User talk:Hersfold/ArbGuide

Comments from Chzz
Hersfold, as promised, here's a bit of a review of the doc. It's just my thoughts and comments, so don't take it too literally or anything; some are probably rubbish.


 * Wikilinks in the lede to Arb process/committee, other stuff that might help w/ context?
 * I'll see what I can do.
 * Per above, a 'see also' would be good
 * Ditto.
 * Perhaps 'final resort' could link to WP:DISPUTE? Perhaps also mention the option of medcab? (I'm thinking here of making it clear that it is 'last resort', maybe making people reconsider other options, as they get to this stage)
 * Might do. Presumably at this point we're already in the case, though.
 * "and as a result have a number of rules" should be 'has'? Perhaps also "and as a result" could be 'consequentially'?
 * Will do.
 * "unusually strict rules on conduct" - perhaps 'strict' is not the best term; formal? An unusually formal procedure/rules?
 * Strict I think is the best term here. Since they are.
 * Actually the word 'rules' might not be appropriate; I'm not sure, but don't we tend to shy away from that term? norules, etc. 'policies'? Tricky here; I know that you need to emphasize that it's important to follow the guidelines, but also, it is a wiki thing, hence flexible to a degree
 * I think the Arbitration Committee's manner of operation is so far separated from how everything else on WP works that it's safe to call them rules. Open to persuasion on this, though.
 * "rules and procedures are directly contradictory to general guidelines" just a grammar thing, passive tense, maybe better active, as "rules and procedures directly contradict general guidelines"
 * Ok.
 * "This guide should help..." - "This guide intends to help"
 * Ok.
 * Suggestion:


 * I can add that.

General conduct
"By the time a dispute has escallated to arbritration, it is likely that the parties involved are already somewhat upset, therefore it is especially important to maintain a high level of decorum. (I'm simplifying here slightly, in the interests of removing bits that I don't think essential...trying to make it clearer)
 * 1st para, OK, could be rewritten a bit clearer;
 * "If a dispute manages to work its way to the Arbitration Committee, then it's understandable that those involved are going to be very upset at each other. Because of this, it's especially important that users maintain a high level of decorum to ensure that the case is completed as smoothly as possible."
 * Done.


 * Perhaps we could say something about heated editing, erm...how about

And maybe something like; Double-check your comments before posting, and if in any doubt, step back; save your comments in a temporary file, and check them later before adding them. maybe rewrite for clarity; In making a final decision, the committee will take into account user conduct during the process.
 * Done.
 * "...should make a careful effort to ensure..." to "...should be extra-careful to ensure..."? (ie it's always important, but it is especially important in arb)
 * Ok.
 * Arbitration Committee considers conduct that takes place during the case into account when they decide on the final decision
 * ok.
 * I suggest replacing "it's" with "it is" (search/replace throughout?) Similarly, "you're" - you are
 * It's (ha ha) a good suggestion, but I don't feel it's a terribly critical one. Plus, I don't feel like going through and looking for all the contractions. ;-)
 * "toe the line" should be, "tow the line"
 * No, that's correct. It's "toe" as in "stepping up to, but not over, the line".

Evidence

 * nutshell - wikilink diffs to WP:DIFF
 * Will do.
 * Naturally, however, everyone involved in the dispute will have a different point of view on the events leading to the dispute. As a result, there are some general guidelines to follow when posting evidence, which may be enforced by the case clerks.
 * maybe clearer as;
 * Naturally, everyone involved will have a different point of view on the events, so there are general guidelines to follow when posting evidence, which may be enforced by the case clerks;


 * Changed.
 * "Brevity is the soul of wit." - probably best to move this from the bold title into the para itself
 * (pouts) I like it there. :-(
 * "giving demonstrable proof that there is wrong-doing going on is better than simply claiming it."
 * giving demonstrable proof of wrong-doing is better than claiming it.


 * Changed.
 * "In one recent case," - recentism? Maybe inappropriate; will date
 * Reworded to avoid that. It does reference a particular case, so hopefully that won't get too out of date itself.
 * Re. "Edit your own section" - maybe (somewhere) link to
 * Not sure what link would be appropriate here?
 * "Often times it will be difficult for someone to make sense of a user's evidence, or some sort of summary is needed of several groups of evidence."
 * Often it is challenging to understand evidence, and sometimes a summary of groups of evidence is necessary.


