parties don't seem to be reassured that arbcom did a good job (even if they did). Cases come to arbitration after a long history of stress, and good faith parties usually want above all, reassurance of good handling and a good final resolution. So if we can reduce stress and reassure people better, then we should. This is a matter of communication as much as decision-making, and I think arbcom could do a lot better at communication. Reassurance and certainty aren't trivial if you're in an arbcom case, and if users did have a serious concern something's been overlooked, we can certainly explain why it was handled that way, or look into it further. There are routes for such communication, but they're not adequately used. Personal example - communication    Taken from the 'Attachment Therapy' arbitration case (DPeterson and socks, July - Aug 2007) One experience of this I saw close-up this year was in the DPeterson and socks case (July 2007) where the sock-warrior was allowed to run rampant with untruthful smears and personal attack and misrepresentation, and yet no proposals were being added to clarify that arbcom realized this. In fact Arbcom almost didn't communicate at all, in the case. It would not do harm to be more communicative. As a result the good-faith parties I was helping (and myself) were in fact left very concerned that they actually didn't understand the complex evidence, or were going to be bamboozled by this editor or handle him hopelessly inadequately. A 1 year ban proposal also gave the editors new to arbcom much concern, because from where they stood, they saw only that this was a dedicated warrior who wasn't going to change, and interpreted the result to mean Arbcom grossly underestimated his virulence. What was missing was an explanation that there had been understanding, but that a years ban would be rather tougher than it seemed, and the community would handle the rest. Had I not explained, the parties concerned would have taken this impression of Arbcom with them. So a lot of the concern over "dropped facets" in some cases are actually avoidable, and based on poor cross-communication. I made a start on this by writing Arbitration policy/Case handling which explained these kinds of things for newcomers to Arbitration. The rationale was, as a non-arbcom member I couldn't make arbcom communicate better; but I could aim to ensure people visiting arbcom knew what to expect and why, and were therefore less worried by some features of current case handling. If appointed, communication during the case (a willingness to consider questions regarding handling, progress, and where it's at, for example) is something I'm fairly sure I can improve, and would remove much stress from a lot of cases. 2. Are cases wrongly accepted or rejected Yes, I think so. I'm going to put myself on the line a bit, noting at least two cases I felt were accepted wrongly. In each there was either no case, or no case needing Arbcom attention. With a clear statement, this could have been explained. One was the BJAODN "Wheel war" case (later dropped following my suggestion), and the other was Sadi Carnot. I feel the Sadi Carnot case could easily have been handled at ANI and probably got rapid consensus, if Arbcom had explained why they felt this. The problem in this case was that people jumped hard, and it escalated quickly, and once there was a block, unblock and differing views, it was sent directly to Arbcom as "divisive". In fact within a fairly short time it became obvious that there hadn't been wheel warring (by consensus definition), there weren't major problems, this was actually a pretty straightforward COI/POV pusher who had been mismanaged and then suddenly became a major headline. I'm not very happy at the ruling or lack of prior discussion either, but that's a different matter; and note it may easily have eventually come to a ban or long term block by other routes too. I wrote a full analysis of the background of the case, and evidence to back this, at the point it was looking to be accepted by arbcom, and I still feel this case (if returned with explanation to ANI) would have been adequately handled there, at that point. There was no great difficulty or complexity to suggest that Arbcom was really needed. That said, it's better to accept a case in error than reject one in error. 3. Do facets actually get overlooked (I) It's almost inevitable that some will be. These are complex cases and the evidence is often very long and disputed. Arbcom aren't lawyers or legal draftspeople, so rulings and such do occasionally have gaps. Evidence of this can be found in cases that return for clarification, or "fixing" of rulings. I think arbcom would argue that in many cases, the ruling isn't expected to be perfect; rather it's expected to give enough that if the problem continues it can always be reopened for further review. That's speculative but would make sense. Obviously one prefers to get it 100% at once, but cases are complex enough that I can see "do what we can readily do, and accept if its still a problem later" having been deemed a plausible strategy in some cases. I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with less than high quality decisions, but even on Arbcom one would expect different approaches. Again, communication would help; it would help if people were aware, so there wasn't this concern over it. There is no real reason not to be more forthcoming about the basis on which cases have been assessed and allegations considered, it need not be drama-inspiring, and tends to unite rather than divide. 4. Do facets actually get overlooked (II) Does arbcom ever get it totally wrong? I'd be amazed if they didn't, at times. But rarely, and usually fixably. The canonical example here is a warrior who is skillful enough that they can pull the wool over arbcom, or the evidence is confusing beyond the ability of other parties to present, or where frustration by the other party has led to both being less than perfect actors. There have been cases where a clearer statement was wanted and there's been a sense of "we're back where we started without any further help", or where all parties are told to start from fresh, and this seemed to some like an error of judgement, and there have certainly been rulings that (in retrospect) were inadequately drafted and needed fixing, but these tend to work out in the end. I don't think "hastily" is a word most would use on arbcom cases, and it does tend to have a significant payoff: - cases where the actual case has miscarried significantly in the end, are not in fact that common. I'm not aware of any that immediately come to mind. Hope that helps! FT2 05:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(3)

1. Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why?

