Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct/Archive 1

I figured I'd start this off. Add, change, or propose as you see fit and discuss here. Rangerdude 19:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * RD: Who determines this, "Arbcom members who engage in personal attacks during the course of a case will be immediately recused" ? nobs 19:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That's certainly a valid issue and one that I am hopeful somebody has suggestions on. There needs to be some sort of enforcement mechanism for Arbcom recusals when the member himself does not voluntarily do so, and I'm open to suggestions on what it should be. Here's one possibility:

"If a personal attack is alleged to have occurred and the Arbcom member responsible declines to recuse him or herself, the allegedly attacked party or another arbitrator may make formal motion to enforce recusal on the workshop page. The motion should describe the nature of the attack in no more than 200 words and include the diff of where it allegedly occurred. The accused Arbcom member may similarly respond in a statement of 200 words or less. Upon this motion, the matter will be put to a majority vote before the entire Arbcom and all parties specifically named in the case upon its acceptance by the Arbcom. The vote's question shall take the form of "Did the statement made by Arbcom member (insert name) in reference to party (insert name) located at (insert diff) constitute a personal attack on said party?" Any finding of "yes" shall result in immediate recusal.

The vote should ONLY address whether or not the incident was a personal attack and should NOT be a vote on recusal. If it was a personal attack then recusal is the prescribed mandatory penalty. I'm also open to any other suggestions. Rangerdude 20:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yah, but if the motion fails, then you got virtually the whole committee endorsing what the offended party claims to be a personal attack. Do we really wanna do this?  nobs 20:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Who polices the police? These rules can only be enforced if there was some sort of independent ombudsman. To fill this sort of independent role, you would need someone external to wikipedia, someone who neither edits or is an admin. Perhaps Wikipedia could hire someone from here - Xed 23:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Another possible option is to restrict the Arbcom's ability to impose penalties. For example, the Arbcom could rule on disputes and propose ways to settle them. They could also "warn" members for policy violations and make a determination of right or wrong in certain cases. Banning powers by the arbcom could be limited to specific eggregious offenses though - e.g. excessive profanity, threats of violence or legal threats, and vandalism. Other than that though, the most they could do is warn somebody. That would limit their ability to apply arbitrary and selective penalties based on who their friends are, which is the problem we're having right now. Rangerdude 23:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You can avoid all the above "what ifs" by adopting the same basic code many tribunals use and that are imposed by law for U.S. judges: A person sitting in judgment (ArbCom member) shall have no communication, either direct or indirect, with any party to a hearing before the Committee. - Ted Wilkes 19:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is useless
Firstly, there is no need for this page. The points are universally not needed, as I shall demonstrate: Secondly, such a policy provokes rules-lawyering. People are likely to find technical breaches of such a policy and attack an arbitrator for this. This does nothing for the community and only makes the hard job of arbitrator harder.
 * 1) No personal attacks: Obviously the policy still applies. Automatic recusal is not only unjustified but impractical: how do you intend to enforce it?
 * 2) Transparency: Obviously the system needs to be as transparent as possible. However, it is far more important that it be just.  Occasionally evidence is presented by email or suchlike, as people don't want it to be shown to the rest of the community.  Of course, if the evidence isn't present, it won't be voted upon by the arbitrators.
 * 3) Recusals: Recusals are need only one criterion: where the arbitrator considers themself incapable of giving a fair judgment. No rules-lawyering is needed.
 * 4) Favouritism: I fail to see how this is not already understood policy.

Thirdly, this entire page is simply impossible to enforce. There is no point in having a policy if there is no way to enforce it. Jimbo and the rest of the committee are already capable of enforcing order. If they can't and people cannot cope with the extreme bias being shown (or likely not), I suggest they exercise their RightToFork or RightToLeave.

