Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stephen/Proposed decision

Timeline
Just noting for observers that the drafting arbitrators sent Stephen a set of questions with a response requested date of November 29, so I am guessing the PD will not be available for several days after December 1 (as currently listed). Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 10:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Sdrqaz's section
There are a few references to "logged-out" in the proposed findings. While they are fine in some instances, for some items they bring unwelcome implications ("IP" or "unregistered" are statements of fact, that they weren't done by an account, while "logged-out" makes it seem like there was definitely an account that wasn't being used – does that make sense?). The ones I'm concerned about are findings 1, 3, 4a, and 4b. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm generally receptive to this idea though I would note that it's arguably OK in 4b. I think it's actually appropriate in 2 - which is obviously not on the list you provided. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's fine in proposed finding 2. For 4b, while I don't feel as strongly about it as I do for the others, it feels strange nonetheless. The way it's phrased begs the question that if it weren't Stephen who was "performing the logged-out editing and harassment", then was doing "logged-out editing and harassment" (which suggests that there is another person who is logged-out, and not just unregistered). Maybe it's just me – my concern with that one is a little harder to express. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the FoFs, I can see adding "alleged" to #3, remove "the" from the logged-out editing in 4a and 4b, and adding "potential" to the FoF 1 header. Does that sound satisfactory? Primefac (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We could also just use the word "unregistered" or (but this is dispreferred) "anonymous" – that seems to convey it better. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 08:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A solid suggestion. Implemented. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken's suggestion
Clearly, some arbitrators are having a difficult time evaluating the available evidence, in particular the veracity or validity of the explanations offered for the behavior seen. This is understandable, as the circumstances do not lend themselves to a lot of evidence outside of that offered by the subject of the case. It's difficult to evaluate such evidence even under the best of circumstances -- and online, text-only, with its lack of the kind of subtle cues we all use in such cases -- tone of voice, body language, facial expressions and so on -- is one of the worst possible circumstances. Think of a jury attempting to come up with a verdict never have seen or heard any of the witnesses or the defendant, only dealing with typescripts of their testimony.

Anyway, long introduction to a quick idea, I would encourage arbitrators not to rely so much on intellectual evaluation, and instead rely on their facility of adaptive unconscious, which our articles describe as "a set of mental processes that is able to affect judgement and decision-making, but is out of reach of the conscious mind" that "work rapidly and automatically from relatively little information." This was the subject of Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink.

In other words, stop thinking about it so much and settle on what your gut tells you, otherwise this case might never be settled. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)