Thanks, east.718 at 06:20, November 21, 2007

Two recent cases come to mind: Allegations of apartheid The findings in Allegations of apartheid were obviously a source of problem to the Committee. Several sets of proposals were presented by Arbitrators seeking to pin down the best proposed wordings, but although arbitrators were able to identify what was wrong with various wordings, they found it exceptionally hard to propose a wording that was right. One need only to look at the "opposes" on the proposed decision page to see the issues identified in different approaches. For example, when I reviewed the proposals, it was clear the proposed principle on IAR (2) was not in fact anything like a good representation of the "limits of IAR", and finding of facts 2 , 3 , 4, and 6, all floundered because, although the findings centered around using article creation and AFD to make a point, the committee hadn't thought to lay the groundwork for this by including a principle on what the AFD process was, and how it was to be used. As a result several proposals -- including all remedies -- floundered after that, because they couldn't find a way to clarify the concern neutrally from all sides. A proposal for a general amnesty also floundered, and rightly so, because it was clear that significant untoward conduct had taken place that needed specific comment. I tried to add some help by drafting a better set of proposals for the problematic area, but in the end Arbcom just didn't seem to find a way to address the case. The end result was the case was effectively dismissed because Arbcom couldn't work out what to say... which is so far from ideal that I'm almost at a loss. For example, the case lingered for almost three months (11 weeks) in committee, with not one principle or finding of productive output as a result. The matter was ultimately deemed closable as "being resolved by the community", but this does not equate to any "success" for the arbitration process. Some general findings and measures might have been suggested for this significant dispute. Arbcom is there precisely to help guide a resolution to such matters, and the general principles that led to this case arising were not, in my view, as well addressed as they could have been. I'm not aware of any novel or off-wiki issues that were relevant. It was not an exceptionally complex case to need such indecision. Sadi Carnot This case was an editor who was, clearly, a link pusher, with COI, SPAM and POV/"own theory" issues, going back to 2005 or earlier and a previous account. Unquestionably there were genuine issues and concerns. The problem was that the case was "railroaded" (I think the term is) - ie, it wasn't a concern, no formal or informal talk page warning had been given under this or his last account, and then suddenly the user was blocked as a major case, leading to dispute over the fairness of this, arbitration, and ban. I got involved because it didn't seem that the case history was clearly summarized and therefore it was getting heated rather than fairly considered. (When I reviewed it, it became clear that there had indeed been serious defects in the prior handling of this editor, including a complete lack of previous warning or attempt to seek resolution, or discuss the matter on his talk page, and his block log was clear under both accounts .) The upshot was that SC was rapidly banned (3 weeks) for a year at Arbcom. I disagree with this ruling on several scores: The case should not have been accepted. The issue was lack of good case handling in the past, of a COI link pusher, not wheel warring or major difficulty (the contributors at ANI had actually sorted out that aspect already), and ANI can handle those very well. A comment to the efect: Reject - talk to the user, warn the user, and if the problem continues address the usual way, does not presently need arbcom involvement would have done the job just as well. The community is more than able to handle such actions by COI users. (Principle: Where the community can handle it with a gentle nudge, and no overriding principle is at issue to be decided upon, Arbcom should not as a rule take the case over, but allow the community to handle it and learn.) There had been no dispute resolution, nor warnings, nor an overriding "unusual" divisiveness amongst administrators at that point (WP:RFAR refers and a brief "reject" note would have explained this) - acceptance was contrary to arbcom norms. The decisions focussed on SC's actions only; there was no mention of the community's failing to warn him, and in fact he had never been formally warned. (Principle: Even as a pusher and the like, arbitration should reflect fairly on all, even on long term "editors of concern", and not make one side seem more wrong than they are, or the other side less at fault than they were. All sides need to be advised if they could have done better, and cases neutrally summed up.) Arbcom did not seem to investigate the background to the case effectively, or if they did the ruling doesn't show it - a piece of research that took me a couple of hours to collate. The decision did not comment on any of the mishandling that had gone on that had led to this. For example, there was 1/ no affirmation that a user who breaches norms should be warned, if the matter is not so heinious as to deserve immediate block/ban. It didn't note that 2/ vague comments at AFD some time ago are not sufficient to count as "warning", nor the corollary that 3/ users are expected to "get a clue" even if not "officially warned". These are all valid things that might have been noted, and reflect on the root of the case. There was no comment regarding the apparent rush to paint SC blacker than was fair and to also marginalize well-founded concerns of evidence and fairness raised by reputable users, by some users at ANI, nor suggestion that there might be lessons to be learned for future ANI handling of "known problem editors". This is a very obvious finding, and a concern that is likely to happen again at some point, so a somber comment on good and bad case handling (and the need for the former) would have helped. My main concerns therefore were 1/ the lack of fairness to the user, 2/ the taking over of the case from the community without real cause, instead of directing the community to fix the mishandling and treat it as usual, and 3/ that Arbcom must be willing to note if there is fault on behalf of the community, for many reasons (fairness, lessons, future reference when reassessing the banned user, etc). Following the ruling, the old account was "blocked as a sockpuppet" (and added to "Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sadi Carnot"), which would tend to make SC seen as a user of prohibited puppetry in future, even though in fact the accounts had been used completely in line with WP:SOCK (last contribs of Wavesmikey to any article/talk page Dec 15 2005, first contribs of SC Dec 27 2005), the old account was almost 2 years previously, and I had pointed this out in my "outside view". There is no guarantee that SC would not have been rapidly warned, blocked, and reblocked longer, and so on, if left to the community. He may well have been, and the community has that power. The community mood these days is less tolerant of people who are unlikely ever to contribute positively to the project, if they cannot be brought into a more positive style. But that's fair, if he had continued. This serious decision, in the face of our mishandling as a community, was not.

Thanks for a couple of good questions! FT2 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wanderer57

(4)

Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?

(Just to be clear. Some candidates wondered if my question was "aimed at them". I'm asking all candidates the same generic question; it is not aimed at anyone.)

