Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Arbitrators prepared to answer a few questions

This page is meant to be transcluded. Portions of this page will appear in any page which transcludes it. The mandatory parameter expand= should be set to yes or no to control whether the summary or the details are transcluded.

Complete RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee.

These statements and responses were last updated at 2022-05-16 06:11:22.

Please consider signing up below if, as an arbitrator, you are prepared to engage 'on-wiki' in offering a few thoughts, or answering a few questions. I'm sure many questions will no doubt be submitted - and there may be no way for any of you to be able to answer all of them - but I sincerely believe offering a few answers, as individuals, to a few focused questions would represent a significant way forward....

We can figure out how best to format and structure this page / subpages, but I entreat you to sign up as available in some small way to the community. Please!

• Kirill ^(prof) 12:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Paul August ☎ 00:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC) but I'll ignore all hostile and/or baiting questions.[reply]
• bainer (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• FloNight♥♥♥ 16:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• James F. (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC) (When back properly and able to attend fully to replies)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee#Comments by FT2
• Charles Matthews on interpretation of what happened in the Orangemarlin affair

demonstrating what I would suggest is an easy format to follow - also genuine questions

• "Some sort of discussion / process occurred, examining Orangemarlin's behaviour" - does this vague statement ring true?
• Could you say a few short comments about the strengths and weaknesses of that discussion / process?
• Do you edit on the private arbcom wiki?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. Neıl 龱 11:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. —Giggy 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I'm not prepared yet to characterize the events in the Orangemarlin case, other than that they revealed dramatic weaknesses and few strengths (other than the ability to correct error) of the current process. We need help. And, yeah, sometimes I edit on the private arbcom wiki, but only trivially. If were drafting cases, I'd use it more. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. In order: yes; that the main fault was in communication failure, but as per Josh I think it's premature to go further right now; and yes, but there's not much about which to talk, as per Josh. James F. (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Orangemarlin merits discussion; I'll come back to it as soon as I'm fully sorted out here since it needs a lot of reading of what's gone on. Skipping some questions until then. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. a- Yes.

b- As in any other Wiki process there are always positive and negative sides. In theory, ArbCom acts in good faith and sometimes makes mistakes. It is not different in practice. The ability to talk about mistakes freely is the biggest asset of this project.

c- Yes. Same as Josh. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of suggestions on the RFC are concerned with expanding the pool of arbitrators and/or reducing term length. How do you feel about these ideas? Would either of them be helpful, in your view? Thanks. Neıl 龱 11:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict, but I will place here as it is linking in more or less with Neil's proposal) - Do you agree the workload has increased to a point where increasing the numbers on arbcom by somewhere between 33-100% would be prudent to allow cases to be shared around between a larger number of groups - reducing the workload on any particular arbcom member and/or allowing more time and energy for a longer examination of a particular case?

If yes, what would be the optimum number of arbcom members (using current workload and free time to extrapolate)?

Other users wanting answers to this question:

1. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fainites ^barley 22:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. —Giggy 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I suggested dramatically increasing the number of arbitrators when I first ran for arbcom. (My idea involved randomly selecting a subset of the large arbitration team for each case. It's probably unworkable, but still an interesting idea.) It would need to be part of a larger scale reshaping of ArbCom. Shortening the term would be a good idea; three years is a hugely long time, and burnout can be dramatic. No idea what number or shape would be optimum. I don't think the workload has increased, but the nature of the problems being dealt with is different from a few years ago; the community is more empowered now to issue blocks and bans, and does so. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. If the Committee were to be enlarged, I think it would need to involve some reform to allow cases to be heard by smaller groups of arbitrators, rather than by the whole Committee; a simple increase of numbers (I've seen even a doubling of numbers suggested somewhere) would tend to compound problems rather than alleviate them, I fear, by simply making the process that much more unwieldy and complicated. I tend to agree with jpgordon on this point. --bainer (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Having served on the Committee in all its incarnations, I've found that the increase in bodies creates a large increase in communications overhead, which is not entirely offset by having more people around to do stuff; if anything, a slight reduction in head-count would probably work better. This is not to say that I don't have confidence in all other members of the Committee, and I'm certainly not saying that there are those I would have removed! See also my comments on WT:AC just now. James F. (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree with the above comments that simply increasing the number of arbs is not the solution. Reorganization is needed first. I'm mid way through my term and I feel that I can complete my term with out suffering burn out. But my situation is different than most other arbitrators since I'm not balancing employment or school with my committee work. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. As per FloNight, there should be some reorganization done first. Some are underway and the opinion of the community is highly needed (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Open matters/Devolution). James also mentions a valid point which is communications overhead. If we were to have no more than 15 arbitrators then reducing the term to 24 months at least would be reasonable to give an opportunity to some fresh blood. There's no way to calculate an optimum because you cannot expect cases to be brought to the ArbCom in advance, let alone their degree of complexity. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The visible part of the Arbcom work are the publicly heard cases and amendments. Can you outline the less visible parts of the work like private investigations, appointment of checkusers, oversighters? What percentage of the workload is caused by those invisible duties?
2. What processes are used for those invisible cases: private wiki? maillists? IRC?
3. Some decisions of Arbcom are "proper" that is voted for by the majority of active arbitrators, some decisions seems to be never voted but a result of some sort of consensus (meaning nobody oppose energetically enough)? How Arbcom makes distinction from one set to another? How Arbcom safeguards itself from abusing the consensus process (a proponent of a decision rushes to announce it on behalf of Arbcom expecting that opponents would not create excessive drama by denying the decision)?
4. In the public cases arbirators with a conflict of interests usually recuse. Do they still have access to private discussions and privileged information?
5. What are the safeguards against possible COIs in private investigations?
6. Did the decision to hear the Ornagemarlin case without informing the accused have any precedents? Who made the decision to use such an unusual method for this case? What were rationales for this?
7. Did the decision to make the decision in Orangemarlin case by consensus rather than voting have any precedents? Who made the decision to use such an unusual method for this case? What were rationales for this?
8. It appears that FT2 being a participant in the ID conflict and so having a COI not only did not recuse from the case, but also was the main collector of evidence, most probably the sole author of the text, evaluated consensus and announced the case. Why no safeguards against COI worked? Do you plan to modify the processes to prevent such COI in the future?
9. Would you agree to review the processes of Arbcom and the events of the Orangemarlin case by an independent commission (e.g. m:Cross-wiki arbitration committee)?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. —Giggy 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. -Privatemusings (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from arbitrators:

