Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Draft policy RfC

Introduction
To determine community support for moving towards a tighter organisational model for ArbCom hearings. 09:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC) The Arbitration Committee is the peak decision-making body of last resort for dealing with disputes between editors on the English Wikipedia. It is now time to determine community support for moving towards such a tighter organisational model for ArbCom hearings; this would represent a clear break with the loose, expansionary model that until now has characterised the hearings.
 * Background

ArbCom is currently revising the policy that governs its role and processes, and has published a first provisional draft for an updated arbitration policy. Although the first draft includes no significant changes to the hearings process, the Committee itself may already be considering some of the issues raised in the following six proposals. The Coordinating Arbitrator has informally stated that this "isn't a reason to not go ahead and get community input on them now; and some early community feedback may help the next draft better reflect the direction in which we eventually want to take this." Some proposals may be more appropriate expressed as part of the hearings procedure

Many editors believe ArbCom hearings have a tendency to be unfocused, lengthy and sometimes chaotic. There have been calls above for the current structure and rules to be changed to encourage streamlined, focused, orderly and prompt hearings. These calls concern the lack of evidentiary rules, specifically the need to:
 * The package of six proposals
 * clearly establish the scope of each case at the start, and to insist that parties remove material outside that scope;
 * set a two-week deadline for submissions;
 * reserve the "workshop" page for arbitrators and clerks alone, because it has no clear evidentiary role and a tendency to encourage parties to make war during what should be a formal, dignified, orderly process;
 * set and enforce a more disciplined word limit on submissions;
 * allow general editors to submit evidence only by application;
 * place more emphasis on active case management, by a "presiding arbitrator" through the clerks.

Examples of possible policy wordings are set out here.


 * Possible objections to the proposals
 * Establishing the scope at the start may be inflexible, and updating the scope during the submission of evidence logistically difficult to achieve.
 * Procedural changes should be trialled before writing them into policy.
 * Useful evidence by non-party editors might be discouraged by the need to apply to participate.
 * Clerks are not appointed to manage cases this closely, even under the guidance of an arbitrator.
 * How the Committee allocates cases among arbitrators internally should not be covered in the policy.

Please comment and sign in  one  of the three Response sections underneath the proposals. If referring to particular proposals, please cite them by number. Tony  (talk)  09:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Responses
Please respond in one of the following sections and sign.

I support all six proposals
Please comment and sign.


