Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 11

Election questions
How will the possible changeover of some ArbCom seats affect the currently-requested cases? android 79  18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The last few times this has happened, we presumed all new arbitrators were recused on cases opened prior to their arrival on the committee, unless they explicitely unrecused themselves for a particular case. Raul654 20:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Does this also effect the 1 week 4 votes policy? There has been heinous NPA violations directly on my RFa by some of those whom I have named in my RFa.  There are 2 "Accepts" but those were given a while ago.  From this two things seem clear: 1 - The ArbCom is currently inundated with RFAs  2 - My RFA has not been read in some time as is evidenced by the lack of Admin warnings etc towards those who have egregiously violated NPA and CIV right here on the RFA page.  Will leniency be given to current RFAs regarding the '1 week 4 votes policy'?  I mean, just skim my RFA (Tommstein), it is clear that immediate, official, intercession is desperately needed.  Duffer 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe we informally agreed to keep it at 4 for the time being. Raul654 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks and Incivility in RfArs
Duffer identifies a recent problem. Many recent RfArs, which typically cite a pattern of personal attacks and incivility, demonstrate the problem of personal attacks and incivility. I think that the point that Duffer is trying to make is a reasonable one. If one of the parties to an RfAr uses the RfAr as a vehicle for further personal attacks (either on the other parties or on the Wikipedia "cabal"), I would suggest that the ArbCom should take note that the incivility shows that there is a problematical editor. Robert McClenon 11:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We do. We count anything done during arbitration as evidence. Fred Bauder 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good. EffK 11:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved discussion re Dylexic agnostic and T-Man
(In regard to Benon's Motion for consideration; moved from the main page) -- Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may speak, I oppose this. Benon should frankly back off, as he is too personally involved in siding with T-man.  I am editing in cooperation with many other editors on Enemies of Batman and Batman, and have been doing so since long before T-Man.  My edits and comments since my block have been nothing but civil and courteous, and in fact as you can see I decided it was fair to reincorporate the sense of T-man's recent edit right after I removed it.  There will be no flames or smoke from me, sir; I will control my frustration, although frankly I am by far not the only one trying to do so: see here. Blocking me from editing when the very legitimacy of my block is still under question is manifestly unjust. Dyslexic agnostic 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not motioning against just you but both of you. Benon 02:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it's not personal, but I also see it as a drastic request. If either of us act uncivil or inappropriately, then a block will suffice. For my part, I confirm again that I have no intent to ever be uncivil to T-man again. Dyslexic agnostic 02:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say, but he deserves to edit the Enemies of Batman Page. I hate blind reversing To me that means,to reverse deleting, not to reverse adding. Is blind reversing a blind reverse really blind reversing? I always try to meet my blind reverser in the middle point by changing the blind reversed info at least a little. I read somewhere that the actual right thing to do is always to copyedit and rephrase, which I always do.