1. This format doesn't lend itself well to answering numbered lists; perhaps someone might refactor. Anyway:
   1. Most of the work is the public case-related stuff. I can't really quantify the amount of work done on other aspects, but I'd guess ten percent or less. It probably should be more -- we should be spending more time on things like unblock requests, but we need some structural changes to use our time more effectively.
   2. Mostly maillists. IRC gets some action, but I haven't hung out there for a while. The private wiki mostly gets used for drafting stuff and for keeping track of things like checkuser requests.
   3. It's pretty nebulous and poorly defined. We safeguard against abuses by observing that if such abuses occur, the ensuing drama is far more unpleasant than whatever the action was meant to correct.
   4. Yes. Recusal means an arbitrator may not participate in a case. No comments, no votes, no nothing. However, they still have access to the mail list, the wiki, etc.
   5. None in particular.
   6. For the rest, I'm not prepared yet to characterize the Orangemarlin case. I will in time.

   jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Alex, good questions. I will need some time to answer them. Get back to you soon. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   1. Varies from arbitrator to arbitrator, and not tracked. For example, some arbitrators do most of the leg work for the on site cases and give replies to most requests for clarification, while other arbs spend more time doing follow up for previous cases such as doing checkusers for suspected banned user socks, and other arbitrators do more ban reviews or answer emails. We have no formal system for assigning these tasks or tracking them.
   2. Most off site discussion happens on either the arbcom mailing list or the newer sitting arbs mailing list. The arb wiki is mostly used for recording information sent to arbcom mailing list in a more organized way than emails threads allows. IRC and Skype are used by some arbs but not for formal meetings or discussions.
   3. No safeguards currently other than arbitrators being willing to speak up internally if some acts prematurely.
   4. Recuse means no participating in the case in anyway as an arbitrator, on site or off site. But arbitrators do have access to mailing list discussions.
   5. Nothing specific other than arbitrators and former arbitrators observations.
   6. 7, 8, 9. Internal discussion of our methods of handling private cases and summary cases has happened and more to come.

   FloNight♥♥♥ 18:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. I will be notable in my disagreement with Josh here on the first part, who I hope will forgive me; I find the off-wiki workload to be very significant (having expanded in particular in 2006 and early part of 2007 from previous levels), and takes up something like 50% of my time (5-10 hours a week), along with another 40% (3-8 hours) of actually wading through evidence and so on for cases. Note that the disagreement will stem mostly from our different styles, where Josh is much more active on writing cases up whereas I check against cases already written, which could well be argued is a much smaller workload. Other than this, I agree with Josh's points. James F. (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Following the same formatting...
   1. I'd say that the size and the scope of the visible part of the process (ArbCom case pages plus RfC and AN/I in some cases) can reflect precisely that of the off-line one (discussions, evidences, deliberations, etc..) As for the second part of the question, I'd say that appointments takes the form of an informal voting system based on consensus. In most times, every arbitrator would give their reason why they would support someone or not. On an indivudual level, I find myself near James's position.
   2. Wiki mailing lists plus one for the sitting arbs. The private wiki, as explained above, is dedicated to drafting and organization. I personally don't recognize the legitimacy of anything related to IRC due to my beliefs in that Wikipedia decisions should be taken from inside the Wikipedia system.
   3. As in any other Wikipedia process; if there is a disagreement over consensus someone will speak up.
   4. Yes and we have already brought up this subject in the mailing list but with no resolution... The least that can be done is to exempt a recused arb from action and a solution to that...
   5. ... would be simply sending priveleged and private material to unrecused individual arbitrators' emails instead of the list.
   6. For the rest, I was mostly inactive during the abovementioned case but I can be ready to read the case in depth and verify evidences if it is necessary. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! rootology (T) 05:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC) (edited to lose the numbered format per Jpgordon)[reply]