 * Yes, per much of the discussion higher on this page (WT:Arbitration Committee/Draft policy) . I believe all these proposals would help avoid the ridiculous situations we've seen with some cases developing uncontrolledly in any directions people have deigned to take them. ArbCom should be a place where the drama stops, not a forum for it to continue. --Kotniski (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe this reform package will be an important step towards allowing ArbCom to reach its potential as an authoritative and prestigious agent of justice and harmonious relations among editors. A few specific points:
 * Ironically, if implemented without favour, tighter evidentiary rules are likely to be fairer to the parties: bloat and irrelevant material are the enemy of clarity and optimal decision-making by the Committee.
 * Requiring application by non-party editors to post is to discourage agenda-laden and trivial fly-by comments while encouraging high-quality, disinterested information from non-party editors. The latter is what the arbitrators want, and it will soon become obvious to all that such information will be rewarded with permission. It should be a mark of honour and trust to assist the process as an outsider.
 * Low word-limits encourage people to craft their message; brevity is the essence of effective communication in administrative contexts, not streams of consciousness—all too often angry consciousness. Parties will be quite able to respond to each others' evidence, but will need to ration their existing text to do so—all the better for constraining undignified word wars.
 * It is well-accepted that ArbCom needs to get through more business. The streamlined process will allow this to occur, by significantly reducing the burden of redundancy. The slight increase in managerial input by a presiding arbitrator earlier in a case should be offset many times over by a clearer and more straightforward task of negotiating a judgement among the arbs at the end. And there is occasionally truth in the old adage justice delayed is justice denied. Tony   (talk)  13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They all seem like good, positive ideas to me.  hmwith  τ   09:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I support some proposals and oppose others
Please specify which proposals you support and which you oppose, and comment and sign.
 * Proposal 1 is fine as long as some method for changing or expanding scope is also used. I oppose proposal 2 . New evidence should be allowed to be submitted as long as the arbitrators are still considering evidence. Only when the voting starts should it be stopped. I support proposal 3 (workshop page locked) as long as the evidence page stays open. I also oppose proposal 4. Let's first enforce the existing rules so we can see if lowering is actually needed. I oppose proposal 5 . While "sheeping" (repeating already voiced opinions) should be discouraged, allowing only third parties who apply to participate to submit evidence is needlessly bureaucratic. It might lead to people with solid evidence not bothering to participate when they might actually provide useful insights. Just limiting the space they can use is enough. Since Proposal 6 moves things along smoothly, I support it. In short: I support options 1 and 3 and oppose the rest. - Mgm|(talk) 11:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify your stance on proposal 6? You seem to both support and oppose. Hiding T 11:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And can you kindly clarify "Just limiting the space they can use is enough"? Since you oppose 4 (lower word limits), what do you mean by "limiting the space"? Tony   (talk)  13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually enforcing the limits which already exist? -- A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 09:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: 1, 4, 6 . Oppose: 2 (new evidence could turn up at any time; I would support if allowance were made for extensions by request via a motion), 3 (I think parties should be allowed to make proposals; these parties could have restrictions on how many proposals [total of principles, FoFs and remedies] that they could make on the Workshop) Undecided: 5 (pending clarification). Dabomb87 (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabomb: does the example of policy wording (linked above) cover your concern about "new evidence"? Please see Proposals 2a and b. Tony   (talk)  13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support 1, 2, 4. Neutral on 6. Oppose 3; outside parties often submit useful suggestions on the workshop (although a reasonable version would be to suggest that the parties may not put in workshop suggestions, as they tend to be limited to sanctioning their "opponent"). Weak oppose 5; while it could lead to a reduction in overbroad evidence, non-parties can sometimes have something to add. Perhaps a stricter word/diff limit on non-parties might be workable, or a separate evidence page (or the evidence talk page?) could be used for them. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I support all except 3. The workshop page could do with being less of a war ground, but there needs to be some way for parties to suggest what they think the outcome should be. (At least for principles and facts, it might be worth leaving the sentencing side of things purely up to Arbs.) --Tango (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose 3 (if the workshop is only for the Arbs, then what is the difference between the workshop and the proposed decision page?); oppose 4 (from own recent experience as a current party to an arbcom case, the current limits are not too wide). More or less neutral on much of the rest. I just note that none of this addresses what I personally still think is the most important thing that must change, as outlined here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, why was that proposal (the one you link to with "here") not taken forward? It would represent a vast improvement! Could it be resurrected (e.g. at the Draft policy page?)