 * Changed.
 * "what's going on" - "what is going on"
 * Changed to "what has been going on"
 * " Similarly, though, try to k eep to the same guidelines you would for evidence"
 * Removed.

Workshop
Rest of this section makes sense, seems OK. Possibly it it a bit long and wordy (ironic, in this context!). I'm wondering now if a diagram of the arb process would be helpful in clarifying these sections (if there isn't one already).
 * I don't know what "non-parties" are. Different term, perhaps?


 * Non-parties are people who aren't parties... this is covered later on, so I'm not sure it needs more detail here. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Principles

 * Nutshell says, "the foundation for the rest of the final decision" - I don't understand why it says "rest of"
 * I am unconvinced that "collegiate atmosphere" is an appropriate term; perhaps "cordial atmosphere" is better. I understand why you used the term, but I think "collaborative editing" covers that aspect of things.
 * "These are some examples of principles that have been included as part of a case's final decision." - I think this could be removed, and the collapsed section re-labelled - and perhaps presented differently;


 * The caveat about "while well intended, are not the sort of principles the Arbitration Committee is looking" might was well be put into the collapsed section

Findings of fact
...are based on evidence... Also, prob remove "covered later on" - not really needed, in a 'nutshell'. Or you could wikilink to the section.
 * "These are based in evidence and serve as justification for the remedies covered later on."

Remedies and Enforcement measures
Remedies are of, course, the main purpose of having an arbitration case. These are, ideally, the means through which whatever the problem was will be resolved. Of course, there needs to be justification for having these remedies, and so, as before, remedies need to be supported by adequate findings of fact and principles. The se are the culmination of the case, that everything to this point has built up to. Enforcement provisions are procedural instructions about how to ensure various remedies are followed; for example, a topic ban could be enforced with blocks of increasing length if the editor under the topic ban violates it. Not all cases will include enforcement provisions, as in some cases the remedy will specify enforcement measures itself, or more commonly the remedy simply can't be violated such as a site ban (the enforcement for  which is already dictated by policy) or a simple admonishment.
 * Shouldn't that be a lower-case E for Enforcement?
 * Nutshell, suggest linking sanctions to General sanctions
 * Nutshell, "violations of specific remedies " - you can't violate a remedy; needs rephrasing
 * I suggest the removal of some possibly redundant phrases here; for example,

Also, perhaps the last bit in parenthesis could just be, "enforced by policy".

Remedies should be proposed with the intention of  stop ping further disruption to the project, not out of spite. As with blocks issued by administrators, Arbitration R emedies are intended to prevent, not punish. Proposals made out of spite or revenge are unhelpful and may be seen as disruptive. To this end, r emedies should be well supported by findings of fact, and stated objectively. Remedies should also be very clearly worded: "User X shouldn't edit these pages" would be much  better worded  "User X is banned from editing articles and pages related to topic X, broadly construed." If e xceptions need to be made, they should also be clearly specified. Making things clear at this stage can help avoid confusion later on.

The Arbitration Committee has state s multiple times that they will not rule on content issues. The Committee is made of a panel of Wikipedia's most experienced users, however this does not mean they are omnipotent. The chances that an Arbitrator has a deep background knowledge of the content matter related to the case is highly unlikely ; generally, if this is the case {{fontcolor|blue|If they were, the Arbitrator {{fontcolor|blue|may have been}} was involved in the dispute somehow and has {{fontcolor|blue|would have}} recused themsel{{fontcolor|blue|f}} ves anyway. As a result, t {{fontcolor|blue|T}}he Arbitration Committee is poorly {{fontcolor|blue|not}} qualified to decree who {{fontcolor|blue|what}} is right and who is wrong{{fontcolor|blue|, in terms of content}}. T {{fontcolor|blue|; instead, t}}his is left to the community to determine through discussion ; t {{fontcolor|blue|T}}he Arbitration Committee's role is to see that such discussion can once again take place {{fontcolor|blue|recommence,}} by taking appropriate action to remove the barriers that were preventing it previously {{fontcolor|blue|constructive debate}}.

Where {{fontcolor|blue|multiple}} remedies specify a duration of time they will take effect for, it should be kept in mind that those time periods will run concurrently unless specified {{fontcolor|blue|otherwise}}; that is, they all start as soon as the case is closed. Therefore, if you feel it would be appropriate for a user to be site-banned for six months, and {{fontcolor|blue|then }}topic-banned from an area for six months following their return, you would propose a site-ban for six months and a topic-ban for one year {{fontcolor|blue|this would be explicitly stated in the remedy}}.