[[Sam Korn ]] 19:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it it useless. I'd rather we try to make some lemonade out of the sour complaints of these disgruntled parties. Obviously the project page needs to be completely rewritten but the questions it raises are valid. I just wish we didn't have so much arbitration work to do. Hard to get to this. Fred Bauder 20:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"so much arbitration work to do" - My suggestion at User talk:Jimbo Wales for some form of policy review/referral committee would help a great deal. - Ted Wilkes 01:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I mean it's useless in a practical way. My point is that I don't think there is anything in the page that isn't already the case or is impractical.  The questions that it raises are less points of policy than points of practice, and the arbitration policy is not really affected by this set of points.   [[Sam Korn ]] 20:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It would work with an ombudsman, as I mentioned above. - Xed 20:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That seems a horrendous waste of money when it is possible for custodes custodit ipsos. Jimbo is the boss; why won't he do?   [[Sam Korn ]] 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There's only so many minutes in a day. - Xed 20:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And only so many cases where the ArbCom gets things horrendously wrong. I have never seen any breaches of the rules in this proposed policy.   [[Sam Korn ]] 20:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sam Korn: The problem at Wikipedia, both in article content and the ArbCo etc., is attitude. Someone didn't like John Seigenthaler, or Alan Dershowitz etc. etc. etc. The header you placed here doesn't do anything to alleviate that, it perpetuates it. - Ted Wilkes 01:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, what? What relation does Siegenthaler have to this policy? My header says that what is new in the policy in impractical and what isn't is already the case.  I fail to even see what you accuse me of perpetuating.  [[Sam Korn ]] 17:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Further suggestion
I'd suggest that this also incclude something about Arbs not discussing, commenting on or referring to live cases in other fors (User talk pages, the mailing list, etc) as their comments may be interpreted as a kind of pre-judging of the case. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I covered that (in part) above when I said:
 * You can avoid all the above "what ifs" by adopting the same basic code many tribunals use and that are imposed by law for U.S. judges: A person sitting in judgment (ArbCom member) shall have no communication, either direct or indirect, with any party to a hearing before the Committee. - Ted Wilkes 19:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This can be modified, as those same rules also include "commenting" on a case.

The project page is a start but it needs simplification and/or amendments. And, if I may, rather than only commenting here, insert what you think any Code should read then if you want, say why here. - Ted Wilkes 01:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Fred Bauder's proposal
I'm moving Fred's proposal, which is essentially a rewrite of the entire proposal to Arbitration Committtee Code of Conduct/revision1. While these changes are potentially beneficial, I strongly disagree with the general direction of them, which is to weaken the proposal to unenforcable mechanisms and restatements of what is little more than the status quo. For example, the recusal policy needs to be significantly stronger than it currently is. So should a strict enforcement of NPA in the arbitration itself - a proposal I suggested specifically because of unpleasant experiences with this problem by Fred himself. Rangerdude 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have restored the work I did. If this article is to be seriously considered as policy it cannot simply be the work of aggrieved parties who have been the subject of negative sanctions by the Arbitration Committee. Fred Bauder 15:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems to have diluted it to almost nothing. Homeopathy won't cure Wikipedia. - Xed 15:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've put both versions on the page with equal prominence. (If the second wasn't Rangerdude's, please change to whoever it was.) - David Gerard 16:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with Bauder's proposal, then just go edit it. I plan to. Then, it MUST be reintegrated to one final document for presentation to Jimmy Wales and to be part of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005 - Ted Wilkes 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fred's proposal is far better. It actually contains a practical set of notices detailing how arbitrators generally behave. Your page, Rangerdude, contained "unenforcable mechanisms" itself, whereas Fred's contains no mechanisms.  Why are mechanisms needed?  What exactly are you trying to fix?  If you don't say what your aims are, how are we supposed to determine whether suggestions are likely to be helpful?  Much as you might like it to be so, this isn't just going to be ratifying your ideas.  This must be to determine whether or not they are good aims and good ideas.   [[Sam Korn ]] 18:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Creating a Code of Conduct, be it at Wikipedia or for the United States Supreme Court, is not done by "Joe's" versus "Harry's" etc,. proposal. It is impossible to create Policy by inserting dozens of pages of opinions for people to wade through. Policy and rules are and have been created from the input of those interested by the merging of ideas into a cohesive agreement. Pitting one side versus another through labeling is symbolic of the problems recurring throughout Wikipedia and only divides even further. I don't care who edits this so long as it is a constructive addition designed to achieve a proper Code of Conduct. - Ted Wilkes 20:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The page seems to have some extraneous things which have nothing to do with an Arbitrators conduct, for example,
 * "Arbitrators should request the assistance of administrators in the enforcement of arbitration decisions",
 * which just expands Arbitrators power, if it is not already spelled out elswhere, or
 * "Excessive or repeated criticism of an arbitrator which is not related to their behavior in an arbitration case on Wikipedia may in appropriate situations be considered a personal attack",
 * doesn't even relate to an Arbitrators conduct. Perhaps remaining focused on the article or the issue may help.  nobs 21:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to get it started, Nobs. How about jumping in? - Ted Wilkes 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence page links
I removed this sentence: "If the arbitrators adopt the evidence presented on the /Evidence page as support for a finding of fact a link can be made to that evidence."

