Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Archive 2.2

Custom of tolerance
''The arbitrators will judge cases according to the following guidelines, which they will apply with common sense and discretion, and an eye to the expectations of the community:

1. Established Wikipedia customs and common practices 2. Wikipedia's "laws": terms of use, submission standards, byelaws, general''

Perhaps this is the best one could do, but I'd like to point out what I see as an amibuity and/or potential pitfall. It's not clear what is "custom" and what is one of the longstanding undesirable phenomena that the arbitration committee has been created to alleviate. For example, "tolerance." I think the Wikipedia concept of equal collaboration and NPOV toward articles is thoroughly entangled with how Wikipedia tries to govern and police itself. It's fair to say tolerance is an established custom. One might say that the arbitration committee would not exist if there were not some kind of will to in someway diminish the role of tolerance as an aspect of Wikipedia custom. Perhaps this is where the "common sense and discretion" come in. I wonder though if it would be worthwhile to articulate succinctly the particular principles that, for the moment at least, you all are trying to uphold.168... 19:35, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Have the arbitrators discussed whether there will be any stare decisis? -Emsworth 21:20, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

stare decisis "The legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent" (OED)


 * Regards precedent, "Former decisions will not be binding on the arbitrators - rather, they intend to learn from experience". We discussed the matter and felt that relying too strongly on precedent would increase the likelihood of errors.


 * Note that the Rules are our means of judging cases that come before the arbitration committee, not guidelines for how the committee will act. Thus, if we consider tolerance to be a Wikipedia custom, this might mean that we would censure those who are excessively intolerant, but need not mean that the committee itself will be excessively tolerant. Martin 00:59, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Need for speed
Would you guys get a move on? We're having witch trials out there. Or more like popularity contests instead of real hearings of evidence. I know, because I'm on trial for abuse of admin power and I see how others who have similar accusations against them, but greater community standing, are treated differently by "the mob." Naturally, everybody feels entitled to express an opinion, but nobody is required to do the onerous work of reading the proceedings of a long drawn out argument on the talk pages; let alone the proceedings of a dozen talk pages, as in the case of the accusations against Lir, which allege a pattern of behavior. In fact, because people intercalate posts out of chronological order and even sometimes remove or edit them, even when I've participated in a discussion it can be hard to reconstruct from the record how it evolved through time. Nobody who has not committed to being an arbitrator is going to take such trouble (and frankly I pity you guys). It's no different from the problem of voting, but as I'm sure you realize, the stakes are higher when people are being blamed and at risk of being blocked or stripped dishonorably of sysop status. Not to mention it's an endless ordeal for the accused and collosal waste of time and energy for tons of people. As I'm sure you can tell. But anyway, get a move on, pulleeze.168... 03:52, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't hold your breath. Jimbo has abdicated his responsibility of doing anything about user banning to these people, who don't seem to care that Wikipedia is going to hell in a handbasket.  RickK 03:56, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Jimbo did that so well, as to deny 168 right to go to arbitration himself :-) Good job.

168, Rick, we're doing our best, and going as fast as we can. Genuinely. Martin 18:42, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can members have representation?
These statements about arbitration policy so far are good, except the reference to certioari which I personally think is inappropriate as arbitration is ultimately a contract right, not a judicial discretion, but you guys can call things anything you wish to, there is a similarity with that ancient writ.

I would like to ask the committee if there are any plans to deal with the question of representation by a member advocate. I originally declined to be on the arbitration committeee so I could be available for members who had a problem but felt that they might benefit from someone presenting their case to the committee for them. This could expand to an Office of Members' Advocates to help members faced with arbitration in variety of ways. Will the committee recognize the right of members to have representation before the committee? [[User:Alex756|&#8212; Alex756 talk]] 23:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * We'll discuss this in the "Trial" section of the agenda, in the longer term. If we vote to accept the emergency session proposed by Jimbo then during that emergency session there will be no formal guidelines permitted or forbidding representation by a member advocate, so I can only recommend that you use your best judgement in the matter. Martin 23:46, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My thought on this is that if one party is represented the other must also be by an equally competant and zealous advocate. One advantage of representation is that more evidence in an accessible form might come to light. The litigants tend to kind of wave in the general direction of the other party and say "bad" and if they do quote anything give no link to it that anyone can easily use. In the Mr-Natural-Health case almost all evidence entered into the record was gathered by one arbitrator who will likely get tired of doing the investigating. Fred Bauder