--Kotniski (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think some of the Arbs were generally sympathetic to that line of ideas, but there was some disagreement about how quickly the committee should put such far-reaching reform plans on its own agenda. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a simpler wording: Arbitrators are requested to comment on the Workshop pages. This would provide guidance as to scope ("I doubt ArbCom will be interested in that" is much more effective from an Arb) and limits on evidence ("OK, User:Verbose, I think we've got the point now"; this won't always work, but users who irritate ArbCom rarely get very far). If such hints are ignored repeatedly, clerks would be justified in imposing limits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the Ryulong case now in progress, which seems influenced by Fut.'s outline or similar thinking, and which Kirill points to on the draft policy page as "one approach we're considering"? Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop and related. 86.44.19.74 (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * support 6, neutral 2, oppose 1,3,4,5 - 1) Scope should not be limited because ArbCom is practically the only place that difficult issues get definitively addressed. Overly restrictive limiting of scope will explode the number of ArbCom cases as complicated issues that now are settled in one case will need many to accomplish the same goal. 2) Neutral. Some time limit may be a good idea. 3, 4, 5) limiting the amount of evidence will only mean that the Committee will make less informed decisions. 6) good idea. Dlabtot (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support 1, 2, 3, and 5. Neutral on the rest. But 1, 2, 3, and 5 are very smart ideas that will improve the process greatly, pretty much for reasons already explained above by . Cirt (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I support 1. As long as the arbs can change the scope of a case by motion, that's an awesome idea. I oppose 3 (Workshops for arbs and clerks only are pointless, that's what the arb's mailing list and private wiki is for, I presume), 4 (Complicated cases need verbose evidence) and 6 (I just don't see the point here). I'm neutral on the rest, that is, 2 and 5. --Conti|✉ 23:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I support 1, 4 and 6. I support the idea of 2, but not the specified time-limit, maybe 25 days instead, and I'd like to see something which allows new evidence to be presented up until the case is closed, if only because I love that moment in a court-room drama when the lawyer bursts in shouting new evidence just as the gavel is about to fall. I think there should be a point where the arbs say, right, we're going to go away and consider, and maybe the evidence page is archived, but that new stuff can still be posted. I don't think it would help heal divisions though if pertinent information wasn't dealt with due to process. We're not a bureaucracy. I'm opposed to 5 because I think it is too restrictive on the community.  Realistically the whole community is always a party in an arbitration dispute, because if a case is at arbitration, it means it has disrupted the encyclopedia and the community.  I support the idea of 3, but not the implementation as stands.  The workshop idea is becoming a nightmare, and I don't know how best to resolve that, but I think a change in formatting might work.  Instead of mirroring the proposed decision page, why not allow people to simply post a short list of principles they believe are relevant.  I've never understood why parties are allowed to propose findings of facts, that seems entirely counter-productive and somewhat supplants the point of the evidence page. Proposing remedies I can kind of understand, but agin, it seems to be counter-productive as parties get into tit-for-tat posting. Something has to give here, but I can't work out what. Maybe the workshop could be refined by allowing each party 500 words to state their desired outcome? Possibly rename it proposed resolutions? Hiding T 10:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposal 3 makes little sense, I can't figure out what the difference between "Workshop" and "Proposed decision" would be. As for proposal 4, if current limits are unenforced it makes little sense to impose lower limits: rather, enforce existing limits more strictly. I have no opinion on proposal 5, and support all the other proposals. -- A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 09:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support 1, 2, 3, 6, Oppose 4, Neutral 5. 500 words in some cases, particularly some of the more extraordinary ones, may not be enough. Imagine, for example, one admin versus 10 nationalist POV pushers, and the admin gets only 500 words? No. While I can agree having non-parties not-involved would reduce the congestion on the pages, I believe that there there are sufficient incidents of their producing valuable input that they should be allowed to post. I might agree with a bit more detailed description of "application", under such circumstances, however. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support 2,6 These are efficiency measures and make sense.  Making cases go quicker and more efficiently is a net plus.