Just a follow-up to the recusal question above. If an Arb is recused, are they allowed to participate in discussions of the issue on the mail list?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. No. They can watch; that's all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. No, they're not. Kirill ^(prof) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. No discussion. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. There has been trouble in the past with this, but it seems the current arbitrators have taken a firm stand regarding this problem. It is not appropriate to recuse and then vigorously argue on the mailing list for whatever resolution you favor. Fred Talk 12:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per above. This of course means that recused Arbitrators are in a very difficult position (they shouldn't talk about a case, from which they are recused or not, on- or off-wiki in case they prejudice the process or the appearance thereof), which is why most of us strive to avoid being in positions from which we will need to recuse. James F. (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Arbitrators as a group seem to be extremely careful of their neutrality, behind the scenes. There isn't much treading over the lines, and people are quite able to tell what is a helpful comment and what isn't. I don't know if "allowed" is the right word or not, but recused arbvitrators just don't take part in the discussion on a decision, or use their access to present a matter favorably. Most cases where an arbitrator is recused they say absolutely nothing on the matter, for the entire duration of the case.

   Example of an exception - during the unban appeal of Peter Damian (where I was a party), I posted to the list my concerns that he needed to be seen to have a fair hearing, given there was a member of the committee involved. However had I not been on the committee, and had that concern for any reason, I would have likewise submitted it by email to the list; it was sent as a party and not as a committee member, and understood as such. I also asked in the same email that all discussion of his appeal be held off-list out of my hearing, so that it could not be said I had any access to the discussion which he did not have. That is an example of arbitrators mailing the list to discuss a case where they are recused. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Per my answers to Alex (4 & 5) and Fred. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the drafted cases that are put on Proposed Decision pages are very focused. Are Arbs free if they disagree with the internal or private consensus on the case during drafting to put forward an opposition or contrary finding/remedy/etc. on the Proposed Decision to force a vote on a contentious point?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Sure. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Most initial drafting is actually done with minimal (if any) private discussion; what people first see on the proposed decision page is, in the majority of cases, simply what the drafting arbitrator came up with, not the result of prior discussion by the Committee as a whole. Kirill ^(prof) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Usually full cases are not discussed on the mailing list or the arb wiki prior to being placed on site. There are rare exceptions. Usually one arbitrator write the whole case. All arbitrators are free to discuss their views on a case and offer any proposal on site. It is not unusual to see alternative proposals added to cases that are already drafted. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per above, though it does happen that a case's outline and salient points to address are considered privately before the case is written up, and even then, we sometimes will subsequently disagree publicly with the PD as initially written. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Any arbitrator is free to make such posts and decisions as they choose, during a hearing. Especially, any arbitrator is free to amend, comment, disagree, or post alternatives on the Proposed Decision page. Usually one committee member leads on drafting, and others then concur or differ when they post a view. Over time that is more how consensus builds. Private discussion tends to be on making sure we understand the import of the case, its actual thrust or subtle issues, and matters needing taking care of (or not pivotal enough to need mention). But anyone who disagrees and feels others may concur, is always free to post their own approach. Usually this is done judiciously, since a view which would not get significantly more support than an existing proposal is not going anywhere. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. An example. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well... I think my question was slightly different than that example. I meant, say we have a case where consensus on the private arb discussions doesn't line up. Just to pick a recent contentious case... Mantanmoreland. If an arb had put up a proposal to force a vote that said, say, "Mantanmoreland as demonstrated by evidence on the evidence page is a repeated sockpuppeteer that used the socks to manipulate wikipedia content, etc.", which there wasn't I don't believe a consensus to post as a motion since it may not have passed. Something like that--where an arb just puts it up, to bring attention to/force a public call on some point. rootology (T) 03:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Any arbitrator is free to do so but I am not sure if bringing attention is the right way to describe it. In fact, it is supposed that proposed decisions result from some initial discussions. One or some arbs would disagree but our basis is consensus. In the Mantanmoreland case, a majority of the Committee concluded that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but various factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached. That means that there was a minority somewhere there. It doesn't matter how large it is that but it would be useless to bring this to the attention of the public since it is implicit and that would be redundant. Some would take it as making a point. As a member of the Committee, I would try to avoid making points. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth it for people to put so much energy and work into the Workshop? How much does this actually affect the Proposed Decision?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. It depends on the case. On relatively simple cases, workshops do most of the work for us (as it should be.) On highly contentious cases, though, I've not found them helpful, except inasmuch as they bring problematic behavior to one place. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Speaking for myself, I've tried to use the workshop more for my own drafting in the recent past; so, yes, I'd say that the workshop can affect the final decision quite a bit. Kirill ^(prof) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Depends on the case. In high profile cases I think the workshop pages and the other talk pages are not as helpful because they are too cluttered with extraneous comments. In other cases, I find the workshop pages and talk pages extremely helpful. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree with Josh. I do find the Workshop a very good read into the case just before I'm going to the PD, so as to see what different parties think are the main points. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. A lot of the time, the case evidence, and our own checking, will be enough to give a very good idea what's up and what's needed. But in complex or contentious cases, often the workshop shows up what's actually going on, and who is actually acting in what ways -- the dynamics of it, or the main themes within the dispute (as opposed to the evidence backing those themes). That can be extremely helpful. It also gives the community a place to express thoughts or concerns which may not have a voiice elsewhere. This happens helpfully, and also unhelpfully. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. I think they can be and are very worthwhile. Paul August ☎ 19:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. I think the workshop actually does make a lot of difference in the thinking of some arbitrators because I can think of a few instances where the early mood on the mailing list appeared to be leaning towards a particularly outcome (usually a heavy remedy) and then a lot of protest on the workshop has appeared to cause this to be averted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Take a soccer eliminatory game and the field as the workshop... Sometimes some teams would prefer gaining time waiting for the penalties shootouts because they have no more to offer except making fouls and arguing minutes with the referee and keeping the ball in their camp. Other critisize it for other reasons. Of course, not all games end with a tie-break and not all games are boring. The difference here is that soccer referees can still use their yellow and red cards during the shootouts. It is not the case in Wikipedia workshops where some users can still edit war there with immunity. That should be considered a place for listening and not a place to create further tensions. Whatever is the case, my view is to keep them as they can be very helpful for certain cases and apply strict measures to keep them free of time wasting and disruption. Other alternatives cannot work here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a given item on the Workshop gets significant support or becomes a major point of contention (as in something that is obviously key in the minds of the community) is there any reason why it may not get onto the Proposed Decision?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. No reason one way or another. Decisions sometimes (often? I haven't really counted) take language directly from the workshop. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. There's more to putting together a focused decision, in my view, than merely lumping everything that might pass into a single document. In most cases, items from the workshop aren't carried over—at least when I'm drafting—because I think they're (a) redundant, (b) irrelevant, or (c) undesirable. Other arbitrators may later add an item if they feel it useful; but, generally speaking, if no arbitrator puts something up for voting, it's because no arbitrator feels such a finding would be of value to the final decision. Kirill ^(prof) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Often the wording of the Rulings come from prior cases. The ideas from the workshop page my be included on the PD page in different wording. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Our job is to do what we think is right for the project, and sometimes that means not doing something that is popular, doing something despite objections, or failing to address something in terms of black and white when a spectrum exists and "solving" the issue might seem like a good fix in the short term. This extends to porting Workshop issues over to the Proposed Decision as much as other places. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. James, Kirill, FloNight, have said it. One area that I do often port, is suggestions how to approach the rssolving of the dispute, if I think they might be good ideas. This applies especially to temporary injunctions. If the parties and community feel a temporary injunction may help hold back dispute whilst allowing productive editing of content, then I'll usually be inclined to strongly support that, although I'll often tighten up the wording or post a proposed version for discussion first. My role there is to make sure if it is ported, then it's ported in a way that stands a good chance of actually working, ie preventing gaming or dispute explosion if so.