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Conduct RFC is a page that always catches my eye, even though I don't usually see a need to comment on it. The format:- Allegation, Evidence, Desired change, Certifiers, Response, and then the freedom for anyone in the community to comment on views or add a fresh view of their own, is one of our most open dispute handling formats. For that reason it often ends up one of the most likely to be fair; in and of itself it simply collates views, and tests consensus on different interpretations and views, in a very open manner that doesn't show obvious bias to any given person. The results show the range of conclusions reached, which is healthy - it's what one would expect such a forum to deliver if running well. Since by itself (and unlike ANI) it doesn't usually result in sanction, it allows the "silent majority" of fair and balanced users to show their views. A possible weakness is in complex cases, or where it's hard to tell which of two sides is right or wrong (or both, or neither), but since conduct RFC is simply a forum for views, even then it's usually helpful, since extra views do indeed get raised, which help in future progression of the case. In a problem, sometimes just having others' input this way can help and reassure a good-faith user, that they have some backing within the wider community that they have acted well or their concerns are endorsed, and also feedback on anything they are doing that might best change. To me, one thing thats highly noticable in conduct RFC is the way that even if earlier statements (or some statements) are non-neutral, as the RFC progresses, other more balanced voices tend to kick in and get support. In that manner, it's reasonably self-correcting, which is highly desirable. Examples: RFC/Ryulong (July - Aug 2007) - one can see the wide range of responses, from many different angles. But notice how Ryulong has a good chance to justify his actions, or at least present evidence in that regard, and one can see two credible administrators concurring (demon, mackensen)... then a comment on the position of warning in block placement and whether the zeal was excessive... a concern that this was noted at RFA and was ignored then... a view on proxy blocking norms... a placement of the blocks in context and an assessment of where the problem might be... and so on. RFC is doing exactly what it should, and anyone reviewing the case has a clear idea the range of views and evidence, and how credibly they are endorsed. RFC/Alkivar (July - Aug 2007, taken to Arbcom Oct 2007) - A past miscommunication between Durova and Alkivar that led to concerns is part cleared up when the material is raised at RFC... an outside view that the case was raised maliciously or in bad faith... a "WP:COOL" haiku... a comment that everyone gets heated now and then, and that other admins are worse (which I note was followed up with request for details)... a comment that nobody comes out of the case looking good and the focus should be on improving the project, advising self-examination by the parties... a comment that takes up the diffs which disparage non-admins and criticizes it (correctly) as completely out of ordser and mistaken... RFC/Dbachmann (2) (Nov 2007) - A name I recognize from being asked to investigate the actions of User:Deeceevoice at Afrocentrism. One could not review that dispute without noticing Dbachmann being a regular on that article, as are users Deeceevoice and Futurebird. The RFC is certified and endorsed by 6 users, some of whom I recognize as being associated with concerns over POV pushing and edit warring. Despite its origins in a complex edit war with POV and fringe pushing involved, the comments seem remarkably suited to give an experienced reader (who doesn't know those involved) a good insight into the problems. The good and bad of all is presented and can be assessed. It seems that by its nature conduct RFC usually does its job. Its job is not to "judge" or "rule" on cases, but 1/ to seek comments and gain insight from the community as a whole, what others feel, and 2/ to solicit independent inspection, and what uninvolved parties see as important in the case. In most cases it does this job very well. It is well visited, with a range of results suggestive of genuine openness, and insightful varied responses in most cases. As a result, an outsider reading a conduct RFC in most cases will rapidly get a good "sense of the community" and the different interpretations, issues and perspectives that exist. This is the aim of RFC, for the community, and for the involved parties on both sides. The main source of harm (as with any process) is when RFC is used as a means of harassment or to misrepresent others or put them in a bad light. I'm going to suspect from what Ive seen, that in fact when this is tried, the community response usually is fairer than the harasser would wish. Nevertheless Im sure there are times it is abused, or goes wrong. One exceptional case I got involved in was the banned sock-user DPeterson, who (as reported at this RFC, May 2007) had himself created an exceptional six conduct RFCs between October 2006 and May 2007, as part of his pattern of harassment against people opposing him in his edit wars . Most of DPeterson's accusations at Arbitration were untenable, spurious, and in bad faith; there is no reason to suspect these were any different. The cases were stuffed full of DIFFS and CITES. If RFC were easily misled then these would be examples to check, being 6 cases over 8 months. In fact apart from his own socks, not one of the six cases he tried to raise and accuse others of misconduct, gained support, and many gained no support at all despite the regular "sock-supporting-sock" activity from his own other accounts. I'm sure that cases where conduct RFC goes bad do happen. But the format of the page mitigates against it strongly, and I'm not personally aware of any that did in fact go wrong as such. If you come across any, please do let me know - I'd want to take a look.

Thanks for a good question! If you want my comment on any specific case/s, just ask :)

FT2 05:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern

My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.

(5)

1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?