 * Oppose 1,3,4. ''
 * Would be willing to support 1 if defendant could also add to the scope. Otherwise this blocks the counter suit and counter claims which would create a major "first strike advantage" in a dispute.
 * Statement of findings desired is an important part of any trial. Debate on findings and not just evidence is very useful. This is what is different between workshop and proposed decision pages.  So I object to 3
 * I could support (5) if it was made clear that evidence talk was open to everyone.
 * jbolden1517Talk 20:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) Support [clear scope a condition for opening a case], broadly speaking. (2) Oppose [two-week deadline for submissions]. Fixing a deadline for case submissions is not a helpful approach, in my mind; rather, requiring a schedule be drawn up—eg., X days to submit evidence, Y days for workshopping, and so on—would be a less restrictive adjustment to traditional practices. (3) Oppose [restricting /Workshop page to arb's and clerks only]. Party and community input is essential, and I think workshopping is the cleanest route to enabling such input; additionally—and I say this as a committee clerk myself—expanding the clerk office to include analysing case evidence and drafting decisions in-workshop is a marked departure from the purview of what is essentially a purely clerical role; I'm not minded to support this proposal, which would essentially transform the committee's clerks into mini-arbitrators. (4) Probably oppose [word limit on all evidence submissions]. Practically speaking, the depth of cases vary so drastically that finding a suitable upper limit on evidence submissions would be impossible; a word limit might be suitable for evidence in one case, impossibly low to meet for another, and far too high for yet another. The Committee's caseload is a heterogeneous one. (5) Oppose ["allow general editors to submit evidence only by application"]. As I opined in (3), I think outside input to be, in many cases, greatly valuable in the crafting of a solution to a given dispute. Channelling evidence submissions into a permissions process would discourage many editors from offering what would be beneficial input to a case, and that's a broadly negative thing. (6) Moot point [presiding arbitrator]. The Committee has, since the new round of arbitrators were elected this year, reformed its case management approaches. One aspect of reform has been the assignment of "drafting arbitrators" to every case, which seems to be largely what is being proposed here. AGK 18:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposals 3, 6 - Proposal 3 could be changed to something that would allow outside comments, provided they are kept to a minimum, and proposal 6 would make one arbitrator in charge among the rest, rather than all arbitrators speaking on an equal level.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support 1,3,5,6 Oppose 4, 2 -- The Arbitration Committee is the last stop for dispute resolution here on en-Wikipedia. These cases need to be thorough and well thought and and nothing missed, therefor time and word limits would cut all the very important details that need to be heard during an ArbCom case. Yeah, it'll take longer but, so what? If you where going to be banned I would rather tell my side of the story thoroughly and well detailed instead of just summarized. Renaissancee (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I oppose all six proposals