However I checked the pages' history and he fixes links there before I went there. He was also first on the Batman and Superman page and he also deserves to keep editing there.I do apologise for believing he followed me there. He din't. Although, he follow me to some users' talk pages and that was frustrating. He admited to me to check on me "3rd thing on the morning" and to be monitoring me. He also admited not knowing about the topic on some articles where he always blind reverts me with insults on the summary. My advocate will provide those proves and some others about his ignorance of the topics if necessary. --T-man... &quot;&quot;worst vandal ever&quot;&quot; 03:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, T-Man. I will meet you in the middle whenever I can.  I likewise do not support a ban on T-Man's ability to edit Enemies of Batman, or any other page. Dyslexic agnostic 04:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is proof that I am really trying to work with T-Man... see his message to me regarding Enemies of Batman, and my reply... Dyslexic agnostic 06:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The naming of one of the current cases...
The RfAr with which I'm currently involved is listed as being against User:Danteferno, but several parties have brought evidence (partially, or only) against User:Leyasu in their statements. Should the case be listed as Danteferno v. Leyasu or Leyasu v. Danteferno, rather than just Danteferno? It looks like it's shaping up to be an RfAr regarding the conduct of both parties. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom Mailing List
Is it correct, as suggested at the clerk talk page, that former arbitrators retain read access to the Arbcom mailing list, and if so, why? Do they ordinarily get write access as well? Dragons flight 16:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. The idea of this is to be able to advise the present AC on the basis of experience as needed. Jimbo also asks arbcom-l about sensitive matters he wants a sounding board on. We (ex-arbs) aren't the AC and have no particular power. I'm also one of the arbcom-l listadmins - David Gerard 16:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I find that somewhat unexpected as it would appear to cut the community part way out of the process. Some arbitrators fail in re-election or decide not to run because they have lost the community support that advanced them to that position in the first place.  In essence it seems that this policy denies me any mechanism for saying "No, you don't represent me, I don't want you participating in high level decisions on my behalf".  I've been here more than long enough to know full well Wikipedia is not democracy, but for most of its history ArbCom appointments have been made at least in the spirit of a democracy (even with some exceptions).  Hence it surprises me that an appointment to ArbCom quietly comes with a lifetime invitation to participate in private discussions of sensitive matters.  I don't mean any disrespect to you or the other ex-Arbs, but since your appointments are made in the flavor of a democracy, I can't help imagine parellels to government officials who had since left office.  In particular, they might be consulted now and again, but they wouldn't be expected to be regularly kept in the loop on everything, which would seem to be roughly the effect of retaining list membership.  On the other hand ArbCom and Jimbo can and should discuss matters with whomever they find it useful to do so, hence it is probably not really a very big deal, even if it does have something of the smell of a cabal.


 * However, I feel more strongly on one particular point. Arbitration clerks shouldn't have read access to the ArbCom list.  One of the key tasks of the clerks (if I understand correctly) is to organize and summarize evidence, and I certainly don't begrude ArbCom any help they can get, as things do tend to appear horribly messy most of the time.  In principle nearly anyone can do that work, but if people want to take it on as a regular responsibility, all the better.  However, the person trying to frame the discussion shouldn't also have an inside track to what the "judges" are thinking.  The ability to consciously or unconsciously present evidence that responds to those private discussion puts such a clerk at an immense advantage for shaping a debate relative to other parties who wouldn't be privy to those discussions.  It is the difference between a job that in principle nearly anyone could do and a job that requires immense trust from the community in order to believe it is being executed fairly.  In most legal systems, the lawyers (responsible for presenting the evidence) maintain a healthy professional distance from the judge who decides the case, and I don't see why we shouldn't have the same policy on Wiki.  So, I would respectfully ask that clerks not be given an inside track to ArbCom deliberations, and that those who have it (e.g. by virtue of being former Arbs) be asked to relinquish such access while serving as a Clerk.  This suggestion is not meant as a slight against any current or potential clerk (though I realize some may inevitably see it that way), but rather what I see as an important action towards maintaining the appearance of a neutral arbitration process.  Dragons flight 03:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Arbitration clerks shouldn't have read access to the ArbCom list.  - they won't. Although that was initially considered, it was written out of the proposal when several other arbitrators and Jimbo said they didn't care for that (To carry out these tasks Clerks are granted write-access to the Arbitration Committee mailing list and permission to edit proposed and final decision pages. - Arbitration Committee/Clerks). So clerks will be able to send email to the list, but not receive it. Raul654 04:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless I misunderstand the clerk talk page and the previous answer above, that decision doesn't apply to clerks who are also former ArbCom members (and hence continue to have read access to the list), and I believe it should apply there as well. Dragons flight 04:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Former arbititrators retain their access (both read and write) to the mailing list, regardless of whether or not they happen to be clerks. They often have important and useful insights to offer. Raul654 04:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That and having a read/write accessed chair is bloody useful.--Tznkai 04:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it is useful, but I don't believe it is appropriate, in the same way I would consider it to be inappropriate for justice department lawyers to have inside access to the deliberations of the Supreme Court. Certainly such access could be useful to many people but it does so at the expense of parties ability to have their case handled in a neutral and impartial manner.  In my opinion, all parties presenting and organizing the evidence ought to be clearly seperated from those judging the evidence.  Not having such seperations leads, at least, to the appearance of inpropriety and bias.  What are you going to tell people who think a clerk has been trying to denigrate them behind closed doors, or that presenting evidence on their own is futile because the clerk already knows what the result is going to be?  Maybe experienced editors will trust a clerk and former ArbCom to act responsibly, but to those unfamiliar with them it lends itself to a feeling of being mistreated.  Dragons flight 04:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (Ex-arbitrators having access to the arbcom mailing list occurs) at the expense of parties ability to have their case handled in a neutral and impartial manner - you seem to be implying that being an ex-arbitrators automatically makes one a biased party to all present arbitration cases. This is a pretty fantastic charge to make, and I'd like to see some support for it. You also seem to be conflating the idea of clerk and former arbitrator. Raul654 05:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Raul, my apologies if I was unclear, you appear to have misread my intention. Since my concern is only at the intersection of clerk with former arbitrator, this discussion is only about that rare case when the two overlap.  I have no objection to the clerks, and I have considerable respect for the former Arbs.  For most part they and you seem to make a good effort at what is a hard job.  Further, I would have absolutely no objection to a former Arb serving as a clerk provided that he relinquished access to the private list while doing so.