General overview - I have been handling the kind of edit warriors who end up at Arbcom since 2004. I took my first POV/attack warrior through RFC, mediation and (with approval of the ex-mediator and after seeking community agreement) to Arbitration and a topic ban, within 5 months of joining the project. Since then I've dealt with several others. My general philosophy is roughly - be civil, extend chances and choices - but at the end of the day they need to learn to work collaboratively, and work with others neutrally and honestly, or its doubtful there will be a place for them here. We're writing an encyclopedia, not providing general forum services. However within that there are many places judgement is needed (the 'factors' in your question): Openness to change - Some are amenable to change, and just have a hard time getting the point, but are open to good support and advice if offered. Others seem not to be. So in many cases users identified by some person as "edit warriors" can be reasoned with, while others one ultimately concludes can't. Positive contributions - Some warriors have a record of valid contributions as well, or edit in other areas where they act well. Others seem to be editing just as another website to push their views on the world. (I've actually co-written an article with a hostile edit warrior; many of his views were extreme, but his knowledge of the science of it was actually invaluable to the final article, even if it was difficult getting agreement on balanced wordings and removing some more extreme points.) Types of problematic behavior - Some have specific behaviors that if inhibited would address the visible problem without needing harsher measures (revert parole is one example). Virulence/nature of activity - There is a sense of virulence - the active harm done. Not all edit warriors are the same. Some just write tendentiously, but others are actively into personal attack, and more heavy duty warring. In some ways the ones who just grind down a topic are harder for other editors to deal with - user:Ludvikus on Philosophy (and possibly some behaviors described in the current Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 clarification case) come to mind - because they aren't actively attacking, they just make good editing impossible. (Which should not be underestimated either, it's also capable of being extremely damaging by driving off editors, stonewalling problem texts for months, preventing movement or collaboration, etc.) Honesty - Some editor warriors are 'honest' - they have their point or perspective, and argue it. Many articles have actually benefited from this range of perspectives, and the users have eventually been gotten to collaborate over time in some. But some are more dishonest - sock use, gaming the system, subtle mis-citing, refusal to get the point, and so on. Patience - Some editors may be seen as "not worth the trouble" by the community, and are referred to arbcom due to exhausted patience, even if their actions individually are not extreme ones. General situation - It's also a factor how complex the situation is. Some cases its one clear 'warrior', others its two 'sides' and their proponents... some cases are a near-hopeless train wreck of hostility with a few sane voices trying to stem the tide (a number of nationalist cases and almost perrenial edit wars come to mind). Effect on editorial environment - Last, although by no means a comprehensive list of 'factors', I'd put the factor that almost sums up the others - effect on the editorial environment. Our editorial environment is how we use the community we have, to write the content we're aiming for. So the acid test of any editor is to look simply at their impact on the editing environment. I think that's a fair "first take" at factors to consider - their 'modus', honesty, impact, virulence, ability to change, and nature of contribution. Obviously each case varies. But as the above makes clear, there are many factors, and so it's to be expected each case varies. It's a judgement, and that's essentially what arbcom is empanelled to do - make judgements based on evidence how to handle difficult editors. Ultimately cases reach arbcom because the problem is one of the 15 - 35 a month requests (5 - 12 a month accepted in 2007) that the community feels can't be handled without a direct ruling. So with the understanding that no description can be exact, I'll try and describe my handling. Degree of accomodation - We can accomodate (to a fair extent and if they agree) those who are learning our ways, and often use means such as parole and supervised editing, or topic restrictions to do so. NPOV and CIVILity isn't a stance that people always have initially, so some people take a long time to learn these and we aim to allow positive contribution without "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". But there are those who continually fail or show little sign of wishing to be a positive member of the community, or aren't able to employ the neutral point of view and respect of others input which is essential for article writing, and in a significant number of arbcom cases the ruling therefore focuses on protection via removal rather than reform. Personal approach - I've used both supportive discussion, and firm statement of policy, often together. As a result, I routinely can get the respect of edit warriors and "problem editors" and at times this has helped. Virulent edit warriors though often don't change easily if at all. I look to communicate and keep trying to communicate all the way. If there is any reasonable hope for improvement, I'll be one of the first to try to seek it, and I'll discuss, explain, set out the "what must happen otherwise" and put my own time and effort into mentoring and supervising, make myself available... the works. I tend to be a good judge of people on this score. I do this myself and if it fails, I'll draw the line myself. Two examples: After the arbcom case on The Troubles, I got asked by one very respected admin if I'd mentor user:Vintagekits, a well known difficult editor, on the basis they thought he was likely to be banned but if there was anything salvagable, they couldn't think of anyone else willing to give a fair go who would lay down the rules to him and might get his respect. (If confirmation's needed I'm sure they'll confirm, as this took place privately.) Likewise I wrote the now-banned DPeterson this policy note, which combines a clear warning on policy and administrators' role, with the request even at that late stage to change. He didn't, and within 48 hours I blocked him for clear and further edit war conduct , then just over 24 hours later for his repeat of the same edits when his block expired . But my own personal tendency as an administrator specifically used to heavy duty edit warriors is, if I don't see that potential interest in good editing, or nothing happens as a result, is to tend towards some form of final option - a topic ban, or restrictions plus escalating blocks as enforcement by the community, or (if they are dedicated warriors of no notable project benefit), then removal, because we're here to get content written, not to babysit warriors, and if I think that's best for the project, that'll likely be the stance I take. An edit warrior with bad faith (socks, inability to enter genuine discussion, etc) I'm much more likely to conclude is a problem than a plus. Knowing I have that approach, I make sure to listen to others' thoughts, if someone considers a lesser remedy for serious edit warriors is needed, but in the cases that I've stated at arbcom a site or topic ban was appropriate, my assessment that they would not reform was accurate: Ciz tried to come back as a sock a year after his topic ban. When I identified the sock and called him on this, he next tried edit warring on unconnected articles, necessitating my opening a second arb case to seek an extension of ruling to cover unconnected articles and other shortcomings in the original remedy. I drafted the amended remedy for Arbcom (2005), aiming to rule out his multiple problem areas but allow editing in other areas. After discussion and explanation of the need, it was adopted word for word by Arbcom. No further problems have been noted since. HeadleyDown burned out the arbcom-appointed mentors and was finally banned... then community-banned as KrishnaVindaloo... then blocked as maypole, jeffrire, and many other reincarnations, and admitted in email to doing it for "fun". Over a year later, I blocked another four socks earlier this month (November 2007). DPeterson evaded his arbcom year ban via an unblocked dormant account, to post personal attacks on his "opponents" talk pages, about their tax filings (of all things) and was community banned at ANI. Types of remedy - Arbcom has several kinds of remedy: Supervision of some kind - probations and supervised editing/mentorship are used where there is an intent to educate the user as they work, or positive work elsewhere. They require an assessment that this is an editor who does not understand, and if coached and watched may gain that understanding or "get the hang of it". It places them (or the article generally) under strict supervision in order that failure to do so can be addressed by administrators without delay. Parole and editing restrictions - used as the term suggests, to inhibit problem actions whilst having minimal impact otherwise. These can be fairly flexible, being drafted them to suit individual cases, thus one might propose that a given process which has been abused (revert, AFD, RFC) may only be used to a limited extent, or with supervision... or that certain pages or sources of conflict are not to be edited upon... usually until decided otherwise, or until the user requests the condition be removed on the basis of subsequent good conduct. Bans - which are the remedy most people think of first when arbcom is discussed. An editor is removed from the site, or from a topic or set of pages. Arbcom has set indefinite topic bans, but usually caps its site bans at a year. This isn't as loose as it seems; a returning edit warrior will rapidly find that their scope for warring is very limited (ANI and community ban took under a week for DPeterson, for example), or if they breach their arbcom ban, may find that the ban is reset or extended by the community to a community ban. Arbcom do not generally take it as their role to ban users permanently (possible extreme cases such as stalking aside). Arbcom is not restricted in the types of remedy it may create, and can innovate remedies as it sees fit, in the best interest of the project. There may therefore at times be other types of remedy. The above are the most common. Summing up - No one answer fits all warriors. There are a number of factors which direct how edit warriors are seen, including a large element of judgement and "reading between the lines", good faith where reasonable, and some hard nosed reality (we're here to write a project). Arbcom must be willing to use any of the means in its armory. It must look carefully into the problem to ensure it really does understand the problem and has fairly assessed it, by using judgement to assess the nature of the war and those in it, their roles, and the remedies that might help. It must protect the project, which often means putting some form of protection in place such as probation, supervision, parole, topic bans, general conditions of editing... whatever it feels useful. A warrior who may make valuable contributions should be attempted to remove the problem editing without losing their positive input. An editor who can't change or refuses to, the burden may not be to any avail, and a ban may be appropriate. The simple version when all said and done is that arbcom's choice of remedies is aimed at identifying the minimum measure that is likely to be needed to remove the problematic behaviors (with appropriate enforcement powers to address them), and making reform as likely as possible (if reform is deemed likely), whilst impacting as little as possible on any positive contributions that the user may make, or be capable of making, and giving the community a ruling that gains wide respect as well thought out.