My rationale for doing so is twofold. First, if the evidence page is supposed to be formatted to include diffs evidencing inappropriate conduct anyway, linking to it is unnecessary. Just link to the diffs themselves instead. Second, evidence page posts tend to be very biased in their presentation of facts regardless of what angle they're coming from. It's simply an inescapable reality. It's the job of the Arbcom to sort through those posts, weed out the bias, and identify the genuinely valid evidence. Simply linking to one party's or another's evidence posts suggests the Arbcom is taking the easy way out and strongly suggests favoritism is being displayed without due consideration of diffs themselves.

For example, in my recent case Fred drafted a vote that linked to another editor's evidence post about me that essentially made vague unproven and essentially unprovable allegations that I was "acting in concert" with his other perceived enemies on Wikipedia. It was worded in a very biased manner and bordered on being silly and conspiratorial, plus it didn't substantiate the charge it was being used for to any degree resembling transparency. This created a problem because I did not even know (and still don't know) what I even did that was supposedly wrong or against the rules. If the Arbcom were acting responsibly and fairly reviewing the case, they would've posted diffs showing clear wrongs on my part but they didn't and instead linked to another person's evidence post allegations and even shirked my many requests to come up with something more specific and more transparent. Also, if the Arbcom cannot clearly demonstrate the rule violation with the actual diffs themselves then as a matter of principle they should be reexamining the charge itself. Rangerdude 01:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If the evidence presented by someone is found to be sound, it makes common sense to link to it. Rangerdude didn't do one thing, he has an attitude. It is hard to cite one or two diffs that illustrate that attitude but looking at his edits as a whole, THERE IT IS. Fred Bauder 19:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Can I take that as an admission that you don't have any clear evidence of anything I've done wrong, Fred? Penalizing somebody because of what you perceive as their "attitude" is a highly prejudicial and arbitrary technique. My whole point in proposing this section is that all findings should be clearly stated and defined. If they are not and if you cannot clearly substantiate your charges, then the Arbcom shouldn't be making an affirmative finding on them in the first place. That is the heart of the transparency concept and impartiality in rulings. Offenses must be clearly defined and uniformly applied - otherwise there is doubt as to whether the offense was even committed and allegations of favoritism. BTW, the "evidence" page Freddo linked to in my case was an absurd list of conspiratorial accusations that I was supposedly acting "in concert" with other editors in adding fully sourced and documented factual material to the article about Chip Berlet that its subject personally disapproved of since it criticized his politics . It should also be noted that this same subject is a real life acquantence of Fred's from a highly partisan political organization they both belong to. Rangerdude 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Much of this could be put to bed cleanly with action on Motion 2 by Nobs01 on "acting in concert", (moreless repeated with Motion 6 by Nobs01 on findings of fact and in another motion).  The Rt. Hon. Chip Berlet confessed  to his exaggerated claims in bringing the action (which nobs identified at the time as "provably false" and possible "abuse of process" .  This precedent establishes Wikifealty and now it appears us peons are to be penalized for participating in the process.  nobs 19:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The arbitrators' method
They also use the most charming of debating techniques, which is to allow you to make a long list of salient points and pull in a wide range of empirical observations to back up your argument, and then ignore them completely. Fred Bauder 19:04, December 17, 2005