 * My concern is only about what happens when a former Arb with access to the mailing list takes on a role as clerk to organize and present evidence in future cases. Because such a former Arb has access to internal discussions that other people do not have, they will be in a position to select and present evidence in a way that responds to those private discussions.  Even if we assume this person makes a good faith effort to present evidence in as neutral and fair a manner as possible, it is hard to imagine any person not being influenced by knowing how the arbitrators are reacting to the evidence being presented.  Even in the best of circumstances I consider it unfair for one person presenting evidence (even a uninvolved clerk) to be receiving such feedback not available to other parties.  In the worst of circumstances the former ArbCom and clerk could come to a conclusion about what the outcome ought to be and manipulate the process to achieve his desired result.  Now maybe my worst case scenario won't happen any time soon.  In fact, maybe it will never happen, but as long as outsiders have no way of knowing if it is happening, the process will always appear suspect.  It is the appearance of double dipping that is the greater problem here (presuming, as I do, that former Arbs are good people).  How can anyone be sure that a former Arb who is serving in the position of a clerk isn't tailoring their presentation merely to justify a result that has already been decided?  They can't.  They have to rely on "good faith".  Which is fine up to a point, but many of the people who come here aren't going to swimming in good faith to begin with.  When one sees a system which could be made more fair and with fewer avenues of potential abuse, and those avenues for potential abuse have been intentionally left open, I believe that is likely to drive many to have a negative view of ArbCom process.  If you knew nothing about how arbitration worked, would you want the person presenting and organizing your case to be in a position to know what the arbitrators thought of you and the case in private?  As a long-time insider, it may be difficult for you to see how this special circumstance overlap, clerk w/ ArbCom list privileges, can be viewed as a very negative thing from the point of view of outsiders.  I hope this makes my point clear, even if you don't agree with it.  Dragons flight 07:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hrm... interesting. On the other hand, I don't really see how that is any more likely if it's a ex-arbitrator-current-clerk than if it were a current-arbitrator or ex-arbitrator-non-clerk doing it. Further, it also requires that the arbitration committee would not be able to detect an utterly one-sided presentation of the evidence; and while we are usually overworked, that's not something that's likely to go unnoticed. In short - the process works because we trust the people who are on the list, and we've not really had any reason to believe anyone is manipulating the list for a personal agenda (or even hint of such a thing). Raul654 08:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is there an arbitration ML at all? Why not have everything public on the wiki? The arbitrators should be more engaged with the community, and less secretive. Everyking 05:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (1) Because the signal to noise ratio is a heck of a lot better there than on the wiki, and (2) because we like being able to speak in a plain and forthright manner instead of having to worry about hurting someone's feelings or having to listen to their half-baked defense of their actions. Raul654 06:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What Raul said, also I think there are some confidential and legal issues that are brought up on the arbcom mailing list especially on certain cases that cannot should not be made public and in a rare situation such as that certain parts of the deliberation process have to remain closed. Jtkiefer T   06:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually think the ArbCom would produce much better rulings if it had to be more careful in its discussions. Having to maintain some sort of fair and reasonable tone amongst yourselves regarding defendants would probably have a noticeable effect on rulings (dismissing defendants as "half-baked", for instance, is not the kind of thing that is going to influence your fellow arbitrators appropriately). The picture you're painting for me is one of derision toward participants in cases (on certain sides, I suppose). Well, I don't think that kind of dialogue produces good results. Having to keep yourselves in check and being up front with the community would surely be an improvement.