 * "Rather than provide examples" - I would remove this para; seems redundant, can be covered by the title of the collapsed thingy.

Proposed decision

 * Nutshell: "The page is not to be edited by anyone not a clerk or arbitrator." - The page should not be edited by anyone other than clerks and arbitrators.
 * "When the proposed decision comes around, the majority of the case is over with. " - probably redundant; otherwise, could be "By this point, the case is almost concluded". (If that is true)
 * "The Drafting Arbitrator " - I don't think that this should be initial-caps; I've not been sure all the way through, about the cap A used for Arbritrator, but I suppose that that could be considered a 'proper noun', in Wikipedia terms.
 * As above, "the Drafter"
 * And the P in "the Proposed decisions"
 * "decision is started with a wide range of options" - I don't really understand this
 * "Parties may comment on proposals and suggest new proposals to be included from the workshop on the Proposed decision's talk page, however, only Arbitrators and clerks may edit the Proposed decision page themselves." - I don't understand; the first part of this sentence implies that parties can edit the page, and the latter part says that they can't. If they cannot edit the page, where do they make their comments and suggestions?
 * "what is and isn't passing" - not sure what 'passing' means; it's an odd turn of phrase. "passed" might work. Or explain what..."what is and is not agreed upon" or somesuch
 * "nothing further to do at the proposed decision" suggest "nothing further to do the proposed decision "
 * "Once a net number [...] are in favor of closing [...] and 24 hours have passed since the motion was made." - this is an incomplete sentence, it doesn't say what happens once this is true.   "Once it is done." ???
 * "When the case is closed, the clerk will copy all passing proposals to the case's main page and enact the remedies passed." - are they proposals or remedies, at this point? Make yer mind up :)

Individual roles

 * Perhaps this section should be moved higher up, as the defined roles would help understanding the other bits. And, infact, this section might be better as 1-liners, near the top of this page, with 'see main' and a page specifically about each of the roles - I expect that those pages could end up being expanded, in the fullness of time, to give details about the roles. I mean, something like this;

Arbitrators have overall authority throughout the case; they review the evidence, workshop proposals, and proposed decision provisions, make the final decision. During the case, they may block editors for disruption and ban editors from further participation.

The drafting arbitrator has no special authority; their role is to follow the case closely, add workshop proposals and write the majority of the proposed decision

Clerks are tasked with procedural matters and maintaining proper conduct. They opening and close the case, ensure that the pages are kept in the proper format, maintain the implementation notes, answer procedural questions, monitor conduct, and issuing warnings and blocks for misconduct. In severe cases, the case clerk retains the authority to ban users from further participation. Clerks may also remove or refactor statements.

Parties are users directly involved in the dispute. They submit evidence and workshop proposals, and their comments are denoted as "Comments by parties". Parties are not necessarily sanctioned as part of the final decision, nor are they exempt from that fate (however, a non-party being sanctioned is rare).


 * Note, I removed this part in the above; "Arbitrators who believe that they have some vested interest in the case (such as being involved in the dispute, or having a close relation to a party) will recuse themselves prior to the start of the case; should this occur, they have no special role in the case and act as an uninvolved editor unless specifically named as a party." - I think that this belongs elsewhere.


 * Same for the para about clerks recusing.


 * I also removed, "The clerks are not arbitrators in any sense; they have no authority to affect the outcome of the case, and have no interest in said outcome, and in many cases have no interest in the dispute itself. However, any reasonable act done by a clerk in their role as an Arbitration Clerk should be seen as done with the authority of the Arbitration Committee. If you wish to appeal the action of a clerk and you are unable to work things out with the clerks themselves, you should contact the Arbitration Committee." - I think that this is probably unneccesary.


 * In 'parties' I removed "generally participate in the process. " - not sure if that has much meaning

A stab at a reorg
I copied an earlier version of this page and then experimented with some changes.

User:Manning_Bartlett/ArbGuide

I'm not planning to develop it any further, but thought I'd share what I'd done in case any of the ideas seem worthwhile. I'll delete it in a few days probably.

Chief diffs - I've opened with an overview of the process, and moved the "involved players" discussion to the top. There's a bit of a rewrite for the participants.

Manning (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)