Voting Procedure
Thank you for the suggestion. I will draw the attention of the arbitration committee to it when we discuss these issues. Martin 19:09, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not really a suggestion. I'd like something in place very very quickly.  I intend for this to be voted on immediately to handle certain immediate problems.  It can be changed later, after you finish discussing it. Jimbo Wales 21:10, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Result: Certification of Arbitration Process

I'm going to paste something here that I posted long ago to Jimbo's page and never got any comment about:

Philosophy of banning...Lir as a timely example
At "conflicts between users" I just posted this in the context of the (redundant I now see) discussion I started about banning Lir.


 * The main problem with Lir is an abundance of evidence of bad faith and, from the instances when Lir is willing to discuss things at all, a record of discussions that are acrimonious and irresolvable. I don't trust this person. Who does? Does anybody actually want this person around? If so, why? I think the burden of proof should be on people who want Lir around. Disagreeing with some others is natural and certainly not a crime, but if Lir can't reach agreements with anybody, I don't think we should regard it as our obligation or responsibility to allow Lir to play here.

I have never nominated anyone for banning before, and now that I am going through the motions for Lir, I'm getting the impression that I'm thinking about banning differently than the norm, at least differently than the norm that is suggested by the posted arguments and proposals I read. What do you think about the way I am framing the issue above, and about the way I suggest shifting the burden of proof to advocates against the ban, after ample grounds for distrust has been demonstrated? I don't think it should be such a big deal to ban. Yes, we don't want to ban people on the basis of bad evidence, and I suppose reliable evidence takes a while or is hard to obtain, but I don't think the evidence should have to show a capital offence, just that somebody is a drag and doesn't add anything positive to the project. 168... 19:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here's something I tried for Lir, but didn't attract votes, perhaps because Mav called this inappropriate. But I imagined this as a good kind of poll to do before banning someone.

The question is: Does anybody here value what Lir contributes to articles and discussion?

Why not cast your vote in a poll?


 * Yes! From what I've seen Lir is a valuable contributor to Wikipedia articles and discussions


 * No. I don't find Lir's contributions to articles and discussions valuable on the whole
 * 168... 07:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Lirath Q. Pynnor

I appreciate your comments, 168. You seem to be suggesting that one of the "Rules" we apply to contributors (under arbitration policy) is whether the user in question makes valuable contributions. That's not something we've currently decided to do, but when we review that issue (having got a proper policy for the remaining completely undecided issues first!), that's certainly a suggestion we'll consider.

We've not made any formal decisions about the balance of proof, so this will initially be something arbitrators decide for themselves on a case by case basis.

We've also not chosen to have any formal use of polling in our deliberations. We will naturally listen to the feelings of the community. Equally, we'll listen to the reasons behind those feelings. Again, the arbitrators will decide individually how much weight to give in their own mind to any unofficial polls such as the one above. Martin 13:57, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Certiorari
I request a reconsideration of the term "certiorari" for the grant of permission to appeal. The grounds are that the term is really specific to the US Supreme Court and other courts, at least when it is used to refer to permission to appeal. In other English law, according to certiorari, "certiorari is a public law relief... An order of certiorari is given by a senior court to reverse the actions of a lower court or other (quasi)-governmental organisation which has made a decision." In order to avoid any confusion, and in order to conform to principles beyond the US only, I propose that the term "leave to appeal" be used instead. This term has another advantage, in that it is not too technical a term for the average Wikipedian, and can be easily understood. -- Emsworth 01:29, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * How 'bout "Leave to arbitrate" your Lordship, as there can only be an appeal from an decision. There is no decision until the arbitration committee rules, there is no appeal structure, except to the extent that the Bylaws give the Board of Trustees (i.e. Jimbo et al) a certiorari power. Thus they may grat certiorari from a decision of the arbitration committee using the terminology of the royal writs. Perhaps we should call this writ the Writ of Wikimedius. You humble and loyal servant... [[User:Alex756|&#8212; Alex756 talk]] 04:20, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Then I humbly put forth my most sincere apologia. I misunderstood the wording, "an appeal to the arbitration comittee will be officially heard upon approval by any 4 committee members". It was my (incorrect) belief earlier that a single Arbitrator would hear the case, and that thereafter there would be an appeal to the entire committee permitted. Obediently, Emsworth