 * Why don't we just remove habeaus corpus while we're at it.


 * Proposal 1: Scope of hearings to be stated
 * -Prevents counter-suits, stifles ability to put case in light of broader context.


 * Proposal 2: Two-week deadline for evidentiary submissions
 * Arbitrarily impedes evidence-gathering, thus diminishing accuracy/justness of resolution.


 * Proposal 3: Workshop page for arbitrators and clerks only
 * Removes the defendants and plantif from the process, prevents them from being able to argue their case, file charges, etc. Removes their right to speech and attorney.


 * Proposal 4: Lower limits on the length of evidentiary submissions
 * Again, hampers communication.


 * Proposal 5: Restricted third-party input
 * Great, less input, less info, fewer witnesses. Just what a jury needs. (that was sarcasm)


 * Proposal 6: Presiding arbitrator
 * From a trial by jury to a trial by dictator. Sounds so much better. (sarcasm again) Kevin Baastalk 15:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're going to make legal analogies, I'd be interested to hear of any legal system that allows any passer-by to walk into a courtroom and start giving "evidence" about anyone and any subject they like.--Kotniski (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's called a "witness", and they are an essential part of legal proceedings. Kevin Baastalk 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea of how court cases work? You think you can just turn up at someone's trial, stand up and make a speech about whatever you like, and have everything you say faithfully written into the record and considered at the verdict? Of course not. So if you want to make ArbCom work differently from courts of law, that's fine, it isn't a court of law; but you can't use an analogy with a court of law to try to justify those differences; that's just plain illogical.--Kotniski (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the usage of the word "analogy". In an analogy, the two things are not exactly alike, rather, they differ in some ways.  They do not imply a formal logical equivalence or extension.  However, one can point out logical fallacies in any case, such as a false dichotomy which you seem to be making here.  My point is that feedback from neutral parties that have observed the situation can be quite helpful in elucidating what has transpired and thus arriving at a just solution, in the same way that a witness to a crime is helpful.  If you're trying to argue that that's a false analogy, good luck with that.  Kevin Baastalk 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not disputing that input from neutral parties can be useful, but it should be carefully controlled and kept on topic, just like (or almost like) witness testimony in a real court case is. --Kotniski (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I oppose all the changes for the following reasons;