• Re. Vintagekits and the "Troubles" ArbCom case, that was me who approached FT2. As VintageKits' blocking admin, I wanted to give him one final chance. Given his record I felt there were few admins who could work with him despite his flames, and also understand the need to protect the community. It didn't go ahead in the end, though - Alison 05:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(6)

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?

My personal view on incivility (including personal attacks) is that I'm strongly against it. I've handled exceptionally virulent attack warriors and never found it necessary or indeed useful. Incivility and attacks are damaging to communal quality, and easily provoke some, dishearten or misrepresent others, and leads to escalation and bad atmosphere all round. It's also a serious breach of communal acceptable norms, not to be treated as trivial or minor. Further evidence of my stance on incivility and personal attack is on this post on Swatjester's talk page (there had been a block of a known "difficult user", who responded with personal attack leading to an extension; I was asked to review it by another admin). Editors aren't expected to be perfect or never have a bad week, or never be provoked. Theres a range from curt, to bad faith, to snarky, through to vindictively nasty attacks, so there's a need for judgement how to handle each case. The aim is to avoid recurrence. In general though, incivility does often repeat, so regardless of anything else one should explain (or warn) the seriousness of it so they have a clear understanding where they may stand if it repeats. Regarding incivility at Arbcom, I don't think Ive ever seen a user taken through DR and to arbcom for persistent "simple incivility" alone (though they have been blocked for it). Almost invariably it's turned into more problematic kinds of civility issue - edit warring, personal attack, bad faith and accusations, and so on. Arbcom regularly sanctions people who can't get the idea that you just don't do that here, with the twin aims of protecting the editing environment and hoping they will come to change their ways. It's important though to check the circumstances; any attacks are "not okay" but some editors have otherwise good records and only end up at arbcom with attacks a factor because of (for example) some specific provocation, or because some bad-faith editor dug through their edits to find one or two that might be presented as incivility/attack. Others are almost professional provocateurs and tread the line to try and game the system. So one needs to check behind the dispute to get an idea what's really gone on. Sometimes one persons "attack" is another person's "assume good faith" (ie, a comment being taken the wrong way). But ultimately, if an editor is uncivil or the like, it's not okay. How it's handled depends on circumstances. Some people are open to a ruling and probation; others will respond well to site or topic bans, (either short and escalating, or otherwise) ... some you simply block for an extended period, because their behavior indicates they are incorrigible, and (when they come back) if they repeat, let the community handle it thereafter. In general one tries to gauge the least thats needed to ensure the behavior doesn't happen, and if that means a site ban for a year, or a topic ban and mentorship for a month, or personal attack parole... case by case, best judgement. When the incivility was genuinely minor but clearly existed, it may be that it is noted as a finding ("X engaged in incivility ") but no significant sanction ("X is cautioned to avoid incivility in future"). That way it's not over reacted but nor is it ignored. I'd always ensure there's a clear "what if" to any ruling though -- what if they improve (when will it be lifted) and what if they don't (when do we escalate or just remove them, or can any administrator deal with it). And I'd try to ensure the ruling contained enough scope that the community could handle it from there on.