Transparency and secrecy
Because of the arbitration committee's decision to make their deliberations non-transparent (and therefore secret), I am removing myself from continued involvement with Wikipedia until such time as decision-making processes are made transparent (i.e., the discussion leading to decisions made by committee is make available for all members to read and consider). This lack of transparency sets an extremely poor precendent for Wikipedia's openness and (more importantly for me) constitutes a secret organization, something I will have *absolutely* no part of. A fuller explanation is posted on my user page. -- Seth Ilys 20:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Instead of unilaterally withdrawing from Wikipedia, I had a productive conversation with several members of the arbitration committee on IRC; although it didn't alleviate my concerns completely, I am a little more confident in the direction that the committee is headed with regards to disclosure. However, the failure of the committee to adhere to its own rules (to publish justification for decisions) in the Mr. Natural Health case is discomforting. Therefore, until I see improvement in the conduct of the committee with regards to disclosure, I'm taking a principled sabbatical from contributing to Wikipedia. - Seth Ilys 23:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Useful software features for arbitrators
I think one of the key tasks for an arbitrator is to figure out "what happened," and I think figuring that out can be a very difficult given the existing ways the Wikipedia site has for presenting data. But the data is there, so I think with a little hacking, it might not be too hard to produce three new features that would make the task much easier. All three features would be manually advancing "slide shows," in which each slide presents exactly the view you see when you click "last" on a page history to see what changes a user made. The first slide show I propose is a "Page slide show," which would show each new comment that appeared on a page in chronological order and show who made the comment. This would solve the problems of intercalation and revision, including retroactive censoring. In using this feature, the arbitrator just specifies the page and the start date. The second feature I propose would be a "User slide show." This would be based on "User contributions," but instead of showing a table or history, it would be a manually advancing slide show displaying all the changes the user made to whatever pages he or she made them anywhere on Wikipedia in chronological order. The arbitrator just specifies the user and the date. The last feature I propose is a "Multi-user slide show." This would be just like the user slide show, but it would show the changes made by several users in the order they were made. This could be useful in cases where two or more users are at odds with one another, and an arbitrator wants to be clear about who did what when and to whom, in particular for the sake of understanding who was being offensive and who was being defensive. To use this feature, the arbitrator would specify the user names and the start date. It's a little 1984, but I think it's vital information for the job we're giving arbitrators. My impression is that all the data is already provided so that anybody, with enough patience, could obtain the same information. It's just too impractical to do right now with the current software. If people are squeamish about the 1984 aspect, I suggest the feature be available just to arbitrators.168...|...Talk 17:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

mediation?
where is the wikipage for mediation? Kingturtle 23:34, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Mediation committee. --Camembert

Amicus Curiae?
Does the committee plan to solicit and accept Amicus curiae letters? Seems like it would be a good idea.168...|...Talk 23:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I second the proposal. -- Emsworth 23:47, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd like to respond, but I don't really know what "amicus curiae" means, and it isn't clear to me from our article on it how it would relate to the committee. Anybody - not just those people in dispute - are free to make arguments on a particular case if that's what you mean. --Camembert

Rulers should first apply the rules to themselves
I am user X, in terms of the various "cult" articles this week.


 * "User X, limit your reverts to article A to one per day."

