Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Statements about what works well in the current Arbitration Committee process


 * Complete RfC: :.
 * These statements and responses were last updated at .

Statements about what works well in the current Arbitration Committee process
Views specifically about what you feel works well, and/or to the benefit and service of the community, under the current setup that we have.

{{#ifeq:{{{expand|yes}}}|yes|

View by User:Jaysweet
Well gol-dang it, let's not make this a total pile-on. I am stunned by the events of the last couple of days, and I think there is a lot of 'splaining to do. But is the lack of "views" here really saying that nobody thinks the ArbCom does anything well? I beg to differ.

In my (admittedly very limited) experience, where I have seen ArbCom do their best work is in regards to nationalism-related controversies. Nationalism is one of those areas where otherwise rational and intelligent people tend to experience such strong emotions and allegiances that it makes compromise impossible (heh, it's what we fight most of our wars over these days, inun't it?). The community has a particular problem dealing with this, because in many cases your typical unbiased editor doesn't know nearly enough about the issue in order to intervene (anyone who fully understands Estonia's Bronze Soldier controversy, raise your hand!), and a sizeable fraction of editors who are knowledgeable are inherently biased.

This is where I think it is very valuable to have a small group of people who can study a case and make binding decisions. We'll never get enough non-Estonian non-Russian Wikipedians to understand the Bronze Soldier brouhaha to manage it via the normal consensus process. But if we can get a committee to educate themselves, and then issue binding rulings that the community helps to uphold, then we might actually get somewhere.

Users who endorse this summary:


 * Me, duh. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) We all appreciate what sanitation engineers do, but very few are keen to shake them by the hand - let alone kiss them... LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) This is an area where ArbCom does quite well. Davewild (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 16:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC) I agree with Dave  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 16:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) At least. I think they do other things well too. I'll try to get those down in this section. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) --Barberio (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Indeed this applies to any area in which normal consensus-based processes  break down, especially the BLP-related cases where the Committee has persistently championed the enforcement of policies using the strongest measures (some of them deriving from its experience in nationalism-based arbitrations). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Completely agree, there have been a lot of new and unique ideas brought out of these cases that have significantly improved nationalist dispute handling.  I also agree with Tony, that other consensus-based problems are generally handled well.  Shell    babelfish 20:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Hats off to Kirill, who IMO is largely responsible for ArbCom's success in this area. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) An excellent summary of an important issue. Doc   Tropics  15:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) I think there are a number of issues like the nationalism one, though the solutions have seemed to work pretty well of late.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) The investigatory role is important.  Gnixon (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) —  xDanielx  T/C\R 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Tony Sidaway
The strength that the Committee brings to Wikipedia, which is devolved from that of Jimmy Wales and (latterly) the Foundation, is as the final arbiter on interpretation of policy in the light of Wikipedia's primary purpose of producing a free high quality encyclopedia, the resolution of disputes, and providing enforceable strategies for the enforcement of policy. It is an elected body and may be replaced by election.

Endorsed by
 * 1) Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Factual issues
 * The Arbitration Committee is not elected. It is appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation, who take into account results from an election when they make the appointments. They are not bound by the results of the election. --Barberio (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Jimmy Wales appoints the committee and usually follows the result of the election. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it actually appointed by the WMF? I thought the WMF couldn't take any control over local projects for Section 230 reasons. rootology  ( T ) 23:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't think the Foundation has any part in it. Could be wrong.  On English Wikipedia, it's always been something Jimmy Wales does as the powers of the Committee originally came from him.  The ultimate job of interpreting and guiding the enforcement of policy is arbcom's.  It has been so for years as far as I can tell. --Jenny 00:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who Support or Endorse this View
 * 1) Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC) - the project must have a final decision maker.

Comment
 * Not sure "replaced by election" is accurate; at least, there's no existing structure for the community to remove arbitrators, other than not re-electing them should they be foolish enough to run again. Perhaps a structure allowing for a recall by a supermajority might work well. WMF has nothing to do with selection. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this has something to do with it.

View by Rootology
I can attest that the Arbitration Committee does do a good job on hearing appeals of sanctions, be they RFAR-based ones or community-based ones, and there are multiple avenues for users to do this. Direct email, and if that doesn't work, asking someone to post your request as a motion/request/whatever on WP:RFAR will get it done even more directly. Note that I'm talking about hearing appeals--as long as the Committee never tries to do something where certain people CAN'T appeal ultimately in public for wide exposure (no secret trials or appeals) it's good. This is separate of course from whether people agree with their decisions on sanctions...

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Yep.  rootology  ( T ) 16:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) From my limited experience, it does appear that the ArbCom do properly consider the grounds of appeal and do not simply restate the original verdict. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) It has always seemed like the committee is open to hearing appeals of what doesn't seem to be working, and of individual users who would like restrictions on participation lifted.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  TALKIN   PIE EATER   REVIEW ME  01:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment:
 * 1) We're way too slow at it sometimes. Why the heck aren't there edit links on this page? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Alex Bakharev (talk)
Arbcom provides a form of a "due process" for users with large positive contributions. It is known that Wikipedia cannot guarantee the due process. This is caused by the openness of our community. It will be a suicide pact to provide a "due process" that requires weeks of work of great wikipedians to any vandal, any troll, any POV-pusher, any disruptive editor just to get the same accused to return in 24 hour under a different nick. Still we have a due process for the people with years of brilliant contributions who were accused in something improper. We have a due process for the actions that are controversial when the community is divided whether the action is beneficial for the project or not, corresponds to our policies or not. The process is named Arbcom. If a decision is simple and obvious we don't need a due process - it is done by a single administrators or by a "kangaroo court" like WP:AN/I. It can also be reverted at any time by another administrator or another "kangaroo court". When the decision is not simple we have the due process named Arbcom. it is final.

Arbcom processing are open and allowed all the parties being heard and all the evidence being demonstrated. It allows the whole community to share the ideas of solving the problem via workshops. It allow diverse people trusted by community to select they think are the best possible remedies according to a transparent voting process. We cannot guarantee the solution works but at least all the evidence was openly presented, all ideas discussed, all dissenting options were recorded

View is endorsed by: Comment
 * 1) This is the ideal, and I think this describes how it works most of the time. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) TALKIN   PIE EATER   REVIEW ME  01:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

View by MastCell
They do a remarkably good job dealing with complex, thorny issues most of the time. This RfC should focus on the small percentage of times when things go wrong, and identify ways to improve the process further.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

View by a user
''This is a summary 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.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary: }}