(7)

3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

Established editors and conduct standards generally - Problem actions by established editors are always a matter to consider carefully. As well as the usual factors, there will also be concerns about neutrality of the decision (including perceptions about the neutrality of the decision), and also the risk of losing a proven valued contributor of much experience if they respond by leaving. Much of Misplaced Pages's content work is done by a relatively small number of editors and IPs (a few thousand perhaps according to some stats), and so in real terms, whilst nobody is indispensible, we do want to try where possible to keep established and productive editors engaged and not disillusioned. However, there is a hard line there. We have clear standards, and ultimately these apply to all. We might seek to discuss or work around problems of this kind, but if the established editor (sysop or not) cannot or will not get the point, or their actions seriously damage their (or the project's) credibility, then action may be needed. We have one set of standards, and at the end of the day they apply to all, without exception. An editor who performs actions that are problematic will have a detrimental effect, and the spread of perception that we have double standards would have a much greater detrimental effect rippling out form that. By contrast firm application of our standards to all sends the message that this is our communal norm, which we respect and support, and a number of other editors will often recognize or respect that. (Note: we do not decide cases to make an example; what is being referred to is that a fair and well judged case decision that enforces current norms will get noticed and a proportion of others will also adapt their behavior positively or feel confident asserting these as norms themselves, if they see this happen.) Sysops - Sysops are users who are trusted by the community to have access to the tools, and not abuse them. They have respect as experienced users, but no other special status, and in principle all users are expected or able to make judgements as sysops do (only lacking the tools to execute some of them). These are old principles and communal norms. There have been many discussions concerning the desysopping of admins. RFA is listed at Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals ("RFA is our most debated process and nearly everybody seems to think there's something wrong with it, literally years of discussion have yielded no consensus whatsoever") and desysopping is almost of the same status. I wrote in my June 2006 RFA that the primary difference between administrators and non-administrator registered users was, an admin has far fewer excuses. Specifically also: "An admin has (ideally) been round longer, seen more, demonstrated knowledge and sufficient awareness of policies and attitudes to bear some responsibility for exemplifying the spirit and practice of the project. An admin also has more ability to do wrong if they mess up, to cause problems if they let personality and strong emotions get in their way, and to set a bad role model, and fewer good excuses of ignorance or acceptability if they do so. An admin has also represented to others that as a long standing Wikipidean he/she will be trustworthy to represent Misplaced Pages and help with certain kinds of decision for the project and has been trusted that they will help (and not hinder the project) if given that trust. They have also made a commitment to nurture the project. A non admin *should* do the same, but has not made any such explicit and willful commitment to do so, nor is Misplaced Pages at such risk if they don't, and therefore may have more rope. Another answer might be - although both are (ideally) trusted and competent, the minimum level of trustworthiness and competence is higher for the admin. And focussing on the role rather than the authorization, might be - a non-admin is on Misplaced Pages for the fun of editing and contributing. An admin is there for that reason, but also performs a function, which may involve mundane or a share of "chores", extra jobs as well as 'fun'." Ultimately, all admins should enjoy a high level of communal confidence. Having earned it once does not protect against its loss later; it sets a presumption that the admin is doing the job well, but if there are visible serious problems or concerns, especially amongst their peers, then that is a serious concern. General conduct of sysops - In terms of general conduct, administrators are not only judged on their trust with the tools. They must also have communal confidence, and the damage they can do by even ordinary misconduct (ie, not involving the tools) is potentially worse since administrators may be seen by users as representing Misplaced Pages and its communal stances and approaches, in ways that non-administrators are not. (See RFA statement above.) Thus an administrator who regularly engages in edit warring or personal attacks, and keeps on doing it (ie, despite warning or ANI discussion), may ultimately end up cautioned, suspended or losing their sysophood for this, despite the fact these actions do not actually reflect at all upon their tool use. Reasons sysops end up being considered for desysopping - The common reasons would seem to cover issues such as: Misuse of tools (deletion, protection, blocking in clearly improper circumstances) Breach of basic policies (attacks, edit warring, biting/civility, etc) Poor judgement Wheel warring Failure to communicate - this can be either to users (eg lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought). 'Bad faith' adminship (sock use, good hand/bad hand, etc) Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off site attacking, etc) Other factors that are not in themselves reasons, but contribute to the matter might include 1/ loss of confidence or trust, 2/ patterns of repetition or ongoing problems, and 3/ precedent states that administrators are expected to act to a high standard. (A factor in the other direction is that admins - like all editors - are not expected to be perfect, or never to make mistakes.) Remedies and handling - Some of these are sufficiently serious that it is almost impossible to be an administrator if they are discovered. If this is not the case, then the case focuses on avoiding repetition. the principle is the same as for all arbcom cases - to keep if possible as much of the positive work, whilst removing the problems. Admins are assumed to be able to listen, and take advice. So the default is that in all but serious cases, correction is sought. Three levels of handling of specific relevance to admins exist: Cautioning - the matter is noted but no specific action taken at this time. Suspension - a tangible sanction that is in a way, equivalent to blocking, in that it removes certain trusted access for a time. It sends a clear message that the conduct is firmly not acceptable, but also the message that although serious, the episode is over and closed once the remdy is complete (and that the admin is expected to change or loss of sysophood is likely). Desysopping - used for conduct that is sufficiently of concern that it is incompatible with the retaining of the trust and credibility needed to be an administrator; repetition or a pattern of ongoing problem conduct (especially if serious or the subject of past formal notice at RFAR, RFC, ANI etc); bad faith actions (eg using tools for own benefit/agenda, forbidden sockpuppetry); and cases which would merit suspension but due to the specifics of the case or other factors present, is felt this is not adequate. All administrators make positive contributions. The principle of balancing the keeping of positive contributions with removing the harmful ones, is broadly as stated above for edit warriors. We try ideally to retain their good input, and avoid their bad input. Warning (including caution or suspension) is usually an effective remedy, if it's going to work and is reasonable in the circumstances. Wheel warring - Special attention is drawn to wheel warring. In many cases wheel warring is a once-off event for the admin in question. It is probably in most cases likely to be responsive to suspension, and/or caution that loss will occur if it should repeat. However in practice it quite often meets with direct desysopping, mainly due to its serious effect on the community, and its status as a highly forbidden act amongst administrators. Note: - A factor not mentioned in the question covers conditions and processes (if any) top be followed for re-sysopping.