I am in a slow-motion reversion war with a couple of contributors who insist on slapping the cult label on the Unification Church. They don't seem sufficiently concerned with Accuracy or Neutrality, to suit me. (But it's just barely possible that I'm biased :-) --Uncle Ed 14:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cases without majority agreement
Perhaps it should be clarified whether any action will take place if there is a plurality but no majority among the mediation committee. I assume from the current text that only those actions with majority approval would be taken, even if this means taking no action save a statement that agreement could not be reached... +sj+ 16:36, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's how we've been doing things up till now. After the vote we'll clarify that (but it's probably a bit off to be editing mid-vote. Martin 17:10, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Indefinite"
A couple of times, I've seen Arbitration rulings involving restrictions of indefinite term. What does that mean, exactly? Does it mean "in perpetuity, suckah"? If not, how does one go about getting the restriction lifted? Presumably, having the restriction lifted would mean behaving reasonably well during the period when the restriction is in force; but does having the restriction lifted involve petitioning the Arbitration committee for a review? Or will the arbitration committee do reviews of "indefinite" restrictions without being petitioned? Can I petition the Arbitration committee if I feel a particular restriction that has been applied to someone else ought to be lifted on grounds of good behaviour? ... et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ... -- Cyan 00:59, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Something like "until further notice".
 * No.
 * I would request a review through the normal arbitration process.
 * Yes.
 * Not right now, but something to think about in the future, certainly.
 * Yes.


 * ;-) Martin 13:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to see indefinite restrictions abandoned completely. This page currently says: "The second option will be to require that a user does not edit Wikipedia for a given time frame: up to thirty days to start with, up to a year in severe cases." I think the same time limits should apply to all restrictions. anthony (see warning) 21:31, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would never want to ban someone for over a year, but I don't think it would be fair for me to write that opinion into the policy page. After all, I might not get re-elected, or I might be outnumbered in some instance. Martin 21:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It already is on the policy page. I was suggesting that it be extended to all restrictions.  And that you might be outnumbered is the point.  By making it a policy now, you protect against the tyranny of the majority in the future. anthony (see warning) 22:04, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Good lord, so it is. How did that happen? :-/ Martin 22:12, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The difference between a restriction and a ban, is that restricted users can still contribute. Thus, if they continue to behave badly, such that the restriction is obviously still necessary, then the community will see that - this solves the problem of a psychotic community, where only half the community remembers the reason for the original ban. If they behave well, then they (or a friend) can request a review of the restriction, and ask for it to be lifted. Martin 22:18, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Precedents
On Requests for arbitration/Wik2/Decided, one finds that the Committee has agreed upon a set of "principles." Are these intended to serve at least as guides, if not as precedents, in future decision-making of the Committee, or are they merely intended for the readers of the opinion? -- Emsworth 02:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Those "principles" are meant to be the bits of policy - as expressed on Wikipedia: pages and through common practice - that are relevant to the case in hand and on which the findings in that particular case are based. As such, whether they will also apply to future cases depends on whether they are still policy then (see also the arbitration policy: "Former decisions will not be binding on the arbitrators - rather, they intend to learn from experience."). --Camembert


 * They're Fred's idea, but I think they're just intended as mini-rationale for the decisions. Martin 14:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Speed increase
We chatted about this on the mailing list, and we pretty much decided decided we wanted to change the requirement for a majority of arbitrators to be a majority of the active ones (not on holiday, posted on arbcom pages in the last month or so). The idea is to speed things up. Since we always said we might change these guidelines, and since it's largely an internal matter, I've just made the change. Objections, comments? Thanks.


 * Actually, there's been some commentary about reducing the requirement further - to a majority of those who've signed up to the specific case, so we might drop it down another notch, depending on what other changes we might make. Martin 00:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd personally be against assigning a variable number of people to any one case; cases should have equal treatment, so either a specific number (3?) randomly (or otherwise) selected, as I originally suggested, perhaps somewhat prematurely, or all en banc, as is current (former?) policy, but not some half-way house with Arbitrators assigning themselves as they felt motivated, as some cases would get more scrutiny than others, and would be... unfair.
 * James F. (talk) 00:18, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * If the interjections of outside parties are permissible in the discussion of this internal matter, I beg to suggest that the use of smaller panels could permit each arbitrator to scrutinize and concentrate on a limited number of cases, rather than being concerned with an arbitrary selection of them. The Committee may sit en banc to consider appeals. Perhaps one-third of the active Arbitrators could be required to agree before the Committee originally hears the matter, the figure being raised to one-half in the case of appeals. -- Emsworth 01:01, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Possibly. I'd prefer solid numbers (say, 5 Arbitrators, or perhaps just 3), with elections (or, in a tight spot, Jimbo deputising) as necessary; right now, one third of "active" Arbitrators would be, rounded down, 2 - rather too low.
 * I would be rather unhappy, however, with the suggested method of Arbitrator selection for such sub-panels of one picked by each 'side' and one 'neutral' one, as it (obviously) would increase partisanship and probably animosity, and lead to some Arbitrators being painted as troll-friendly (or whatever); completely random pre-selection of available slots (say, each Arbitrator has 3 case-slots, unless on an LoA/absent); the next three or five or whatever distinct tokens would form the sub-panel for the next available case. Obviously, recusals would bypass this somewhat, and an Arbitrator who found that he had to recuse himself from lots of them would end up forming much of the entry queue, perhaps a sign that their efforts might be better spent in some other position.
 * Appeals en banc sounds like an interesting (and sensible) way of doing things. Of course, there is always room for further appeal to the higher court of Jimbo (technically the Board, but given that he has 3 votes of 5...).
 * James F. (talk) 01:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrators having sockpuppets
I moved this comment from policy page:


 * "The Cunctator dislikes this policy."

... with respect to the line that reads "Arbitrators with multiple accounts on Wikipedia will disclose the usernames of those accounts to the rest of the committee, and to Jimbo Wales, but are not required to disclose them publicly."

What do others feel?

James F. (talk) 15:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since many, if not most, Wikipedians have edited from more than one account, and since there is no policy prohibiting this in general, that it is unfair to ask arbitrators to follow some higher standard. I believe that the arbitrators should, like all other users, be permitted to have however many sock puppets they wish, and in the unlikely event that this actually creates some sort of problem it can then be addressed. UninvitedCompany 21:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Not that I care about other AC members having more than one account, but where do you get your data about what "most Wikipedians" have done? I for one have never used another account on Wikipedia (I have created other accounts with similar user names in order to prevent trolls from impersonating me - but I don't ever use those accounts for anything other than that). --mav 07:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe I said "many, if not most;" it is conjecture supported by a considerable number of examples. Since we only know of the cases where someone volunteers the connection, or those few cases where the connection became clear because of abuse, I imagine that there are a substantial number of socks we don't know about. The presence of a handful of Wikipedians who have mentioned to me privately that they use socks from time to time reinforces my suspicions. uc 17:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Wewll, I believe that it is fair to hold Arbitrators to a higher standard than general contributors; we are, after all, responsible for reading the community's will and interpretting the resultant policy, which is quite a significant duty.
 * James F. (talk) 20:14, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proposed alterations
I've knocked up a few proposed alterations - thoughts?

James F. (talk) 03:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have added another proposed alteration to proposed alterations. It concerns limiting deliberations in arbitration cases to issues included in the complaint, excluding countercharges and other matters which may come up in the course of arbitration. If a person complained against comes up with a scattering of countercharges it is very tedious to go through them and requires a great deal of energy for very little return in most cases. Also the reaction of complaining witnesses when they find themselves in the dock for personal attacks or other infractions thus subject to mild sanctions is quite negative and creates a great deal more heat than light. While some disputes may be one on one, many concern an issue which has passed through the Requests for comment procedure. In those cases where three or more users have certified the basis for the dispute the focus needs to be on the issues in the Request for comment. Fred Bauder 13:49, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Referal by the Mediation committee or Jimbo
The practice of the Arbitrators has fallen away from this part of the procedure; in fact, most of the cases we have taken were not referred. I think it might be better to follow it, except in unusual cases. Fred Bauder 13:49, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Immediately that?
The text says "Arbitrators will recuse themselves immediately that they believe that they have a conflict of interest." Is this grammatically correct? I had changed it to "Arbitrators will recuse themselves immediately if they believe that they have a conflict of interest.", but it was quickly reverted.

When two independent clauses are combined with "that", it is usually short for "so that" or "in order that", as in "I bought you a rose that you might forgive me", but this is obviously not your intended meaning here. Wouldn't "if", or perhaps "in the event that" be a better way of putting it? – Quadell (talk) (help)  23:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is perfectly normal and understandable usage of English, IMO. It was added in this edit:, the wording having been worked out in private deliberations amongst the Committee. However, people on IRC disagree with me, so...
 * James F. (talk) 23:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Areas of Expertise
Has anyone considered creating several arbitration sub-committees each composed of experts in a particular field to resolve disputes on articles within that field?