 * Proposal 1: Scope of hearings to be stated
 * As evidence is submitted, the scope of the case can change. Having a fixed scope before proceedings start does no good - it simply limits the arbitrators findings even when there's evidence showing actionable behaviour outside the scope.
 * I think if you read the proposal again, it says that the arbs can alter the scope; but we must all have a right to know what the scope is at a given moment. The scope can't be allowed to just change on the wind, depending on what someone or other has decided to write about on the evidence page.--Kotniski (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Proposal 2: Two-week deadline for evidentiary submissions
 * Whilst most cases only require a two week deadline, others need longer as the evidence is much more complex. It also fails to take into account when major parties aren't available to submit their evidence in the two week period.


 * Proposal 3: Workshop page for arbitrators and clerks only
 * Some of the best proposals actually come from parties and/or uninvolved contributors and these are often taken forward to the proposed decisions. Whilst it's true to say we do get some poor proposals in the workshop which intensifies the dispute, overall it's not out of hand. The arbitrators are more than capable of parsing out the good proposals.


 * Proposal 4: Lower limits on the length of evidentiary submissions
 * Some cases only need a small amount of evidence, others need far more. Having a lower limit for evidence submissions may mean that key evidence is missed.


 * Proposal 5: Restricted third-party input
 * We need input from neutral parties - cases often go to arbitration because the parties to the cases have blinkers on in the area of the dispute. Having neutral input is a good thing - My experience shows the best evidence is from people who aren't involved in the dispute.


 * Proposal 6: Presiding arbitrator
 * We already have one - the drafting arbitrator is stated on Template:ArbComOpenTasks.

Sorry guys, I know people have worked hard on this, but I think the proposals are far too arbitrary - they do little to help and often will give a negative effect to the whole process.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? Arbitrary? Negative? The present system is the most arbitrary thing imaginable, and leaves a very negative taste in the mouths or many people (read the previous comments on the Draft page and elsewhere).--Kotniski (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said arbitrary. In my opinion each of these points (bar 6 which we already have) is much more arbitrary than what we currently have.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting you. What's arbitrary about having people know what the scope of the case is? If arbitrariness is a problem, then allowing the scope to be changed arbitrarily by anyone at any time (as we have now) is far worse.--Kotniski (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ryan, lower word limits: what could have been more complex than the cases for and against DA in the recent RFC? What a difference it made to have 500-word limits on each side's statement, don't you think? And there was not even the right to apply for an extended word length, as proposed here. Can you comment further given this? Tony   (talk)  08:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I Oppose all 6 suggestions in their current form but partially support nearly all of them. Oppose 1 because it will lead to wikilawyering to exclude evidence, and it doesn't seem to actually solve a current problem. I would support a simple statement of scope as a guideline to save time. Oppose 2 Apart from BLP and copyvio cases. Some editors have an entirely unwarranted sense of urgency over rather mundane tiffs. The current method has a huge advantage in letting the inertia of bureaucracy get rid of a lot of the blow-ups which quickly disappear. This suggestion requires that we move in the direction of a professional arbitration committee. Oppose 3 As it stands the workshop pages allow the arbitrators to see a microcosm of the dispute. If you want access to the proposed decision before it becomes public then you should ask for that. Oppose 4 Enforcing the current limits would seem to be more than adequate. Oppose 5 This just moves the locus of dispute to who can be a party. If you want to add all users who edit the evidence page as parties, then say so. A lot of disputes profit from external editors who have observed a small part of the dispute commenting, but these editors are not generally a part of the wider dispute (for example a developer). Perhaps adding a set of "non-party participants" to a case for bookkeeping and notification purposes is what you would prefer. Oppose 6 This describes the job of the clerk. It would lead to one of the Arbitrators acting as a clerk, which is why we have the job separation in the first place. Appointing a clerk to clerk for the appointed clerk of the Arbitration committee seems like overkill. If you want to complain about the clerk assigned in a case, nobody is stopping you. AKAF (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Much though I would like to support one of these for tactical reasons, I can't.
 * 1) I would support ArbCom stating a scope at the beginning - and usually they do. But removal of evidence tending outside that scope would, for example, rule out the quite common case: User A accuses User B of POV editing and admin abuse; User B shows that User A or his friends are abusive cranks.
 * 2) While it is unfortunate that WP:ARBDATE dragged on so long, an absolute deadline is an invitation to abuse: defamatory evidence will tend to appear just before deadline, especially if the defamed one is asleep at that hour. If ArbCom then waits for a reply, screams of favoritism will arise.
 * 3) Based on two misapprehensions:
 * 4) *the Request for Arbitration is not open once the case has been accepted.
 * 5) *Workshops have a clear and consistent structure (to which Tony spent most of his time objecting):
 * 6) **We have general acceptance that we should not do X
 * 7) **User A none the less did X
 * 8) **Specific diffs showing User A doing X (this belongs on Evidence)
 * 9) **I therefore propose that S be imposed to stop User A from doing X.
 * These are two pages worth of statements, which form a cohesive argument (with luck). Tony would remove the coherent format.
 * 1) The limits on evidence are not enforced; therefore we should lower them. This would lead to lower limits which are less likely to be enforced, especially if the editor is saying something. The solution is to pick limits, warn editors who approach those limits, and enforce them.
 * 2) At WP:ARBDATE, several editors came out of the woodwork; some of them argued for Tony and his friends; more argued against him. Aww. It depends on the case; but unless such evidence is sockpuppetry (which I doubt it was, on either side), it is more likely to be neutral than the evidence of either side.
 * 3) Not necessary, as long as an Arb is actively watching the case. When complaints against a clerk were posted at the Workshop in WP:ARBDATE, they received the attention of an Arbitrator within 24 hours. The attention was negative, but that's another grievance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with everything Kevin and Ryan have said above. This is a poor set of proposals that would only make matters worse. &mdash; Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   20:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