This has reverted back to a lengthy and meaningless diatribe that, as it currently stands, will go nowhere. - Ted Wilkes 21:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In fairness, it wouldn't be a bad idea for guidelines on users conduct before an ArbCom hearing, simple points of protocol to facilitate good faith and a fair hearing, and not to provoke misunderstandings. nobs 21:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Forced recusal
I seem to recall a proposal somewhere that the subject of an Arb case would be allowed to force the recusal of a single arbiter for whatever reason (which generally would be a perceived conflict of interest). I'm not convinced this is a good idea, but it bears mentioning in this context. In particular, while it doesn't really improve the arb process per se, it improves the semblance of neutrality, and would possibly reduce criticism of arb cases. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Two Words
I made an edit on the 23rd that I didn't give a summary for. It deserved one - and at slightly more length than the edit summary field allows, at that.

I added two words, one of them trivial - to be specific, "civilly and" - to the section "No Lese majesty findings". That looks like a minor edit and even one that went without saying, but to judge by the objections I've heard to this policy from some of the ArbCom candidates, apparently it wasn't and didn't.

It seems to me that those two words solve a lot of the objections I've heard. Not all, not even close, but a lot more than their fair share.

Incidentally, it seems to me the refusal to use common sense involved in not assuming that civillity, in this context, went without saying is a good argument for why, again contrary to the views of many ArbCom candidates, we do need things such as those in this policy spelled out. PurplePlatypus 07:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"No ex post facto" doesn't work here
The problem with forbidding decisions on "ex post facto" basis is that Wikipedia policies do not pretend to enumerate every possible bad thing that a person could do here. The abiding and overarching policy is WP:DICK, and arbitration exists to deal with cases where someone is being a dick, regardless of whether the specific kind of dick they're being has yet been forbidden in the rules.

"Being a dick" here basically equates to "harming the project" -- be that by damaging articles, running people off, abusing various capabilities, spamming, what-have-you. There isn't any authoritative list of all the ways it's possible to be a dick (q.v. WP:BEANS). Creative abusers can be expected to be one step ahead of any codified list of rules.

Wikipedia administrative actions and arbitration are not government or jurisprudence. The purposes of the former and the latter are utterly different. The purpose of government among freemen is to protect the rights of individuals in society. Fairness and equity toward individual are more important than "the good of society" -- to the extent that a person who has obviously committed a crime can be set free on technicalities ... a necessity to ensure procedural fairness, even though it seems counterintuitive.

The purpose of Wikipedia administration and arbitration, in contrast, are to protect the encyclopedia project. The good of the project is more important than any particular treatment of individuals. We cannot afford to ignore a harm simply because the vandal or harasser thought of it before anyone else did. --FOo 04:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the rules already allow blocking for pretty much any genuinely disruptive behaviour, precisely because they deliberately talk in generalities. While I do think that they will need to get clearer and more specific in some areas as Wikipedia gets larger (and that a greater committment to consistent enforcement is needed right now), it seems that the existing policies are general enough that there is no room for a clearly needed ex post facto rule. It seems to me that all that suggestion really says is that someone shouldn't be punished for doing something a reasonable person might not have realized was a potential problem.