-- selket Dec 9, 2004


 * Well, Arbitration is not involved with content, so specialist sub-Committees wouldn't make sense. Also, Wikipedia is far too vast to have a Committee populated with experts in every, or, indeed, anything significantly more than any, field covered.
 * James F. (talk) 13:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The Forum for Encyclopedic Standards was kicking around some ideas for editorial arbitration, but nothing has come of them yet. You may want to join in (or kick off) the discussion at Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/Editorial arbitration. &#8212;No-One Jones 13:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for recusal
I am curious -- User:CheeseDreams has recently made a demand for an arbitrator to declare his religious affiliation, as CD believes that her cases cannot be fairly judged by an arbitrator who has devout religious belief (or at least this is the impression I am left with). I have a couple of questions for the community in general, and for arbitrators in specific. 1) Should an arbitrator be forced to reveal such affiliations (and if so, how far would it extend? Would an arbitrator be forced to reveal political ideology, who they voted for in their country's last election, what their ethnic background is, etc.?) 2) May an user acceptably demand recusal if an arbitrator's personal beliefs (religious or otherwise) may have some bearing on the issues being arbitrated? (I can understand why someone would feel this way, but I don't feel comfortable with forced recusals....why should an atheist or a Buddhist be any more neutral about Jesus than a Christian, for example? If the dispute is political, wouldn't all arbitrators who have a political preference be biased on the issue?). In short, I'm asking what our grounds for recusal are, and how much users may legitimately demand in terms of personal information about an arbitrator in order to determine if they ought to recuse. Jwrosenzweig 22:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * An arbitrator should recuse themselves if they feel they are unlikely to be able to judge a case fairly. I trust the arbitrators to do this as they are all upstanding wikipedians. It is up to the arbitrator in question to do the recusing. In the event that the wikipedia community as a whole does not trust the arbitrators to recuse themselves, then the community as a whole should ask Jimbo to dissolve the AC. Arbitrators should not be forced to reveal their opinions relegious beliefs or political perseusions. People who are up before the AC should not be allowed to demand the recusal of anyone. Arbitration is not a consensual process. It is likely that people up before the AC will not like it, and will not think it fair. That is their right I suppose, but that does not mean they have a right to make demands on the arbitrators. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa and I tried to post at exactly the same time, and I got the edit conflict. She's said it better, so I'll just say...what she said. Ambi 22:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As both a contributor and an arbitrator, I agree wholeheartedly with what Theresa says. &rarr;Raul654 22:59, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * All right, I understand your perspectives. :-) But of course, all of you are prospective (or current) arbitrators, as am I -- perhaps we're biased in that regard? :-)  While I share your line of thinking, allow me to play devil's advocate -- let us say that I am Jwrosenzweig, respected (I do hope!) member of the Wiki community and an arbitrator.  I'm normally aware of myself, but on one issue (let's say the LaRouche issue, chosen at random) I'm not.  Let's say (for the sake of argument) I'm a die-hard LaRouche supporter.  And then a case appears where one user is a fellow LaRouchite and one isn't, and they're disputing over my beloved Lyndon's article.  If I haven't revealed to everyone that I'm a LaRouche supporter, and I decide I don't need to recuse myself because I "know" I can be impartial, but then I start displaying obvious bias for one side, should there be any recourse?  Should a user have the right to challenge me?  To question whether LaRouche isn't too close to my heart?  I am glad you all trust the arbitrators, and I trust them also, but I wonder if we're not being a little too trusting?  Jwrosenzweig 23:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * P.S. Or, in my hypothetical scenario, what if everyone knew I was a LaRouche supporter, but I didn't recuse myself? Would a user then have the right to complain? Jwrosenzweig
 * I think so, because then you're getting into areas of misconduct. If there's a perception that one arbitrator isn't playing fair, then asking them to recuse isn't necessarily a bad thing - it's got nothing to with being aware of their ideological beliefs. I've asked a certain arbitrator to recuse himself before, because it seemed to me that he may have let bias get to him; he took the hint, and moderated his actions somewhat. Ambi 00:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Do whatever it takes to be seen to be fair. I think you should answer the question (state whether you're Christian or not). It's only fair people know where your biases might be, so they can spot them if they are showing. Ultimately though, if CheeseDreams demands all the Christians recuse, and the other parties involved in the conflict say all the non-Christians must recuse (just speaking hypothetically), who's going to arbitrate the case? So I think you should have to be open about your potential biases, but not recuse yourself unless you know you can't be fair because of them, or it's been shown in the past that you've not been fair because of them. Shane King 23:43, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely. It is none of your buisness what affiliations we (the arbitrators) choose not to disclose, nor will we lay our lives open to interrogation. &rarr;Raul654 23:50, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm neither a current nor a prospective arbitrator, and have never been even remotely involved in any AC case (that I know of). Heck, I'm not even an admin. So maybe my POV may be useful.
 * I think that Theresa Knott has pretty much got things right. I would say, though, that it is important for the AC to not only be fair, but to appear to be fair, particularly to those not directly involved. Yes, the loser in a decision will probably think the process was unfair; there's little we can do about that. But it is important that the community as a whole trust the AC, and the AC's own behavior can have a real affect on that.
 * So, it would seem to me that, in Jwrosenzweig's final example. if there is even a significant appearance of bias in one of the arbitrators, it would be good for that arbitrator to recuse them self. If such an arbitrator balks at doing so, then it seems to me that for the good of the AC and for the good of Wikipedia other arbitrators should informally try to persuade the one to do the right thing.
 * For the first example, it seems unlikely to me that anyone on the AC could successfully keep hidden a strong, uncontrollable bias. If they're on the AC, then either their bias is well-known, or they can generally control their biases, or know enough to stay away from them.-Rholton 23:59, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suppose we have an arbitration case involving an edit war over the article woman, not a ridiculous notion as it has apparently been protected a time or two recently. Would all the female arbitrators have to recuse themselves because they're biased? (Never mind that we don't have any yet - I'm sure we will acquire some as a result of the current election.) Or maybe we should have all the male arbitrators recuse themselves on a presumption of being chauvinist pigs? How about if we recuse both groups? (Heavens, I think I've just discovered a reason to vote for Lir!)