 * WRT proposal 5, what would the "application process" consist of? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabomb, I had in mind that the outside editor would provide on the talk page a brief summary of the area and gist of their proposed comment or suggestion. For example:
 * "As an uninvolved admin who has dealt with transgressions by both sides, I want to provide summary data and links on relevant edit-warring at in late 2008 at [article(s)] that I do not think have been properly covered in the evidence." or:
 * "I am well-acquainted with article X and, although I have collaborated with [party X] over the past year, I believe I can assist by giving a balanced view on the source of the conflict."
 * There would probably be no disadvantage in the outside party's providing more details of their proposed comment on the talk page. The difference is that unless allowed on the "evidence" page, the information has neither proper status in the case nor the potential to clutter it. Tony   (talk)  13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Has there been feedback from the Committee on these changes?  [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony has pointed me to a discussion on his talk page. I am strongly inclined to believe, on the basis of that, that this poll is premature.  Kirill explicitly notes that at least three of these proposals will be included in some form in the next draft of the policy.  Why we are having a poll at this point is beyond me.  We are still very much in the discussion phase of consensus building.  Voting is evil, right?  We should only do it when we have finished useful discussion.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 11:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There has already been plenty of discussion at WT:Arbitration Committee/Draft policy. I don't think there was anything premature about moving on to this stage (which isn't "voting" anyway).--Kotniski (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to say it somewhat resembles a poll. If you want to call it something different, go ahead.  Me, I'm still going to call it "premature", as the discussion involving the Arbitration Committee is minimal and it has already been indicated that these proposals are being worked on.  This seems an unnecessarily confrontational manner of implementing these changes (as it forces people into binary positions before the proposals are properly formulated).  I say this even though I think several of which are very sensible indeed.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 11:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, how else are we supposed to work on proposals except by asking people to comment on them? And if you don't think they're properly formulated, suggest improvements. I really don't see what other form of discussion you have in mind, now the general discussion at the Draft page has been going on for ages and seemingly got as far as it can.--Kotniski (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about suggestions from (or, maybe, reading the existing comments from) the members of the Arbitration Committee? They are a kind of important part of this policy.  What's more, please read the text I put in italics above.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy)
 * The italicized text doesn't make sense to me. The proposals are being worked on here. If someone's working on them somewhere else, then let them come here and join in the discussion. Particularly if they are members of ArbCom. --Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * People spent a long time doing that ArbCom RFC sometime last year; there was then a protracted effort to get various items with apparent consensus from that into the policy. Then the Committee came along and incorporated the vast majority of the points (with significant improvements for efficacy) in a major draft.  Kirill Lokshin has indicated that there is another draft coming that will incorporate at least some of these points.  Why on earth are we having this RFC?   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 11:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To establish what consensus is, so that the points that have consensus can be put into the draft, I suppose. Not that ArbCom have any monopoly on drafting. If you're saying that ArbCom are having a private discussion about this somewhere, then that's clearly bad - they should be engaging in the open debate.--Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that progress should be more public, yes, though it is arguable that there are advantages for doing a certain amount of drafting in private. They may not have a monopoly on drafting, no; nevertheless the policy peculiarly concerns them and they tend to be good at drafting text, so it is hardly surprising that their drafts should be superior.  In any case, what is being proposed here is most definitely not drafting.  It is amendment, which is silly when the policy itself is hardly written yet.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 11:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Sorry, still not getting you. The policy is written - see the existing draft, and these proposals are for changes to that draft. How are ArbCom supposed to produce a new draft based on the community's input, if you don't allow the community to make any input?--Kotniski (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Drafting a policy will generally involve more than one draft...  [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 12:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, all right, the more you say, the less I understand you, and probably vice versa. Let's leave it there.--Kotniski (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ryan Postlethwaite's rejection above of the whole 6-proposal package makes me wonder in particular about his experience of the workshop in its present form, see Proposal 3. Nice that that experience has been so positive! But for myself, I can't say I've noticed arbitrators being "more than capable of parsing out the good proposals". From frequent chats with arbitrators, I have noticed that most or all of them seem to desist from reading input from the parties on the workshop at all, as soon as it becomes moderately long. The workshop idea hasn't scaled, and it's no wonder that keeping on top of it is too much for the committee. I don't know how many times I've been told privately by arbs that "Oh, I didn't see that, you'd better drop me a link on my page". A supposed workshop where users need to first give their opinion and then tell the committee that they've given it is a bit worse than useless IMO. (Worse because people naturally hesitate to bug these busy people on their talkpages, plus, those pages would gum up completely if it caught on.) Kirill's wish to keep the workshop for the committee to write on is really irrelevant to the proposal to scrap it as a medium for the community. The committee can invent any page they like for their own use in the blink of an eye, surely, if they have stuff that won't go conveniently on the Proposed Decision page. And the formulation of Proposal 3 is in fact now "Workshop page for arbitrators and clerks only". Works for me. Bishonen | talk 18:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Who wants to take bets on how long it takes before this becomes an unreadable mess? I say 24 hours. This has its own subpage, why are we forcing people to give their opinions on 6 proposals in only 3 sections? Mr.Z-man 22:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of participants voting within the 'shades of grey' may have been underestimated. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Tally as of 5/6/09, 17:33 UTC (?=neutral/undecided): 1. ++|++++?-+++++ +8-2 = +6 (11 to  5 out of 16) 2. ++|--++??+?+++ +4-2 = +2 ( 8 to  6 out of 14) 3. ++|+-+-+-+ -3-2 = -5 ( 6 to 11 out of 17) 4. ++|-+++--? -4-2 = -6 ( 5 to 11 out of 16) 5. ++|-?-+?-+?-?? -2-2 = -4 ( 4 to  8 out of 12) 6. ++|++?+?+?-+++ +6-2 = +4 ( 9 to  5 out of 14) t      6|11 (I counted "weak"s and "in concept"s as a vote in that direction.) Kevin Baastalk 17:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)