 * It appears that everything that really matters is done on the ML. I can say this based on the fact that the arbitrators discuss little to nothing here on-wiki, so they must be doing their discussions on the ML (and on IRC as well, perhaps). This excludes community participation from a case, diverts attention away from the arguments of the actual participants the case (in favor of the arbitrators' own arguments), and, I suspect, is part of what gives the ArbCom rulings such a harsh and punitive flavor&mdash;I think this closed door deliberation, with all sorts of unkind comments about the participants exchanged between the arbitrators, probably means rulings are much tougher than they would be if everything was open and accountable. I also suggest that rulings would be better if there was more community input and more accountability for the arbs (through the public exposure of their deliberations). Everyking 07:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you'll find that, excluding the people who we've had to sanction, most people are quite happy with our decisions, and that their primary complaint is that we don't render them fast enough. Your commentary about our awful decisions (and the process we use to get to them), while quite predictable, is simply not a matter of reality. Raul654 07:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the above discussion illustrates one of the reasons why an ArbCom ML is a good idea. If all of the discussion were done on-Wiki, the arbitrators would spend more of their time having to deal with or ignore the uninformed comments of editors such as Everyking.  I will point out that Raul654 never referred to editors as "half-baked".  He referred to the empty wiki-lawyering defenses presented by disruptive editors being sanctioned as "half-baked".  If Everyking does not understand what I am referring to, I suggest that he read in detail the case that is currently in voting to which I am a party.  If there were no closed means of discussion of cases, then it would be almost impossible to deal with at least two types of disruptive editor:  an editor who uses talk pages to conduct a filibuster; or a disruptive editor who engages is personal attacks and obscene taunting.  Everyking has been cautioned by the ArbCom to familiarize himself with subjects under discussion before commenting on them.  His comments on the ArbCom ML appear to me to demonstrate that the ArbCom was reasonable in that sanction.  That ruling also illustrates why there should be a closed ML, which is the need to exclude comments by editors who have a habit of commenting on thingst that they do not understand.  Robert McClenon 16:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Outcome of Arbitration Cases
This is just a general comment about arbitration cases. I will add a disclaimer though; I am currently involved in an arbitration case. It is the first and hopefully last one I will ever participate in.

As the person who brought the RFA, I am deeply disappointed with the Arbitration Committee. I have personally tried to make suggestions and comments as to what needs to be done. One would think, at best these comments should at least be acknowledged, and if nothing else whether they are feasible or not.

Essentially, the decision in the case I'm involved in is a watered down version in terms of dealing with POV pushing. The person, whom I brought the case against, will not honor the decision nor acknowledge its existence. Essentially, the entire thing is a wash, a large waste of time on my part and those who have bothered to bring it before the arbitration committee.

Certainly, I won't go out of my way to help in any other arbitration cases due to the entire thing being a waste of my time. If they don't want to take it seriously, neither will I Davidpdx 11:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing Requests for arbitration/Johnski. It is an important matter which presents some difficulty due to the cynicism of your opponents. I'm sorry if we have not formed a consensus quickly enough or have chosen a remedy which may not be as effective as needed. Fred Bauder 17:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand, that case is still in voting. If I understand the procedures, Davidpdx is welcome to add "Comments by parties" in favor of a stronger remedy, although he should explain why he thinks that it will be effective.  As Fred Bauder explains, that case is a difficult one because it involves a disruptive editor or editors who push the limits of what Wikipedia can do to defend itself.  Robert McClenon 15:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also have a general comment. I am also concerned about the way cases are being handled.  I think that the decisions in most cases are appropriate, but that a minority of cases are poorly or sloppily decided.  I also think that some cases take too long to be decided.  However, I do not think that it would be reasonable for me to state that I was disappointed by the Arbitration Committee, that is, by the arbitrators.  The problem is not (as complainers like Everyking keep saying) that we have the wrong arbitrators.  It is that arbitration, as the last step in dispute resolution, is overloaded because there are too many disputes.  It will be more productive to make suggestions about how to improve the dispute resolution and arbitration processes than to criticize the arbitrators.  Robert McClenon 15:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Robert, thankyou for your comments. I agree, many of the decision I've read were carefully crafted and done well. This is an exception to the rule. The arbitration committee has essentially said, "we don't care" in terms of this case. From the start, there was speculation as to whether the editors were using sockpuppets or meatpuppets, even before evidence was submitted. (see comments ).