Repeating a point I tried to get across back when the arbitration policy was adopted, the thing that determines whether recusal is necessary is the conduct of the arbitrator, not the behavior or speculative concerns of the participants in the case. If the arbitrator's conduct with respect to some subject makes it easy to question their impartiality, that calls for a recusal, and the arbitrators have generally been pretty quick to step aside in such cases. Otherwise, I think recusal should be resisted. Based on having been chosen to this position, they should be considered prima facie qualified to consider the matters that come before them. The function of arbitration is not to interrogate the arbitrators. Requests for recusal should be based on concrete reasons, and participants don't have the right to go on a fishing expedition looking for any possible grounds to recuse someone.

I am not an arbitrator nor am I running for the position (my apologies to those who wanted me to), so I don't know that my opinion has any particular weight, but I think it also means my perspective is not open to challenge based on any personal interest in the matter. --Michael Snow 06:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Most of us who have strong beliefs have disclosed them through our editing, although sometimes there is some misunderstanding regarding exactly what they are. If I had a record of POV editing in the Christianity area it would be painfully obvious and more importantly, while editing in that area, I would surely have tangled with CheeseDreams long ago. While the possibility exists that someone may have some covert prejudice which has not, in effect, been disclosed through their editing behavior I don't think that would justify blanket inquiries of every arbitrator with respect to every matter involved in every case. Although should an arbitrator be troubled with his feelings with respect to an area they should recuse himself. I don't think, for example, that anyone who is Jewish should recuse themselves from any matter that involves Christianity. Simply not dealing with something does not constitute prejudice. Fred Bauder 12:19, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Amended policy?
I could find no evidence that the proposed ammendment has been accepted. -Rholton 17:04, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * It hasn't. I've spoken with Jimbo Wales who indicates that it's about to be passed, though. -- Grunt &#8200;&#1160;  17:12, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

mailing list
Are any non-arbitrators subscribed to the arbitration mailing list? &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 01:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

answered elsewhere.