   As regards wider remedies, a lot of the time, remedies proposed at workshop are too light, too extreme, or misdirected. The idea of a good arbitration remedy/enforcement is that it does what is needed to allow things to move forward. Mantanmoreland #1 was a classic example of workshop misjudgement - many people called stridently for a ban without calmly considering whether a lesser measure would do the job. The job in that case was to prevent manipulation of an exceptionally well defined set of articles, and prevent socking (especially with proxies)... and beyond that to allow a user who had contributed productively in other areas, the chance to show if they would change or not. The measures needed to fix that case were not a site ban (initially unless repeated) however much emotion there was, but 1/ a topic ban and strong protection for the disputed articles, 2/ restrictions on proxies and multiple accounts, and 3/ close monitoring if necessary indefinitely, after the case, to ensure compliance and to make repeat socking (if applicable) easier to detect. Without going into the politics of Mantanmoreland/Overstock, purely as an example, this is a constant issue with heated /Workshop cases - the workshop becomes polarized and what is posted is often battleground mindset, not resolution mindset. It's easier as an arbitrator, to skim it for ideas and views, and then draft for oneself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. No particular reason. Desicions are not disassociated from workshops' discussions especially the ones dealing with difficult issues. You'll find all workshop relevant elements comprised in FoFs, or resulting in a temporary injuction or a motion later on. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one party submits evidence by direct email that isn't restricted by the Privacy Policy, is there any method in place for the other parties to know about this, so they can fairly respond?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Nope. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I didn't know that... is there any reason why? It seems like that can cause problems such as people getting caught blindsided. rootology (T) 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   We don't have a lot of processes for exceptional situations; see the next answer. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Isn't ArbCom's entire role to handle exceptional situations? --Barberio (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Sure, in one sense. On the other hand, even within that role, there are exceptional situations that we don't have process for. We can't plan for all exigencies. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Not in the general case, although we have at times notified people of evidence regarding them. Kirill ^(prof) 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. The idea is dispute resolution. Usually not telling the involved parties the angry stuff that the other fellow says about them behind their back is for the best. But if there are serious allegations that need to be addressed by one party then the party will be notified by one or more arbs to hear the other side of the story. We usually forward these inquiry email discussions to the full mailing list. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. No, though we will often ask for evidence submitted by e-mail where it isn't necessary to keep it private to be made public. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. No, and often no need. We aren't naive, and any of us would check things out or consider their validity and completeness before basing any further thoughts on them. If we need to check something out that came in by email, or if it raises a genuine concern, we tend to discuss thoughtfully and make inquiries, not assume. A surprising amount of time there will be checkable corroberation -- things don't often happen with no context. A pinch of salt may be needed as well, since some things by their nature are not checkable, and are capable of fabrication, and do get fabricated, and we know this.

   Ultimately though this isn't actually the real answer. This question in a way, is largely a misunderstanding. The real answer is, we aim for dispute resolution, we aren't a court. The fact A said this, or B said that, or A alleges whatever, is in a way, almost secondary. What matters is the general behaviors shown, and identifying what might help resolve the issue going forward. That is often a focus that gives a very clear direction, and all the evidence received on or off wiki, is merely a kind of indication what approach might help the community to do that. When you look at it that way, you aren't taking evidence as "OMG LOOK WHAT HE SAY! MUST ACT!". You're looking to the evidence as a guide, to help make a ruling in a divisive issue, how the dispute is best to be resolved for all parties and the community, going forward... which can be a different question entirely. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. To develop FloNight's point... A few days ago I received a complaint, related to a recently closed ArbCom case, which was supported by some evidence (diffs in general). I then informed the subject of the evidence and asked him to comment on that and tell me his side of the story. I made sure not to divulge the source of the complaint since that would be naive per FT2. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How often does submitted evidence come by email that isn't restricted by the Privacy Policy?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Rarely; such evidence properly belongs on the evidence page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Indeed. Sometimes we do see evidence come from people that can't, or don't want, to post it publicly. In theory, we could probably come up with some formal process to get such stuff onto the evidence page (perhaps anonymously); but, as Josh points out above, we don't have much process set up for dealing with unusual situations. Kirill ^(prof) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. As I allude to in my above comment. The emails that we get are often opinions rather than evidence. These do not influence us any more than the opinion comment on the evidence page. Unique evidence by email is much less common. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Infrequently, but it can be problematic when it does and my suggested action above is not followed. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Rarely; people don't usually email the Arbitration Committee without good cause. (Exception, a few hardened banned users who repeatedly seek unbanning, typically every few weeks even whilst still being caught socking.) Sometimes private evidence might be people with suspicions or concerns that they feel we ought to know of, but who don't want to be drawn into the morass of a heated open war zone. Another circumstance might be "I think there is a problem here, but not 100% sure and would not like to inflame the issue". I would support the right of a user to say "I have some insight that may help, but I would like not to be set upon for saying it or post without advice, since my role here is mostly to quietly edit content."

   I would also respect a user who wished to avoid stirring "drama": unlike some, my view on drama is that we have no need for other than calm dispassionate productive collaborative discussion; anything else is a complete distraction and unhelpful to the project, and damages it. So I would not feel it necessary to force a naturally low profile person into drama, against their will. Usually the reply will be a polite "thank you for your comment", and we'll note it was said, but no special weight is given to it. That said as a rule, this is rare, though; people tend not to email us that way unless there really is a privacy issue or genuine need. If it's a blatant /Evidence page matter they'll be directed to post it there. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Not something usual. I also agree with James. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This additional question is added by Irpen. I planned to start my own section but figure it is best to ask this question right next to a related question.