(8)

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?

Arbcom needs to balance two things. First, it should by and large respect the decision of the community, in forum, to decide on most matters. A community ban will often be based on a presentation and discussion at ANI, and are the prerogative of the community. To underline this, Arbcom itself limits its site ban rulings to one year only (exceptional circumstances aside). So the default is that where a ban is reasonable and plausible, the community's decision to act accordingly should be respected. Second, Arbcom is (in effect) the place of final appeal. It should be open to addressing the cases where for whatever reason, natural justice, good faith, or the best interests of the project have not been met, or a defect in the discussion, relevant evidence or other factors mean that the ban has grounds for requesting to be reviewed. (A user cut off at arbcom has no other route to be heard except hoping some lone administrator will listen and take up their case. So rejection's a serious matter.) There are a few cases where I think it's likely Arbcom should accept to review the ban, for example: The case was old, and the user may have changed, or states credibly that they wish to retry. We have a long standing communal view that nobody is incapable of change. There is evidence that suggests the ban, or events that led to the ban, or individuals 'pushing' for the ban, were not in fact balanced and fair. For example, sadly, we have had cases where an administrator has a grudge, and manouevered a problematic user to appear worse than they might have done. When there is little previous review, or the track record does not seem to fully support a ban. Some ANI cases, the user has a long track record to be examined, others there is almost no evidence except a few people's opinions. When the quality of consensus seems doubtful (very few people, not much relevant discussion, apathy at ANI, etc). When the evidence seems to suggest there was error or ambiguity, unduely negative assumptions, "pile-on" views or emotionality, or other exceptional circumstances, such that a review would be seen as fair. In general a post that contains direct evidence that can immediately be confirmed to show "something questionable", will stand more chance than a user who has been at ANI several times and was banned a week ago for visible edit warring. A ban should be easy to check if it's well founded, or if there is doubt, due to the discussion that should have gone on. Arbcom should always be open to considering whether a case merits review, and importantly, if it rejects it, a very clear explanation of their rationale should be given. This is essential (and merits the time taken) since rejection by arbcom effectively closes the matter, and a user deserves the basis to be stated so that there is no doubt to the community or them, why this was felt right and what perceptions were relied upon in the decision. Last, since community bans are creations of the community, I feel that there is a good case that where the user would get a fair hearing at ANI and ANI does not seem to be hostile to the idea (such as the first example above), Arbcom's role might be limited to considering the matter, deciding if it's fair to be heard as far as they are concerned, gaining agreement for unblocking for the sole purpose of discussion - and then direct them to ANI (which originally placed the ban) to have the matter reviewed by the community. In general, where the community is capable of handling, and likely to handle, a matter fairly (or would do so with some initial guidance) then the community should do so. Arbcom is more for ensuring best handling of difficult exceptions where that might not be the case.

(9)

5. Two recent cases, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Misplaced Pages. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current. What should be done in such a case?

I've commented on the Allegations of apartheid case ((3) above). This was not a case that the case was dropped because the issue was no longer current; rather it was a case that had been mismanaged and was dropped finally because 1/ arbcom still couldn't decide what to say, and 2/ the matter seemed to be dying down after the nearly 3 months of no result at arbcom. I try as a rule not to be rough and I may not know the whole story, but part of arbitration is to be honest with integrity. I feel this case was mismanaged and should not have gone as it did. So in a way I'm not sure what to say on this question, except.... case mismanagement and the failure to see the issue clearly, really only have one answer - learn from it, and don't do it again. I'm not sure how the first of those cases ended up as it did; the second of them may have more reason. If it happens again... there are some basics that count: Examine the conflict in depth, as a participant would. It takes time, I know this having done it many times. Sometimes it is the only way you get a good summary that everyone uninvolved can agree upon as a solid foundation for considering the issues and actions which took place, fairly. Start with basics, and note the principles and main findings. This is possible in any case. If the case truly is a problem, discuss it more and consider seeking wider views. If there is still a problem, say so, and consider what is needed to at least help address it. Don't make the community wait months, or have nothing back. Give some tools, some ruling, some help. No other group on the wiki can give a unilateral direction if there's a problem, and so arbcom needs to find a way on these to help the community if the community asks help. If "do nothing" is right, then do nothing - but be clear why. Be responsive and visibly active. It's easier to wait, and easier to bear a partial or disappointing ruling, if there's a degree of communication (which does not mean prematurely stating views!) rather than silence. Even just the act of posting proposals and support/oppose, signifies to a party that it's not forgotten; the arbitrators are thinking about it. One further possibility that I haven't seen discussed or used, but might be useful, is also: Ask for more and better evidence covering the point in question. The fact that we have an Arbitration Committee does not mean they will never need to ask the community if they feel more views on some point would be useful. This kind of situation doesn't happen often (and probably shouldn't really happen at all), but when it does, perhaps that's an option that might be discussed. Note that arbcom would value further evidence and outside views on the following, and see what happens. We're a community: the aim of arbitration is to accept evidence and make good decisions; it's not a court of law which is limited to what parties choose to present. Sometimes in the most exceptional cases, if the alternative is to fail to reach a useful conclusion, arbcom might consider (as an exception) stating that it would find further evidence or additional views on specific aspects, posted at /Evidence, helpful to a difficult case.

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - and nitty-gritty's fine :) Some good questions there, and highly relevant.

Two pages you might also find relevant are WP:DBF (2005), which captures some views on the borderline between intense but positive editing, and problem editing/edit warring, and is still pretty much as it was back then, and User:FT2/RfA, which summarizes my feelings on what I'd look for in administrators (perspectives more than criteria) and which is relevant as my general feelings on sysophood. Two optional pages if you fancy.

