User:Brews ohare/Filtering ArbCom cases

A pre-filter to select appropriate cases for presentation to ArbCom


A big problem of Administration is interminable arbitration cases that, however settled, spread rancor across WP and cause ejection of good editors who just can't take it any longer. The underlying cause is cases with large gray areas. Interestingly, some believe that gray areas are a good thing because they allow latitude for discriminating administrators to "fit the punishment to the crime". Despite the belief that such latitude leads to good results, experience on WP shows clearly that this idea doesn't work and, to the contrary, leads to unending debate over irrelevancies and to hard feelings all around. The reason: decisions with large gray areas require too detailed a discovery and deliberation. Administrators have neither the time, nor the inclination, nor the technical background to indulge in fine tuning, so gray areas just leave latitude for iffy arbitration.

The suggestion below is to reduce the number of cases with large gray areas by having ArbCom insist that a set of guidelines be used as a first recourse in settling disputes. Only if the guidelines fail, will ArbCom consider acceptance of a case. If the ArbCom case load is not reduced under this arrangement, and the cases brought are not more clear cut and easier to settle, then the guidelines can be amended or removed. Below is a proposal for such a filter to limit the number of gray-area cases. Different ideas may be better: it's only a suggestion.

The idea is that if administrators can enforce policies that ensure real discussion, as opposed to a mêlée, eventually the editors will be able to settle matters. Complexities can be forced upon the page editors. Administrators can help with guidelines on conduct to make things work better.

What gets filtered out?
How should the pre-filter work? To avoid prolonged debate and unsatisfying decisions, the pre-filter should allow through to ArbCom those cases where the rules to be applied are so straightforward that those blinded by incapacity, either mental or emotional, still can see what is to be done, and it is obvious to everybody involved (those ruled upon as well as the arbitrators) that the rules were correctly applied.

In those cases that make it past the filter, the policies to be enforced must be simple. Some are already out there: WP:HARASS, WP:3RR, WP:Civil, WP:DIS, WP:TALK (these last two presently behavioral guidelines) and so forth. Some policies that are out there should never be given to administrators: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:Syn, and should be treated according to WP:PG, that is, as a "best practice". These rules are important, but they tend to require technical and detailed thought processes no administrator can or wants to handle. Instead, these policies (possibly demoted to guidelines) should be handled by the editors on a given page, who will interpret them according to circumstance, or according to rules of engagement that develop over time. Some changes in guidelines for use by editors may evolve to catalyze profitable interchange, and steer away from rhetoric and posturing. An essay suggesting a modus operandi for dealing with minority views is found here.

Such an approach leaves the quality of an article at the mercy of its page editors. That is where it belongs. The majority in control of a page may do a bad job: that's all a WP can do. There is no direct attempt by administrators to alter content. Their job is just to ensure that Talk page discussion takes place, and is as open and as constructive as possible. Whatever comes from real discussion is whatever it is. Hopefully, a bunch of jerks in control of a page will become unseated as folks rally to common sense, and as the culture of WP evolves, jerks will be more readily dealt with.

Is a filter hard to implement?
Introduction of a filter doesn't alter the present framework except to add an introductory step into litigation. I believe this framework fits well within the present WP project, and would relieve administrators from the most obnoxious and difficult cases they presently are involved with. Whatever form these guidelines might take, a filtering process of first resort, before a case will be considered for ArbCom, would greatly assist matters, and put the burden of settling a fracas upon those involved.

Unending debate would be relegated to the editors of a page where the debate arises, and rules of conduct will terminate such debate when it degenerates to a stand-off. (A possible methodology is outlined here.) Minority views will be entertained to a degree. Some rules modifications may turn out to be necessary, but this framework would be more workable than the present unending resorts to WP:AN/I, where little satisfaction is found by all concerned.

Effort exerted to develop useful behavioral guidelines and an improved first-recourse filtering operation would be far more helpful in evolving WP than piece-by-piece, acrimonious litigation that gets everybody wound up, and just goes 'round and 'round with new players but same old problems. I'd also hope with less time spent in arbitration, administrators could devote more time to the big questions of WP, a more constructive and imaginative usage of their abilities.