 * This arbitration committee enforces the rules unevenly. True, all cases are not the same, but however in this case the outcome is a waterdown mess. There is no deterrant for the editors in terms of their behavior other then to beg an adminstrator to block them (as one was so kind to do). Often times, when contacting administrators, notices get overlooked and the problem continues. Therefore, pawning the work off on administrators is not always the best soultion. Anyway, the administrators have to have a ruling to go by (something to enforce) if they are to do their job.


 * Yes, I agree the arbitration process is on overload. Even more so, now due to the election process. I have tried to suggest things when they come up in terms of voting for ideas as well as voting in the arbitration elections. I won't try to hide nor appologize for the fact I voted against every current arbitrator that was reappointed in addition to voting against most of the new ones that were appointed as well.


 * I think criticism of arbitrators is warrented, given the fact they are the ones who craft the decisions. If they are deaf in terms of the possible soultions, then the dispute will only worsen, and return to arbitration. In that case, the first trip through becomes an absoulte waste of time. I am trying to remain hopefully that the soultion will work, but my guess is that myself and others will have to stand on the sidelines and force both the arbitration committee and administrators to enforce the soultions that have been given. Personally, I don't have a huge amount of time and would rather be writing and editing in a positive manner then sounding like all I'm doing is moaning and complaining. At this point, I've said my peace. Davidpdx 05:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also wanted to address the fact that, I have put comments on the arbitration workshop page and these have gone unnoticed. In terms of where I'm permitted to post ideas, I believe it's the correct area. If I'm mistaken, then I'll accept that. It certainly, isn't for a lack of trying though on my part. Davidpdx 05:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that is the correct place to post comments. Having read the proposed decision in the case, I share most of the dissatisfaction of Davidpdx, but will reply there rather than here. Robert McClenon 13:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Robert - as I have discussed with Jimbo, I think my next project will be about updating the dispute resolution process. It's been two years since we put it into place, and it's quite clear by now that most of it has been, well, a flop. Arbitration works, but besides that not much else does, which is why the arbcom is so overloaded. I have some ideas for improving things, but I need some time to write it up. Raul654 05:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Update
I am glad to see that Raul654 has been discussing dispute resolution reform with Jimbo and will be working on it. Is this talk page an appropriate space for making suggestions about what the reforms should be? Robert McClenon 13:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * At this point, no - everything is still coming together in my head. Raul654 18:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments on arbitration talk pages
I posted some comments on the talk page of the EffK arbitration case, as I had read that arbitrators would read and take account of discussion there. No arbitrator however has replied to any of my comments. Is this arbitrators' usual practice? Or did I put my comments in the wrong place? Having taken the time to comment on, to my mind, serious issues involved in the case it would be nice to at least know that someone had considered what I had to say. Bengalski 14:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The arbitrators are very busy deciding cases. It has been my observation that they seldom respond to comments on talk pages, but I assume that they do read them.  That does not mean that they have to act on them.  There are also comments on the same page respectfully disagreeing with your comments.  I would assume that the arbitrators have taken your comments and mine into account.  We can continue this discussion further on the case talk page.  Robert McClenon 16:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, in case you think that the proposed ArbCom action is too harsh, check his recent posting history in which he was attempting to blank all of the talk page archives and has been temporarily blocked for vandalism. Robert McClenon 19:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)