Thanks once again :) FT2 02:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus

(10)

1. Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?

Case management - I don't think "all cases" is essential. There are many good reasons an arbitrator may not be involved in all cases, and good reasons (from a planning point of view) why we certainly should not assume that all will be. Obvious examples: Extended vacations (3 week holiday?) Medical or domestic issues (Broken leg? Marriage? House moving? Exam season?) Work (Year end? System upgrade? Short term secondment with poor connectivity? Travel?) Pacing oneself (an arbitrator may make the very sensible decision that it's better to take a month or two away from active involvement or step back to give advice but not be so involved at some point, than "burn out" or "fade") The question also implies a look at how arbcom works. For example: Some arbitrators may do more of the work on one case for their peers. All arbitrators should be able to examine evidence and draft proposals, but on each case, not everyone needs to do this, or there would be significant overlap. In general no specific number of arbitrators are needed for a case; we empanel enough to hopefully ensure that all cases will be heard by a good number and when some fade a bit, the process is still viable. A fair bit of arbcom work comprises additional matters via email, and is not in fact "RFAR activity". So it is important to be aware that an arbitrator's visible activity may not match their actual activity. In general though, activity is measured by case involvement, as evidenced by posts, views, proposals and decisions stated on-wiki. Opinion-forming and decision-making is a task which arbitrators cannot ask others to do for them - The bottom line, I think, is that what arbitrators are each needed for, is their view on the case. It might be enough if one arbitrator reviews some aspect of the evidence and summarizes it for the others to check, or one does the drafting (if done well). But each arbitrator who puts their name to a case proposal is certifying that on their own checking of the facts, they independently concur with that finding. Not that they have "rubber stamped" someone elses word on it, but that they themselves can on their own cognisance, endorse it as fair and accurate ( if a principle or finding) or appropriate and best (if a remedy). That is the crucial step that cannot be delegated by any arbitrator, to any other person. Anything else in principle, can be. They can decline to comment, recuse, and it's fine. They can ask others to sum up the evidence or check what user logs show, and its viable. But they cannot ever certify a proposal as support/oppose/neutral unless themselves they have taken whatever steps are needed to ensure that they find themselves confident of it, independently, adding whatever caveats and observations they may have as a result of their work. (Otherwise we would have <N> parrots, not <N> arbitrators.) Activity in all cases - Arbitrators have taken on a huge load, and should be prepared to carry out that responsibility if appointed. This doesn't necessarily mean doing all the work on each case, but it does probably mean shouldering a fair share of the burden, arbitration work on all or most cases save for clear periods of absence, aiming to provide long term service, and enough independent review of each case they are active on to determine independently their views, make proposals, discuss remedies, with insight and care. They are also human, and will have periods of less activity, or none, for various reasons over time, and arbcom should be able to handle this. Usual courtesies should apply (discussing, letting others on the committee know up front, etc). If they are absent an extended period then extra measures should be considered, such as appointing an additional (or interim) arbitrator to cover their place, until they can reliably come back (Detailed proposals covering "interim arbitrators", such as a "pool" of substitutes, have been discussed in the last while, but no formal proposal is yet confirmed; Jimmy Wales' ad-hoc appointments as he himself comments, have not worked well). Summing up - As a result of the above I think the answer goes something like this: arbitration is a tough and demanding job, but it is what was signed up for and for the foreseeable future, we need people of suitable qualities willing to do it. It's preferable to have reliably engaged arbitrators who act responsibly and take defined periods off or a "back seat" which the committee knows about (or self-manage and sit in at the proposals and decisions stages or offer insight and such when real life is busy) than unreliable and patchy arbitrators, or burning out ones. Arbitration is a responsibility and we count on it communally; if the editor can't do it for a time, or faces disruption to their ability to give it fair attention, then I'd expect them to proactively handle this, manage their life, let people know as best possible whats up, and co-operate in helping the arbitration process and case handling be disrupted as minimally as possible. if it's a recurring or longer term problem I'd expect them to say so up front, and allow arbcom to begin taking steps to consider how to address it.

(11)

1. If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?

(12)

1. Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?

(13)

1. How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from AniMate

(14)

Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? AniMate 12:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718

(15)

ArbCom practice:

1. To what degree (if at all) should ArbCom look at and treat administrators differently from non-administrators?

(16)

1. Disputes over nationalist conflicts involving multiple editors make up a large chunk of ArbCom business. Why? Do these topics, articles, or editors need to be treated differently in some way by ArbCom? by the community?

(17)

Views/experience:

1. If you were granted the power to change exactly one WP rule, policy, guideline, or practice, would you? Which?

(18)

1. Can you point to a dispute (could have been at ArbCom or Mediation, or even on a talk page) that you've gone into (as an involved party or 3rd party) with a strong opinion, but had that opinion change in the course of discussion?

(19)

Electing arbitrators:

1. Why did you enter this significantly after nominations had opened? (I know it sounds accusatory, really isn't meant that way) Is the extended nomination period somehow unfair?

(20)

1. Without specific reference to yourself or other candidates, what qualities, characteristics, or experiences do you think we should be looking for in an arbitrator? Would you view a history of involvement in dispute resolution as an involved party to be a reason to consider a candidacy for ArbCom unfavorably?

(21)

1. Last year the community nominated what looked like a solid bunch of Arbitrators. Yet 10 months later it turns out that several had very spotty levels of ArbCom activity. Do you think that this was at all predictable? And if so, how?

(22)

You:

1. I've seen it written that to be a good arbitrator, a WPian needs to first be a good editor. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment? Do you distinguish between the relative importance of different types of WP work?

(23)

1. Are you 18? 38? 68? Are you a student? Do you have an occupation that lends itself to allowing you time to be involved in ArbCom?

Thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)