 * My only problem with the "no ex post facto" suggestion is this: I can't think of a clear case where the Arbcom has actually done that in a problematic way (unlike most of the other provisions here which seem to be aimed at specific behaviours in actual recent cases). In the words of one ArbCom candidate critical of this whole policy, it seems to be a solution in search of a problem. (Note: I do not agree with the person in question that this is true of the proposed policy as a whole, just that one provision of it.) PurplePlatypus 05:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

While "no ex post facto" is unacceptable to me, I just added an alternative that I find acceptable. The Literate Engineer 08:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No Latin please; I like the recusal rules
This is EN.wikipedia.org, so would you please use plain English instead of Latin legalese?

ex post facto rules == retroactive rules

lese majesty findings == punishment for statements against arbitrators

damnatio memoriae sanctions == retributive deletion of user pages or talk comments

Otherwise, I am completely in favor, exspecially of the formalized recusal rules, and hope that this is all approved in a way that everyone can understand without passing the bar. Thanks. &mdash;James S. 05:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I confess I love the Latin, but I agree that for the sake of clarity I agree that it must go. Wally 21:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Note to Sam Korn
I have no intention of getting into a revert war over the "alternative proposal" you just re-added, but I want to say that I don't see the point of putting it here. It seems to just be the existing policy, or lack thereof, if not a version of it that gives arbitrators even more leeway than they have now. It seems to me that if it's just the existing policy there is no point putting it down here, and if it's not it defeats the whole purpose of the proposal, which is to rein in what some see as unfairness and worse on the part of the ArbCom. Whether you agree with that perception or not, I don't see the point of having that proposal here. PurplePlatypus 00:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no current code of conduct. If there must be one, it is only reasonable that all ideas are considered.  There is not yet a set policy proposal, and you do not own it.  Not everyone agrees with your proposal.  If your only aim is to "rein in" arbitrators, then you've gone too far at this point.  First you must develop a consensus that the policy is needed, then work out what the policy can be, then decide whether it can be implemented, with reference to both the community and Jimbo.  As yet, you have simply decided that a policy is needed, decided that it must severely restrict the Arbitrators, and are more or less refusing to agree that some kind of compromise and consensus gathering is needed.  I suggest many more alternatives are found, so that the community can judge for itself what is needed, without having a policy foisted upon it.   [[Sam Korn ]] 00:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom has a blank check now. You might well just phrase it "Do whatever the Hell you want" and acheive like effect. The point of this is to standardize ArbCom rules, not liberalize them. Besides, it is rather offensive to take a careful and well thought-out proposal and answer it with one toss-off line. Wally 21:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A careful and well thought-out proposal it may be, but one with which I disagree - hence my "one toss-off line". I believe that there is no unfairness and worse on the part of the ArbCom.  I believe that anything which ends up before the ArbCom does so because at least one person is acting in an unacceptable manner, and I believe that it's more important to have an organ empowered to remove that problematic behavior, either by compelling the problem-editor to change or by eliminating them from Wikipedia, than to be "fair".  The Literate Engineer 06:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sam, you seem to have misunderstood me on numerous levels. First of all, I am neither the originator nor the primary author of this proposal. I have contributed a little (one bullet point under the grounds for recusal, rather more under the list of what is explicitly not grounds for recusal, which I would think you would like, plus some minor edits) to the Recusal section, about two sentences to the section on explanations, and one or two minor clarifications to the Latin-named bit. I strongly resent your assumption that I am trying to take ownership of this suggestion, an accusation which is contrary to WP:AGF and which has no basis in fact whatsoever.


 * Also lacking any basis in my actual actions is your accusation that I am refusing compromise or consensus, which if anything, seems to describe your actions better than it does mine. I first bring to your attention that my original removal of that section came with an explicit invitation to discuss matters here on the talk page; secondly, that I explicitly stated that I was not going to edit war over it when you simply replaced them (albeit in a much preferable way, structurally speaking) rather than do so; and thirdly, that you have made no attempt to explain what is wrong with the rest of the policy or what kind of compromise between it and your own views might be acceptable. I would be happy to participate in such a discussion, but I do not feel you have made the reasoning behind your views clear enough for me to have anything to respond to at this point. I would be very happy to see that change.


 * In short, your apparent hostility is misplaced and your accusations ignore both my actual actions and the plain language of my edit summary when I originally removed your suggestion. If you would like to get a discussion going on a less acrimonious basis, however, no-one would be happier than I. PurplePlatypus 03:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)