If an arbitrator receives an email from a complaining editor with evidence or allegations against the other editor but such allegations do not fall under the category where the off-line submission is uncontroversially justified (such as privacy, sockpuppetry, RL identity and other sensitive issue) is it customary for an arbitrator to still forward this evidence to other arbitrators? Or is the editor told to use the evidence section of the current case or, if there is no case, use the normal channels of DR, invluding submitting a case? --Irpen 06:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. There is nothing unusual about having two matters being looked into at the same time. Thus a user may have an RFAR case (or a mediation, or a matter at ANI) and also be looked into by a CheckUser for bad-faith socking concerns. The fact a user is at RFAR doesn't mean that all issues about that user are arbitration issues; if they act up elsewhere (eg legal threats) then it may happen the new concern is dealt with not by the committee, but by an individual arbitrator or administrator (by email, talk page, or admin tools). But it is customary that correspondence received by an arbitrator that seems to be for general information of arbitrators, is made known to the rest of the committee (even if dealt with personally), so that we are on the same page on such matters. So for example, if I get an unban appeal, or FloNight gets a "is this evidence of socking by the other party" email, we'll deal with it but it will usually be forwarded or summarized to others (along with the response and handling if any), so that nobody is left out of the full picture, whether it's valid or not. One very good reason for this - they will often approach others too (for valid reasons, or sometimes forum shopping). Whether it is forwarded to others is separate from what response the user gets.

   A separate point is to do with approach more than action. There is a lot of mutual trust between arbitrators. The list is busy, and we see each others actions and views in very frank discussion, every day. A lot of mutual trust and knowledge builds up even if sometimes one arbitrator does not agree or even get on with another (different approach, etc). So a huge part of our work is on the basis of letting each other make judgements as needed, including the judgement when to forward or anonymize information, when to handle it personally off list, and so on. (The flip side is, were that standard and ethic found not to be upheld behind the scenes, the judgement of the others on the Committee would probably be forceful, strict, and unaccepting.) It works very well in almost all cases. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Difficult to know what emails other arbs choose not to forward to the list. Most emails forwarded to the list seem appropriate to me. Paul August ☎ 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would the arbcom be willing to use the Workshop more, putting decisions on the Workshop first for a few days, instead of the current practice of skipping the workshop and going to proposed decisions? This would allow more input, and might help improve phrasing of decisions, which are not particularly well-crafted at times.

For the record, I was thinking more "feedback" than voting - the arbcom has every right to ignore the feedback, but I think it would help avoid some of the poorer phrasing that ends up in the decisions at times. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I wouldn't. That defeats the whole purpose of the proposed decision page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I've been making an effort to do that more in the past few months, actually. With the slower rate of cases coming in, there's not much reason for rushing past the workshop, in my view. Kirill ^(prof) 15:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. There are pros and cons to this approach. The interaction between the arbs, parties, and the community can be good in as much the arbs can explain why some proposals work for them and others don't. But the workshop page can not become a pre-vote vote page in my opinion. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Well, there is the Proposed Decision's talk page; we often react to feedback there (as well as the inevitable user talk, IRC, and e-mail messages). James F. (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. I would rather look at how cases and workshop work first. As much as I'd like to, and in a way feel it's appropriate, I'm not sure the workshop and talk pages as presently structured are the best vehicle for multi-way discussion of the case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the arbcom, with reasonable diligence, read the workshop and case talk pages? I ask because there have been numerous incidents of very pertinent questions being asked on talk pages, and getting no comments for weeks, and I don't think I've ever seen a user-created Workshop proposal used.

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Speaking to your second point, I've personally used a number of outside proposals in the decisions I've drafted. More generally, yes, we make an effort to read all the discussion; but keep in mind the ease with which an unruly group of editors can flood a page to the point of unreadability. Perhaps we need to have some sort of dedicated area for actual questions to the Committee, where they wouldn't be lost in the general back-and-forth arguments quite so easily. Kirill ^(prof) 16:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I read all the pages before I vote. Prior to voting to close, I do a recheck to look at the new comments and respond to the important stuff. It is extremely difficult to reply to every comment and question in the highly contentious cases that draw loads of comments, especially if the cases stay open for a prolonged period of time. If an user feels that an important question is being missed, then they should contact the clerk or an arb directly. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. I can't speak for others, though it's clear to me from their actions that they generally do; for myself, yes, though some threads quickly become pointless from the POV of Arbitration (namely, fixing the problem), instead descending into posturing from the trenches of an embattled dispute. Workshop issues are frequently used in real cases (though often re-worded into more normal language for Arbitration cases, which can mean just using a previous case's proposed item and so look like ignoring input to the Workshop). James F. (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Workshop proposals have been used, sometime verbatim, though perhaps less so now than in the past. I try very hard to read and ponder all the case pages, including all linked material, before I vote, and again before I vote to close, but it can be very time and energy draining to do so. Paul August ☎ 20:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is case-specific, I fear, but somewhat pertinent: Does the arbcom intend to restore the (deleted) evidence page to the Homeopathy case? If not, why? If yes, why did the arbitration committee wait so long that the case was left to run for its entire last month open without the ability of anyone to add more evidence? What steps are being taken to prevent this in future?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Gnixon (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I was away when that happened (I think) and not clear what was going on. I meant to check on that when I became active again because I was curious myself. Been sidetracked by other events. I'll look into it and reply here or else where if more appropriate. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Asked arbcom mailing list for information. I agree that it is extremely unusual for a case to have no evidence page and we need to sort this out. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom has, in the new Giano case, once again moved to voting before either party being sanctioned has provided any evidence. In the middle of a scandal bout a violation of due process, to circumvent due process by not giving the parties a chance to respond is frankly, appalling. While I accept Thebainer acted in good faith, and I by no means want to condemn him, this repeats controversial actions from the MatthewHoffman, Durova, and echoes the main objections to the Orangemarlin case: that the parties are not being given the chance to defend themselves.