Link from RC
I note that the project page is linked prominently from Recent Changes. The reason for this is unclear. Perhaps someone could make the requested community response a little more clear, or perhaps remove the link. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it was left there after the failure of the revote on amending this policy. I've removed it now. --Michael Snow 22:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed overhaul
Since it would significantly affect the current policy, I'm noting that I've made a major proposal regarding the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections. --Michael Snow 04:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCats Wikipedia Arbitration commentary
After going through the arbitration process I put some thought into the way it would work when I'm the dictator. I know there is some huge page somewhere about proposed reforms, but it's unreadable and I don't care to participate. I'll throw this out for anyone to consider.

My goals would be small and efficient case management. A timeline of two weeks, or less, per case is entirely reasonable with extremely focused charges and evidence.

First, the goal is to write an encyclopedia. Sometimes that means decisions that help the project aren't going to be "fair" to users. Too bad.

ArbCom administration and case appeal

 * ArbCom would be as many members as necessary or prudent.
 * Cases would be heard by an arbitration panel of three ArbCom members. Members would be assigned in a weighted random manner (weight based on number of cases a member is already on).
 * A case could be appealed en banc to the entire ArbCom (or significant subset) but only for problems with the decision or process, not de novo.

Case initiation and process

 * A case could only be opened based around a single charge. If someone needs to "throw the book" at someone else, they can start multiple but separate cases.
 * A case can only be against one side. If the charged feel like it, they can file a case against their accuser to be managed completely separately.
 * A case must be filed complete with charge, policy basis, evidence, and requested relief. Once filed it shouldn't be added to.
 * Process should then be: Defendant Response (strict to the case as presented), Accuser Reply (strict to the response) and then questions to the parties from the ArbCom panelists, then a decision.
 * The community should be requested to comment, amicus style. Comments should strive for clarity and brevity and the issues at hand.  If new issues need to be raised, maybe the amicus writer needs to start their own case.

Decisions and policy

 * In a decision, ArbCom often makes "new policy" (though usually just clarification). Someone, anyone, has to write that new policy or expand existing policies. New editors shouldn't have to poke around both policy documents and ArbCom rulings in order to divine policy.
 * If a policy is "new" or necessary clarification, the sentence should be light to prevent appearance of retroactivity. "Our goal is to write an encyclopedia. Your behavior doesn't help us do that even though it's not really stated as a problem in our policies. Stop doing that and if you do it again..."
 * Presumably defendants want to contribute to Wikipedia. Therefore ArbCom sentences, like civil contempt, should strive to be coercive and not punitive. Real trolls don't need ArbCom to get banned.

Content

 * ArbCom should take on "content" issues when the issue is fairly clear and a decision can be stated in general terms, ie, "The majority of climatologists believe global warming is occurring and is caused by human activity." That kind of statement should be a guideline for future editors.
 * Sometimes content issues might be stated more directly, ie, the statement might be specific to how Wikipedia presents the issue.
 * In more extreme cases, ArbCom could say an editor was out of line to various degrees.
 * Like "new policy" these kinds of guidelines should be published where appropriate.

Criticism of the current process:

 * It encourages rambling by trying to consolidate all issues against a user into one case. ArbCom members get lost trying to figure out what the core problem is.
 * It never ends: the workshop and evidence pages are designed so people keep contributing. Again, members get lost trying to follow along.  The case becomes unmanagable. Members pile-on to proposed decisions to avoid trying to follow along.
 * Everyone who ever had a dog in some edit war gets wrapped up into it. Members can't really decide who was involved and penalize everyone or no one. The case becomes unmanagable.
 * Content is verboten. Sometimes, people are just wrong.  Crank theorists should be told to take their OR elsewhere. POV pushers should be declared as such.  It doesn't do anyone a favor making vague restrictions on user behavior without being explicit and saying what's wrong.
 * SchmuckyTheCat 02:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Committee power?
Left on my Talk page:

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy was hammered out by the arbitrators during a long process. Please leave it alone. Fred Bauder 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Arbitration policy makes it appear that the Arbitration committee has more power than they actually do, and sets tem up for a power grab when an opportunity avails itself. The arbitration policy should be dictated to the arbitration committee, not established by it. Hackwrench 20:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What would you like to dictate to us? Fred Bauder 21:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)