I accept that there may be emergency situations where such a rush is appropriate. This case is not one of them. I therefore am going to have to ask the arbcom whether they are willing to put a hard-and-fast restriction on themselves, because this kind of thing really must stop.

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. It looks more like a statement than a question. Still I will be interested to read the arbitrators comments Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. According to the Arbs and the official case title the "New Giano Case" is not actually about me. This is in spite of my name appearing 20 times on the list of contents on the workshop page and the Arbs gleefully deciding to make it about me. In fact, such was their glee in voting within minutes (it seemed) to accept the case, I decided that to post evidence would be a waste of time. So therefore it can never be a fair trial of any of the named parties. I doubt they will put any restriction on themselves, as suggested above, when the opportunity presents itself this present arbcom like to seize the moment, regardless of the cost to the encyclopedia and their own reputations. However, I would like to see some answers. Giano (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from arbitrators:

About how much of your word deals with privately submitted evidence? About how much of your work deals with cases which are not public? Of these cases, about what percentage would be good candidates for having a public summary of some sort or other? Addendum by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) at 13:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC): I should have explicitly included ban appeals and other items that are not "regular arbitrations" that are the proper domain of ARBCOM in your workload.[reply]

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I sense that there has been an up tick in the percentage of our work that has private evidence. This is because the community deals with more and more of the less complex stuff. There are few fully private cases. The few that are private are done for a reason and usually are not good candidates for public summary. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I can only speak to the last six months, of course, but relatively little. There is rarely any private evidence submitted with respect to regular arbitrations. Obviously things such as ban appeals which are conducted by email consist entirely of "private" evidence submitted directly to us, but even then it consists of "normal" evidence fodder (lists of diffs and so forth). --bainer (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I should have explicitly included ban appeals and other items that are not "regular arbitrations" that are the proper domain of ARBCOM in your workload. Given that clearer definition, how much of your workload is either done in private and how much of your workload consists of items that the public never knows about? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are Committee Members aware that the Workshop editing is the reflection of the concerns of the community, or portions of it, in the particular matter, and that it may be useful to address those concerns even if - or perhaps especially if - they are not specifically referred to in the Proposed Decision page?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Yes, aware. Not sure of the best method to address them though. Often the Community will be split on the best course of action, and the Committee will be split as well. We actually have diverse opinions on most these topics. If the community is split and so is ArbCom, not much can happen to address a concern as a body. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Flo says it well. We really do seem to reflect the community, so contentious cases can be contentious with the Committee as well. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see #6a. Dealing with evidence or allegations whose nature does not warrant privacy when it is received by email

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

I've presented evidence and analysed that evidence at a couple of arbitration cases, and proposed principles and remedies based on the evidence and analysis. I have never once seen an arbitrator engage with anything I have presented. Why is that? How am I supposed to know the evidence has been reviewed? How am I supposed to know on what the arbitration committee bases its decisions? Why does the arbitration committee fail to engage?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. I'd really like to see more interaction with the community on the Workshop page in particular. - jc37 09:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Mike R (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from arbitrators:

1. For the last -- why the committee fails to engage -- in my case, I think it's more fatigue than anything else, though a dislike of getting yelled at is also high on the list. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand it, of course, but from the viewpoint of the community it is somewhat lacking. However, I have just seen one admin walk from the project over an issue that escalated out of control beyond belief, so I can see where it is coming from. I can think of no way around this bear trap except to start enforcing WP:AGF far more heavily, and to begin to exert peer pressure by simply ignoring anyone refusing to engage in a mature and responsible manner. I would still like answers on the issue of evidence analysis. Where is this undertaken, and how. Is all evidence reviewed? Where is it commented upon? Hiding T 12:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, most of isn't explicitly commented upon. That is, we don't as a group go through evidence and share our feelings about it; we will discuss particular items privately sometimes, but mostly we each analyze the evidence for ourselves and come to independent conclusions. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   So how do you expect the community to understand your decisions, and how they relate to the evidence? If you're not at some point writing in public view, based on this this and this, we propose this resolution, then to me it seems obvious there will appear to be a disconnect between decision and evidence, and that this in turn feeds the drama which greets each proposed decision. To a certain degree, that then puts the committee on the back foot of having to defend a decision rather than having up front explained it. Hiding T 09:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would you describe the "ideal" contributor to an arbitration proceeding? This would be a normal editor (not necessarily a party) who contributes in order to assist you in resolving the dispute efficiently; what sort of behavior would the ideal such editor display? What behavior would they avoid (assume that all obvious WP policy violations are already covered).

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. Mike R (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I favor terseness in all cases. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Focused and concise. Paul August ☎ 20:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is commentary accompanying diffs more useful than diffs alone, or do you prefer to let the diffs speak for themselves? If the former, what style of commentary is most useful? (Links or quotes of examples would be nice but not essential.)

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. Mike R (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I'd prefer no commentary whatsoever on the evidence pages, other than "Here's so-and-so doing so-and-so." I don't like opinions on evidence pages -- I tend to ignore them completely. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. A neutral summary can be helpful. There can be benefit to the presentation of an argument, not sure where the best place for this should be. Paul August ☎ 20:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the pros and cons of giving more (and more immediate) feedback to editors who contribute to arbitration proceedings, regarding the usefulness (or lack thereof) of their evidence and commentary?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. Mike R (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from arbitrators:

1. From arbiters you mean? It depends on the editor and the feedback. Some editors might welcome and profit from well crafted feedback, others wouldn't. And the demands on arbiters time is great. But yes more feedback would probably be helpful. Paul August ☎ 20:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When considering evidence and commentary, do you factor in who contributed it, or do you try to ignore the source and attend only to what they are saying? If you do take into account who the contributor is, what measures do you take to ascertain that your perception of the editor is accurate and not out-of-date?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. Mike R (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from arbitrators:

1. That's a tough one. For evidence -- pure evidence -- we don't have to consider the source; diffs are diffs. For commentary, we can't ignore the source, and it wouldn't make sense to. The commentary of a well-established editor is naturally going to be taken more seriously than a random anonymous IP; the commentary of someone who always gets along well with the community will be taken more seriously than someone who has been blocked for disruption a dozen times. We're human; we can't help but be prejudiced by interactions we've had in the past. (I'm not thinking here of actual parties to a case; that's more delicate and requires more discretion on our part. I'm only considering "other parties" and their commentaries on workshops and such.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Well speaking for myself, I can think of some cases where some parties were much more "highly decorated" than their opponents in all aspects and did all sorts of nonsense during the case. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note in some of the comments above that the arbitrators as a group seem to feel that recused arbitratos shouldn't join in on the discussion. Are you only referring to "private" arbitration discussion, or the "open" pages (and sub-pages and talk pages) of the request, or both? I ask, because I would think that an arbcomm member is "just another editor" and so when recused, should be able to edit in the "open" pages as such (though not commenting in the arbcom-specific section, etc.) - jc37 09:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. On a case where an Arbitrator is recused, the arbitrator is "just another editor". This means that they can make comments on open pages but not in the arbitrator section. If the arbitrator is directly involved, then they participate the same as any other involved party. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'd suggest that in a case where an arbitrator is not directly involved, but recuses for other reasons, that arbitrator should pretty much stay away from every aspect of the case, including as a regular editor; even when we're recused, arbitrators can't help but be seen as tending to favor the opinions of other arbitrators. At the very least, it's an appearance thing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. As Flo said, recused arbs may participate, just as any other editors on the case pages or elsewhere on-wiki. Whether they should is another matter. Unless they are a party to the case, then like Josh, I think they generally shouldn't. Paul August ☎ 21:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding that caseloads vary; at some times there is a lot of work to be done, at others there is relatively little work to be done, can you estimate, over the course of one year, the average number of hours per week that you as an arbitrator spend exclusively on Arbcom issues, communication, and workload, both on-wiki and off-wiki? Neil916 (Talk) 05:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Very difficult to do. Sometimes it feels like I do nothing but work on ArbCom related matters. When I'm not traveling, I spend most of my day at the computer, much of that time devoted to wiki-related activities. I used to try to continue doing some editing — before I was an arb that was several hours each day — but to my great disappointment that has now fallen off considerably. I hardly do any substantive editorial work any more. Just reading all of the arb email is for me a daunting task. Other arbs, with younger and more facile minds, find things a bit easier I'm sure. Paul August ☎ 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A mind more nimble than a pure mathematician???Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. One comparison I was making to someone a while ago was in terms of mailing list volume; it was a rough guess then, but I've added up the numbers now: so far this year the archives of wikien-l comprise 2331kb of gzipped text, whereas the archives of arbcom-l this year so far are 3121kb of similarly compressed text. --bainer (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators: