Wikipedia talk:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party/Bill of Rights

Statute of limitations
I thought that statutes of limitatons were about not charging people for incidents so old that there was no public benefit in a prosecution. But the wording of this right seems to be focussed on not allowing indefinite blocks and bans, and replacing them with fixed terms, hoever as there is no limitation on the length of the fixed term it would be entirely possible to hoour this right by replacing indefinite bans with hundred year ones.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support abolishing any sanction length over, say, five years, and prohibiting the imposition of sanctions for actions more than, say, two years prior to proposal, both. &mdash; Cup co  10:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some indefinite blocks that really should be kept in place longterm. It may not be very enforceable, as if the people involved came back after a year or more and behave very differently it might be hard to spot them. But if someone has been indef banned for advocacy of paedophilia or hate crimes then I'd be loathe to knowingly accept them back.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  11:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we recently had someone on ANI who got in trouble for saying he liked teenagers, and then it came out somewhat later that he was a teenager at the time. But I agree there are probably some offenses where there would have to be similar very substantial mitigating factors. &mdash; Cup co  12:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And that's not even the worst part of this parody of a Bill of Rights, WereSpielChequers. Almost all of its articles appear to have been concocted with the purpose of asking for Fae's "conviction" to be reversed. This Bill of Rights basically ratifies sock puppetry, POV pushing, edit warring and the disgusting practice of accusing one's opponents of racism, homophobia or whatever whenever they criticise your behaviour. It doesn't even contain any provisions to the effect that all editors should be allowed to confront those who level accusations against them, to examine all evidence gathered against them and to provide new pieces of evidence or to reply to allegations before they get sanctioned. These are rights which most constitutions recognise and these are the rights that should be reaffirmed. This page is a masterpiece of unintentional humour. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how -- granted I just learned about this, but could you substantiate these assertions with how, for example, it ratifies POV pushing? I certainly agree we should have the right of confrontation and examination of evidence, and cross-examination of any testimony which isn't based on public information. I know very little of the Fae case, but I doubt that these generalities are actually tailored towards a particular outcome, so if you could walk me through that I'd appreciate it too. Also, have there been any cases where people were denied the right of reply to allegations? &mdash; Cup co  13:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As to the last, I don't think so. The principal used by Arbcom is that if User:Boo makes an accusation privately against User:Foo, Foo must be made aware of the allegation and given a chance to respond.  A man has the right to face his accusers.  Sometimes this can lead to a situation where the rest of the community can't see either the evidence or the response (say it includes details of private emails, or identifies people in real life, or similar), and this makes some people very unhappy.  It's hard to explain 'why did you block user Foo' when the explanation is that following several oversighted posts where Foo threatened to kill other Wikipedia editors whose rl identities were known to him, Foo's wife has contacted to say that he has had to be detained under the Mental Health act' (this is a made up example).


 * Several community members, however, feel that an individual should NOT have to respond to allegations made against them - see here for example, where the opinion of some editors was that the Committee was unreasonable in expecting the editor concerned to respond to the accusations, and the Committee should have taken no action against the editor as long as he continued not to respond. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about juries? I remember someone saying that we elect arbitrators because they are particularly fair, responsible, and wise. That is the same criteria we use to elect or appoint judges in the West, but we don't rely on the judges to decide, only to instruct a jury of peers. Do you think juries would be workable with ArbCom? &mdash; Cup co  14:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * but could you substantiate these assertions with how, for example, it ratifies POV pushing? That's how No general accusations will be interpreted. When you can only examine single edits and are prohibited from looking at the big picture, at the general pattern you only weed out the dumb POV pushers; those who smartly subvert Wikipedia's policies to do it, get away scot-free. I know very little of the Fae case then you can start by reading Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. I'd rather avoid commenting on the issue, as I don't want to give a biased summary of what happened. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are suggesting that it's possible to push a POV without making any individually biased edits? &mdash; Cup co  14:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is certainly possible to push a POV while making a loud case that your edits are NPOV. You could argue that the other side's sources are unreliable because the authors are French. You can remove negative comments quoting WP:UNDUE - do it over a period of time, and the article ends up a hagiography. You can make subtle changes to wording - just read the to and fro on any articles on Ireland to see that going on. You can argue that information must be included because there is a reliable source. You can argue that your opponents are Bolivian and therefore naturally biased, but you yourself are neutral of course. Sometimes the patterns are very subtle - one has to look at the mass of edits to see it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Stealing a tenth of a cent from everyone's account is still bank fraud. &mdash; Cup co  15:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, arguing that the sources are unreliable because the authors are French is what I would call a bad edit. There's something rather odd about how Wikipedia handles policy - if something is clearly prohibited by policy and you add it anyway, you're likely to be called on it, but if something is clearly allowed by policy and people delete it anyway, misrepresenting policy, they seem to get away with it.  But those still are not good edits.  Note that I'm saying that good edits don't add up to a bad editor - I'm not saying that an editor who repeatedly produces bad edits should be forgiven the cumulative impact of all the bad editing when it's added up together. Wnt (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander. Have fun. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And for something more recent Talk:Caste and Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive769. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warrers charter
It may not have been the intention, but "A person cannot become a bad editor by making good edits. When each individual edit is acceptable under Wikipedia policy, he shall not be subject to penalty because of the "overall bias" or effect of such edits taken in collective." Means that edit warring would be allowed provided each revert was within policy. I'm not entirely happy with our current edit warring policy, and especially the way that some editors get blocked instead of told to stop and self-revert. But we do need to control edit warring.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If only we had page semiprotection plus protection against a list of specific editors. Would that solve the problem? &mdash; Cup co  10:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If we admins had the power to block individual people from specific pages then that would be an interesting tool to deal with edit warring. I don't know if it would work, but it would be worth trying. However that is a very different proposal than the one on the page.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think that a 4th revert within 24 hours is pretty clearly a bad edit on its own. Likewise, making a change yet again after consensus has clearly formed against it would be clearly a bad edit on its own.  Maybe there's a way to clarify this... Wnt (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well no. A fourth revert is only inappropriate because there were three reverts before it. If the edit warrior just made that one revert, by itself, without reference to any other edits, it would be acceptable. Hut 8.5 17:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. You're reading this differently than I do.  An edit can be bad because of what an editor knows, or should know, not just the text.  If I say "The New York Times wrote K-- was a murderer", it matters whether that's what I know it says or what I know it didn't say.  The editor submitting a 4th revert knows, or should know, that there are those others before it.  Note that the editor isn't required to know everything, though - just what the 3RR and the verifiability policy and so forth actually say he needs to know. Wnt (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you give an example of some conduct that would be considered sanctionable under current practice but would not be sanctionable were this to be implemented? Hut 8.5 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would hope this would be used to prevent guilt by association in the many ethnic and religious disputes where in the past ArbCom has tended to sanction cooperating editors as guilty by association. If you look through the history of amendments to ethnic and religious dispute cases it is very common to see amendments 2-15 weeks afterwards where up to a handful of editors had their sanction removed because their only crime was trying to defend their friends. &mdash; Cup co  18:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we get some diffs for that from actual RfARs please. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wnt will tell me if I am wrong, but my impression is that his fourth point wasn't meant to be about edit-warring. I believe it was inspired by a hypothetical situation that I raised during the workshop and talkpage discussion when I was drafting last year's decision in the Noleander case. If that is so, I don't think the hypothetical situation I raised has ever been the subject of an actual case, and so it's probably not worth spending a lot of time on, except as an interesting academic exercise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * True, I was thinking of the Noleander case. If he had not been shown to have misrepresented sources (something I accept as very bad edits) then I would have disagreed with the outcome (unless there are other things that came out that I'm not remembering...).  My feeling is that ArbCom erred philosophically by denying the right of even a known racist editor (I'm not saying he is or isn't here) to provide valid, acceptable edits documenting his point of view by correctly introducing information which is unflattering to his chosen subjects.  If it's OK for someone else to do, it's OK for him to do, even though he may have an ugly motivation.  I'm not suggesting such a person wouldn't likely violate policy somehow, but looking into the situation that way is just a mistake.  This mistake was then compounded with an overcompensation in the Fae case, where because the editor's feelings can be taken as a policy offense in themselves, accusing editors of harboring such feelings is then treated as an 'extraordinary claim' exposing those making the allegation to potential reprisals.  We need to go back to the idea that the administrator is a traffic cop with a radar gun, looking at one little stretch of road, not a general judge of character who pulls you over and says "you know, I've been watching you, and I don't like the way you drive...." Wnt (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you see, I don't think there *was* a mistake in the Fae case. The problem there wasn't anything to do with anybody's feelings. It was Fae accusing onwiki pretty much everyone he disagreed with of being a homophobe. That's simple violation of WP:NPA, and I don't believe it created any new policy to say this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It would go too far off topic to debate the appropriateness of Fae's remarks here (I stated my opinions in the proceeding). But there I see no explicit term in WP:NPA saying that allegations of homophobia are particularly serious violations of the policy.  I don't think that for him to accuse someone of being influenced by homophobia is any more serious than for someone to say that an editor is biased for some other reason, or violating some other policy.  Furthermore, I believe that racism, homophobia, and other such things are by no means uncommon, but in fact are almost universal - true impartiality on these issues takes positive effort and is only haltingly achieved.
 * To give an example of what I mean, I was having a discussion at the Refdesk talk page recently where someone said that the Treaty of Paris (1783) was the simple factual answer to a question of what treaty ended the U.S. Revolutionary War. This is, by our article and most accounts, true.  But on consideration it occurs to me that it is also racist, denies the existence of Indian nations, and thus denies that Indians had any rights to their lands - because in fact the Indians who fought with the British had their land bargained away by third parties, did not accept the Treaty of Paris, and ultimately settled things with the Treaty of Greenville two years later.  Now of course it was never my intention in years before, when I never thought twice about this, to be be racially biased, indeed, to condone a genocide - it just happened, because I didn't think about something critically.  That happens every day in countless ways.  And of course, that's not even counting the more overt prejudices we feel that we're not willing to give up, for example my feeling about how Muslims react to our freedom of speech about Muhammad.  There is scarcely a race or religion I don't have some bias against, including my own.  We exist in a sea of biases, most of which we are unaware.  And so I think that editors should be allowed to call one another out on such biases, recognizing that we are all infected and all need to work toward a common cure. Wnt (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You were obviously not on the receiving end of any of them. As Bananarama have it "It aint what you say, it's the way that you say it." Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Juries
Why would you want to canvass juries on demand instead of having a pool of editors willing to serve as jurors established ahead of time? Wouldn't the former take too much time? &mdash; Cup co  10:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cupco. If we are going to introduce some sort of jury system I think it would be essential that we avoid recruiting people who sign up after a case starts to form. The whole idea of moving to a jury system is get people who are fresh to a case, not the current RFC system of getting those who specifically choose that case.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't thinking of a signup, but a hopefully tolerable degree of spamming. I suppose I should have spelled this out in detail, how I was thinking to do this:


 * Both sides make their case.
 * The defendant gets to decide a beginning time, say, 4:00 GMT. The revision number (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=511711969 ) for an edit made that time is found.
 * The results of a few state lotteries, determined in advance, are used to generate a set of numbers between 1 and N, where N is the approximate increase in the revision number that Wikipedia gets in the 4 hours of the day chosen, using a simple, predetermined, open source algorithm. The base revision number + N, or the first number thereafter that matches a revision made by a human editor (not a bot), is used to select a juror.  The number of numbers generated, we'll call it C, is the number of editors to be canvassed ("cold-called" with a templated notice on their talk page explaining what the jury system is about and inviting them to participate)
 * Through trial and error, C is to be adjusted so that the proportion of people actually participating is generally sufficient. The number of people we actually need to turn up at the case page and say that they're willing to give their opinion I'll call Q.  Another larger round of canvassing can be done if Q isn't reached.
 * When participating, the jurors would take part in the conversations and discussions the same way as any editor, but would be entitled to place a distinctive tag "(juror)" after their signature to make their role clear. Specific propositions could be put up specifically for jurors to decide.  Their core role is to decide whether the accused editor violated policy or not (which is usually the most contentious issue) but I think a role in other aspects, such as recommendation of penalties, could be developed.


 * I hope I haven't fouled this one up this time... :) Wnt (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not just ask all the editors with Rollback or Reviewer or whatever whether they would be willing to serve on a jury until you get a few hundred, and then get them to take some action to indicate when they can serve in the upcoming months every few months and then ask 20 or so at random who can serve and take the first 15, give each side three peremptory challenges, and then tell the 9 to keep an eye on the case but don't bother them until it's time to vote on the propositions? ArbCom could do its regular thing except have the jurors vote instead of them. Isn't that much easier? &mdash; Cup co  17:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem with such an approach is you will get significant selection bias. You will have a disproportionate number of the experienced editors/admins who already deal with problem editors at places such as AN/I (who some perceive as the elite) on one side, and on the other, a lot of disfranchised editors hoping to change the system or make a statement through their participation. Also, reviewer/rollback is probably a bad idea, it would lead to more claims of elitism, especially considering that admins have significant discretion in assigning and removing the rights, to avoid that, it would make more sense to just set a threshold based on activity and account age. Monty  845  17:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but they will be less experienced than ArbCom. Similarly we don't put children on criminal juries, but we don't put judges on them without the consent of the accused. &mdash; Cup co  17:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a couple problems with the random selection of lay jurors. First, those elected to Arbcom generally have extensive experience dealing with the sometimes complex policies that exist on Wikipedia, and many have past experience dealing with problem editors. To make a legal analogy, they understand both the law, and procedure that governs Wikipedia. A lay juror is likely not to; to continue an analogy, in the US jury system, there are often complex jury instructions that allow jurors to decide a case without knowing the law in advance, yet there are often examples of jurors still misunderstanding the law and thereby arriving at the wrong outcome. Regardless of how it was done, a considerable amount of effort would be needed to bring lay jurors up to speed on the issues they are dealing with in each case, not only would the participants be making factual arguments, they would be teaching policy. Second, many randomly canvased editors may find serving as a juror unpleasant, and it will likely result in at least some jurors leaving Wikipedia due to the experience, as much as we may try to make the process pleasant, dealing with the worst of Wikipedia is never going to be pleasant. Finally, finding jurors who both understand the commitment hearing a case is and are willing to do it will be hard. Many of these problems could be avoided with a voluntary juror pool of experienced editors, though such a pool would have its own issues. Monty  845  17:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The way I tried to handle the issue of experience was with the bias toward more frequent editors (which also happens to be convenient for selection). People who make a hundred edits in a day have a hundred times more of a chance of being selected than someone who makes one.  Note that participation in this is envisioned as strictly voluntary - if a juror is having a bad experience nothing is forcing him to continue.  (I suppose methods of counteracting tampering will be an inevitable refinement...)  What worries me about using rollbackers/reviewers is that this already seems poised to be a politicized position with the Pending Changes proposal, and that undermines the goal of diluting power all the way back to the broad base of general editors. Wnt (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, you would end up with editors who had no idea what was going on, both due to the random chance of picking an inexperienced editor, and also because there are plenty of editors who edit frequently, but that are focused on one area of Wikipedia, such that their experience may be largely unrelated to the locust of the dispute. I definitely agree with you on the rollbacker/reviewer point though. Monty  845  17:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Any policy that is so complex that only ArbCom can understand it is by definition a policy which can not and should not apply to editors. Do we trust ArbCom to be able to correctly instruct ordinary editors and answer their questions which may arise during the course of the cases? &mdash; Cup co  17:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I was glancing through this, the words WP:BURO and WP:CREEP kept ringing and ringing, louder and louder. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The proposal says that a jury could be empaneled when there is a dispute about the facts of a case. This wording points to a significant difference between Wikipedia arbitration cases and real-world cases (and is a reminder that overly facile analogies between Wikipedia arbitration and actual court or arbitration proceedings should generally be avoided, or at least used cautiously). In a majority of Wikipedia arbitrations, there is no dispute over the "facts of the case." The facts are an editor's edits, which are reflected in the diffs, whose contents are there and can't be disputed. What is usually disputed is the interpretation of the facts: whether an edit or a series of edits was tendentious, disregarded consensus, constituted an unacceptable personal attack, or the like&mdash;and if so, whether the violation was serious enough to warrant a finding and what the remedy should be. If the intention is that the "jury" would address these sorts of question, then that should be clarified.

The only cases involving disputes of fact are ones where either there are disputed allegations of sockpuppetry, off-wiki canvassing, conflict of interest, or the like. I don't quickly see why a group of randomly selected editors would be more qualified to evaluate (or more interested in evaluating) these types of complicated situations than the arbitrators who have volunteered for the role and been elected to it by a supermajority of the community, plus these are the types of cases most likely to involve checkuser runs, off-wiki e-mails, and other evidence that can't be widely disseminated anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I'm not a lawyer. I know there's an idea that the jury judges "the facts not the law".  What I meant by saying "fact" was that the jury judges whether someone violated a particular policy - did they edit war, or violate BLP, or whatever - but they don't generally get to say, "well BLP is a dumb policy so let's ignore it".  I was thinking of the diffs more as "evidence". Wnt (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Put that way, it sounds like the jury would be deciding all the key issues in the cases. What would the arbitrators do (apart from summarizing non-public evidence)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When an unwanted touching is captured on videotape, a jury must still decide whether it constitutes assault. The arbitrators would do everything they do today except vote, drafting findings, principles, and proposed sanctions, but the jurors would read the case, ask questions if need be, and vote. The idea is that the arbitrators have a good idea of what should happen, but it's not fair to them or the accused for them to have to decide over and over. Because jaded, burnt out arbitrators might vote more harshly than peers out of spite, and why would you ever want to keep making more people mad at you every case? &mdash; Cup co  23:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true that I imagine the jury system as coming to replace many functions of ArbCom (indeed, though it is beyond the role of this proposal, I think it would be even more useful at the RfC/U and perhaps the AN/I stage). When a jury system is introduced, the roles of the judge inevitably are reduced in number; that's just the way it works. Wnt (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This suggestion shows that you are probably unaware of a number of things that the Arbitration Committee is responsible for, which could not be passed on to a jury on Wikipedia. However, I do like the idea of having a group prepared to peer review and close RfC/Us - these too often drift away without clear resolution. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Another reason for a jury beyond preventing vindictiveness from jaded arbitrators and shielding arbitrators from retributive impulses is that conceivably it would be much easier to influence the election and votes of the relatively small number of arbitrators, e.g. through off-wiki canvassing, organized groups, or bribery, compared to a jury pool which would probably number in the hundreds. &mdash; Cup co  23:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cupco, in the course of my not quite two years as an Arb, I have been persistently barracked, insulted, accused of every wrongdoing under the sun, threatened onwiki, threatened offwiki, and at one point stalked. Other Arbs over the years have had their families harrassed, their employers contacted, blogs set up to abuse them etc. Its something you get warned about when you first think of standing. I find your casual suggestion that anyone on the arbitration committee would be easy to bribe or coerce, frankly offensive.


 * As to juries,I think that the general concept of a jury as part of a legal system is an excellent concept, but in most legal systems, jury service is compulsory, and there are systems in place to prevent juries from being nobbled. think your suggestion that juries would be less easy to influence is frankly laughable. Any volunteer juror faced with the kind of barracking I get EVERY TIME I vote to accept/not accept a case, would just pack up straight away. And how would you compel them to be on a jury if they don't want to.  What you need to understand is that most editors (not the vocal contingent here, but the other 3500) don't want to deal with bad behaviour - they want it dealt with, and that's what they want Arbcom to do, so they can just carry on editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you were offended. Do you see that I was making a relative statement ("easier") instead of an absolute? How do you think this constant abuse affects arbitrators' outlook on sanctions?
 * I'm also sorry I missed your other questions; let me take them one by one: Why would jurors give up after one case when you have stayed with arbitration for two years? Doesn't that imply that you are far superior to the average editor? A volunteer jury pool of around 200 wouldn't need to be compelled--just have them state their availabilities on a periodic basis and when a case opens then have the clerks query them at random until you get the sufficient number. Make a userbox styled like a service award to indicate jury service volunteers and you'll have 200 in weeks if not days. There are already hundreds of editors who deal with bad behavior every day: reverting vandalism, patrolling new pages, reporting various AIV/RFPP issues, nominating nonnotable articles for deletion, tracking down copyvios. Sure, most of us just want to be left alone when we can edit, but there are plenty who are here to right perceived wrongs. When you look back on your time volunteering, do you want to remember it as participating in a star chamber or facilitating judgement by peers? &mdash; Cup co  09:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still offended by the idea that it would be easier to bribe or intimidate an Arbitrator - who has had to go thru a massive community vetting exercise, and declare their real identity to WMF - than it would be to do same to some random editor picked as a juror without any community input at all. I also think you would struggle to get 200 editors to serve as jurors. It is unusual to get 200 people to comment at RfA these days. I struggled to get 200 people to comment on the RfC on watchlists - which affects every editor and had it's own watchlist notice. Only a few hundred vote in the Arbcom Elections (729 in last year's). So few people voted in oversight/CU elections that a different system had to be brought in.  Only a handful of the community would want to be involved, and you would probably have to reject half of them as unsuitable for some reason or another. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is indeed very disturbing to hear that Arbitrators are being subjected to this much harassment on a routine basis. However, I don't see it as an argument against a jury system.  Bringing in jurors dilutes the power, increases the number of people who would have to be threatened to have an effect.  A campaign of harassment against jurors in one specific case would stick out like a sore thumb, and it should be possible to apply countermeasures in those specific instances.  It may also be possible to protect in advance - for example, we might arrange for jurors to start separate accounts solely for their comments on the case.  (I suppose usernames like "Juror1201" would serve as a visible tag as I suggested)  Maybe call it a "mistrial" when such tampering occurs, then use anonymized juror accounts just in those cases?  You identify a serious practical problem, but I don't think an insurmountable one. Wnt (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wnt, I don't think you would get more than a dozen volunteers - maybe just about an Arbcom's worth. I mean, don't let me stop you trying. If a way can be found for dealing with some issues between the bearpit of ANI and the comparative sledgehammer of RfAR, I would support that very much. A structured community system for looking at admin behaviour for example. But I honestly think the idea of 'juries' being selected according to lottery numbers, having to start separate accounts (and how the hell are you going to know that Juror1201 is who they say they are, that User:UnsuspectingInnocent hasn't been emailed privily by User:ImAVillain and told to keep their nose out and hand over the password).Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, just offhand ... a clerk or other volunteer could start the accounts en masse (AFAIK the logs will even show if you start an account when you're logged in, but I haven't done it) then e-mail the passwords with an invitation to the jurors (I was picturing them normally being notified by talk page, but in the case of a mistrial you could start with a larger number of new jurors and you could e-mail them the notification for privacy reasons). The juror account could have its own e-mail forwarding disabled, so they wouldn't even get such a message (which shouldn't matter anyway with threats but might make a difference with promises of payment). Wnt (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Right to confront accusers
Salvio pointed out that I didn't write a right to confront accusers - it's true, it would be good to have one. The problem is, I'm not sure to what degree existing practice explicitly rejects this right. There are a lot of ways under policy to mail ArbCom with evidence and I don't think they're currently required - probably not even allowed - to turn over your emails. Of course, that's not to say that they couldn't extract the text, or at least detail all of it that they are considering specifically. If someone wants to take a shot at coming up with something, it would be appreciated. Several other rights - cross-examination and effective response for example - depend on this one to a greater or lesser extent. Wnt (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen's reply suggested this has never been a problem. One thing to keep in mind is that arbitrators would have to summarize secret evidence (real names, emails, employers, IPs of registered users) for jurors, and I think it is reasonable to trust them to do that as long as all the parties to the case can read the juror instructions. &mdash; Cup co  17:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In spite of malign influences such as myself (I'm a litigation attorney), there has been some effort over the years to reduce the use of overly legalistic language in the Committee's policies and decisions. So now you want to expand the arbitrators' task list to include writing jury instructions?? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I should note that though I used the term "jury", this is a reference to the randomness of selection and the general role, not a suggestion that prothonotaries, bailiffs, jury instructions, sequestration and so forth be brought into the process. The jurors, as I envision them, are still basically like the other random people who wander into ArbCom proceedings - just, they're more random, so the consensus of their more random votes on some subjects can be taken as more authoritative.  Any "jury instruction" as I would picture it would be quite basic and introductory in nature, not tailored to a specific case. Wnt (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it is sometimes easier to use analogous language. I should have said something like proposed findings statements which constitute faithful summaries of the secret evidence (when any exists) which the jurors are asked to accept as fact, along with proposed principles and sanctions just like you usually write, which together serve as instructions to the jury. &mdash; Cup co  23:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What the arbitration process is for
I believe there is an element to which all of this is based on a different concept of what Wikipedia is and what both Arbcom and the arbitration process are for.

To date, the following statements are I believe an accurate representation of what Wikipedia is and what the arbitration process is for.


 * Wikipedia isn't a country It's a privately owned website. It's a project to create an encyclopaedia. It doesn't have a legal system or courts.
 * Rights. The actual 'rights' of editors, often expressed as 'the right to leave and the right to fork' are contained in the Terms of use. Users do not have a 'right' to edit here unless they abide by them. The addition of rights to WP:SOCK, rights to WP:SOAPBOX and rights to use Wikipedia as WP:MYSPACE are not within the grant of any Arbcom.
 * Quiet enjoyment. I do agree that editors have a reasonable expectation that if they edit sensibly they can do so in peace and quiet. I would venture, from information provided by those working on editor retention, that the key barriers to quiet enjoyment are other editors breaching WP:NPOV WP:OWN WP:EDITWAR and WP:CIVIL, not the actions of Arbcom
 * Last stage in dispute resolution Which brings me to the actual purpose of Arbcom and the arbitration process. It is the last stage in dispute resolution - the very last control on editor behaviour. The purpose isn't to decide whose POV is right, whose sources are better. It is not even to defuse or mediate disputes - the various earlier stages have that function. It is to put a stop to disputes which are damaging the encyclopaedia, causing editors to leave, discouraging editors, and generally making Wikipedia not a place you would want to get involved in.
 * Protection of the project. I think it is unfortunate that earlier Arbs used a lot of legalese, but Arbcom is not a court of law. It's primary concern isn't an abstract perception of 'justice' or 'fairness', it is keeping the project running by dealing with rouge admins, POV warriors, disruptive behaviours, harassment etc. While the committee is constantly reminding itself that editors are real people, volunteers, and only so much can be expected of them, at the end of the day, Arbcom's brief is protection of the project. Editors whose behaviour disrupts the project are sanctioned in order to provide that quiet enjoyment for editors who don't editwar, attack everyone or exhibit other disruptive behaviours.

I think before any 'Bill of Rights' can be considered, there needs to be a fundamental discussion about whether and how Wikipedia as a concept would need to change in order to even include the notion of a Bill of Rights. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Often "Bill of Rights" is used to describe a document which is intended to improve a service which was flawed from the outset or has eroded over time. The American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights is a good example. &mdash; Cup co  17:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. In the UK we tend to use the word "Charter" for this, as in Citizen's Charter or Passenger Charter (for rail users) or Patients' Charter (for NHS users).  However, it's not in Arbcom's remit to grant either a charter or a bill of rights.  It draws its powers from a community mandate, it does not have powers to create new policies and impose them on the community. That's why the idea of making changes to the mandate of Arbcom via an electoral slate is being viewed with some suspicion. Arbcom doesn't have the power to make these unilateral changes, so anyone elected to the committee would be bound by the current mandate, and then have to campaign to get it changed, which would be incompatible with their role as an Arb under the current mandate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Elen that many, if not most, of the issues raised in the draft Bill of Rights have little or nothing to do with the Arbitration Committee or with changing the arbitration process. Take for example the first item, which discusses what editors may keep in their userspace. The Arbitration Committee has very little to do with this issue; the last arbitration case that I can think of that significantly focused on permissible and impermissible userspace content was in early 2007, and ArbCom does not play a role in the policy, MfD, and AN/ANI discussions where these issues are addressed. I could list the other aspects of the proposed Bill of Rights that do not, even in principle, have anything to do with "ArbCom reform" if anyone thinks it would help. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * History shows that changes in judicial philosophy and explicit declarations of rights tend to occupy the same space. For example, the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech - yet prior to the Miller Test, the courts ignored this on a very important issue; afterward they protected it a portion of the time.  The same could be said of the Citizens United decision and countless others.  In the U.S., people elect a judicial philosophy (to a very limited extent) by voting for a party which appoints Supreme Court justices.  Partisanship, however weak a mechanism, should offer voters a better sense of control over what rights ArbCom upholds than an election by name in which most voters have no real idea of what the candidates represent. Wnt (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As soon as an editor declares his or her candidacy for ArbCom, he or she posts a statement, and a "questions for the candidate" page is automatically created. That page contains about a dozen standard questions that the community has developed, and then room for interested editors to ask additional questions. Answering the questions properly requires serious effort and thought, and no candidate who doesn't do a reasonable job of answering them is going to be elected. In the two elections when I was a candidate, I must have answered several dozen questions each time, including the various subparts and follow-ups. To say that the community doesn't have a real idea of what the candidates represent, or at least what they say they represent, after all of that, strikes me as unrealistic. In that context, adding "party labels" seems unlikely to add to the mass quantities of information already available. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wnt, can I refer you back to the first bullet point above. Wikipedia isn't a country. It doesn't have rights, or a judicial philosophy, or freedom of speech, or a Supreme Court, or......  It's a website, owned by the WMF. It's not even a co-op - editors own their own content (but have to freely license it), but don't collectively own the content or the environment in which it exists. It's just a website, people come here to read articles, and some stay to write them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rights are a system of social highways, a way for people to interact harmoniously in any situation. When we say what rights people have, we say how they can act and expect to remain relatively free of hassles and negativity.  Even in the tiniest microcosm, people use them to avoid trouble.  If you're playing a game of Hearts then everyone agrees you have the right to play any card in the suit led, and so you can feel free to make your strategy.  If people started to reject that right, then the game would degenerate into arguments over it was a nice or a nasty thing to lead this card or that.  Now a point sometimes missed by anarchists is that anything that can be written as a right can be written as a law, and vice versa, so that perfect anarchy and perfect law are the same thing; nonetheless the notation of rights is more convenient for some things and that of laws is more convenient for others.  Wikipedia, by writing policies - which you could reject as legalistic also, if you want - is trying to cook the whole steak from only one side.  By writing rights we can greatly clarify the impact of policy and reduce the conflict that arises when people have no confidence that they can say something on their user page or make a pattern of edits without being dragged into some administrative process.  That is important for building the encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would never describe what a player is permitted to do under the rules of a card game as a 'right'. I think we're using the word differently. I would say that courtesy and good manners are a system of social highways etc. If you're talking about how people can act and expect to remain relatively free of hassles and negativity, I would be talking about norms and limits. If you're talking about something people use to avoid trouble, I would refer to strategies and conformity. So I would say that any editor has permission to edit here. They are expected to employ effective strategies to avoid conflict, such as conforming to the rules, displaying good socialisation, and behaving within expected norms. NobodyEnt says it better than I at WP:NOJUSTICE Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with that essay. Saying "Wikipedia is not fair. Wikipedia is a subset of life designed for adult editors; life is not fair is a tautology that adults should understand." seems very, very, very close to saying "Wikipedia is not unbiased.  Any grown-up should understand that political slanting of a website by whoever manages to take control of it is just a fact of life."  Even if Wikipedia is unfair, you've well and truly lost the fight when you stop even trying to make it fair. Wnt (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You've got bias on the brain I fear :) And you're putting words in Nobody Ent's mouth. And if you're so concerned about 'political slanting', why on earth have you joined Iblis's political part where the new Arbslate will hear and conduct cases according to the rules in the Party Program (yes it does say that, that's why I wondered if it wasn't just a teensy bit Stalinist.  Currently, Arbs use Wikipedia policies and their own conscience, but this seems to rather do away with both).Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, there is no Party yet. No one has ratified anything anyone else has said.  I have no idea whether the Party, once assembled, will ratify all, some, or none of the Bill of Rights I've proposed here, nor whether their candidates will adopt other platform ideas that are consistent or inconsistent with my conscience and my interpretation of Wikipedia policy.  Besides, this Bill of Rights restates many ideas I'd put forward elsewhere, and frankly, I expected them to be ignored as they were when I suggested them before - I was never expecting to get this sort of response.  So I know that this Party [despite its nonexistence !] has already been enormously effective in getting people to start talking about the issues, which is half the battle.  And I am hopeful that they will put forward a platform that is acceptable to me and to them, which does not prohibit them from doing the right thing but gives me more assurance they won't do the wrong. Wnt (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I was not saying Nobody Ent was saying that - I'm only saying that once you go that far toward abandoning higher aspirations for how Wikipedia is run, you no longer have an ideological defense against something like that. It's just a small step from the one to the other.  Real world institutions like universities and libraries and respectable newspapers and even a few of the better run corporations have aspirations to be fair.  Honor codes, statements of academic freedom, high-minded mission statements - something more than just a statement that "we're a private institution and we'll do what we want and we don't have to be fair or make any sense". Wnt (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This kind of approach creates more problems than it solves. Wikipedia is a social community of authors and writers. We have neither time, interest or scope for edifices of bureaucracy. We accept people are people, they sometimes act up, and (rarely) are so problematic we prefer not to deal with them or to say "you're going to have to change if you want to stay". Employers have HR departments and laws governing that. Clubs, social groups, and amateur collaborations don't. If you act up in an amateur theatrics club or cheat too much at your poker club, you'll get asked to leave, and that's the context for Wikipedia too. We try and do better and fairer but we don't have courts and don't want legalese.

The Wikipedia community exists to support encyclopedic and reference writing endeavors. People able and willing to adapt to those goals and support others' attempts (even others they don't agree with) are welcome to do so; some can't or won't. That's no shame in any hobby. So let's go through this list.


 * Political parties: not needed, distraction from writing, polarizes rather than unites. Views yes, but no evidence of overwhelming benefit to writing articles gained by politicizing them.
 * Right to "do what they wish" in some userspace: no, clear past evidence of cases that even in userspace can be disruptive. Indeed userspace is the first port of abuse and non-content activity beyond mainspace for porn galleries, promotion, attacks, and uncited POV/BLP attempting not to be deleted.
 * Innocent until proven guilty: Legal terms. Nobody cares if you are innocent or guilty of any act, in a legal sense. We care if you visibly disrupt the community. "No sanction without careful peer review of the evidence base for it" or "No continued block if the underlying concern is not considered valid by peer review" cover what you are saying, but no evidence users routinely don't get that, or get a chance to appeal if they feel it is denied. If a concern is poorly explained isn't grounds for declaring there is no concern. If there is none, and the user isn't unblocked, then thats different. No evidence this is a routine problem.
 * No general accusations: disagree with text. Activity is as much determined by overall conduct than specific acts, though specific acts are needed as evidence. A general pattern is often a more serious concern.
 * Right to refuse self incrimination: wtf? Solid examples of actual cases?
 * Trial by jury: Wikipedia isn't a court. You get that here. In almost all cases, with very few exceptions, a user will have their conduct examined openly by peers, which is more open than a jury and doesn't involve 1% of the bureaucracy you're suggesting. Also policy itself is not conclusive, it describes the community's view on expected standards and conduct, it doesn't create it.
 * Public trial: It is, with few exceptions. But as we're a writers community not a lawyers courtroom there comes a point the community delegates this duty to editors who focus specifically on final enforceable decisions. They are also appointed by the community, not from "on high".
 * Statute of limitations: Again, not a courtroom, the concern is "do users [not a judge or lawyer] feel this person can be trusted collaboratively now". They may not. Some people will game such provisions.

And so on. There are reforms always possible, and at times (badly) needed. Nobody claims any system is perfect. But this specific proposal heads up the wrong tree for me. Too much based on a legalist framework not an amateur or social activity one. FT2 (Talk 18:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems like it's way too late to be saying this is just a friendly social gathering. As people have pointed out, I'm substantially motivated by the Fae case, which ultimately affected someone's occupational prospects and the control over a fairly large organization with significant expenditures.  Wikipedia itself, of course, spends millions.  It is one of the world's top websites.  It is a resource people all over the world are relying on - indeed, too much.  And what all that means is that, I believe, Wikipedia is now seriously in the sights of people who want to bend it to their own ends and have substantial means to do so - publicists, political operatives and so forth.  Playing the game of "we're just amateurs, we have no philosophy and so it's OK to do things sort of at random" isn't going to stand up against that.


 * A system of rights should not be bureaucratic. When people IRL exercise their right to free speech or the right to bear arms or to be secure from arbitrary searches of their homes, does that feel bureaucratic?  I think it feels anti-bureaucratic.  Rule some things right out of AN/I and nobody has to deal with them at all.


 * On the specifics, I think you're wrong. For example, if we accepted that users just have a right to a certain amount of content under their control, then we'd accept we can't tamper with mid-sized porn galleries.  Which would mean that instead of serving out images to third party sites with lots of Wikiporn lined up beside their favorite ads, we'd have the people who browse those instead coming to Wikipedia to admire the scenery and staying to expand the encyclopedia.  I don't see that as a downside.
 * The right to refuse self incrimination is based on the Fae case, where after failing to find anything he'd really done wrong on Wikipedia, ArbCom wanted to hand over all private information on Commons, then banned him because he apparently sort-of asked the WMF liason to work against that. He had uploaded sexual topics and used alternate accounts to keep some things private - their response to "legitimate alternate accounts for privacy" was to demand every account be publicly posted for everyone to see, no matter what the reason for creating it.  I don't know what he wanted to keep private but I am pretty much positive it was with good reason, considering their hostility to the idea and the level of third-party harassment going on. Wnt (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading this last bit, the first thing that came to my mind was that you see Wikipedia as an extension of the American government. Right to bear arms?  Arbitrary searches of their home? Your statements have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Over 85% of the people who edit WMF projects do not live under the United States constitution.  Risker (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This analogy was provided to demonstrate that rights are not bureaucratic. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with Risker here. As I keep saying, Wikipedia is a website, not a country. What people can do here is based on permissions, not rights. Even in the US, the right to avoid self incrimination only applies to giving evidence.  It doesn't stop you being subpoenad to supply your accounts, details of your assets, samples of your DNA etc.  And I'm interested to note that you are keen to turn Wikipedia into a porn site, given the details available for all to read in the Fae case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, Wikipedia is not a country; it is one of many independent WMF projects, and this is the reason for the different standard of privacy I've suggested.
 * Those who object to Wikipedia being a "porn site" already believe it is one. I believe userpage galleries of pretty pictures are harmless. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell that to Fae. Analysing it out with the massive benefit of hindsight, virtually all of his problems originated with his attempts to stop the account associated with the Chair of English Chapter role from being associated with previous accounts that had posted some pictures of perfectly legal, if somewhat unusual, sexual practices. If I recall, another party to the case was sanctioned for creating just such a gallery of pictures to harrass Fae with. Still harmless? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As it happens I disagreed with the Michaeldsuarez banning also. I felt he had pushed the line a bit by displaying the gallery in association with other dispute-seeking with Fae, but ultimately, I agree it's a CC image; any (lesser) sanction against him I would have been likely to agree with would have been essentially based on the idea that the images evidenced he was pursuing the dispute in bad faith, rather than the other way around.  The truth is, all moonbeams and lollipops aside, those images are still up and there's nothing ArbCom can do about it, nor about any other such harassment that occurs off site.  Nothing, that is, except to have given Fae the leniency, considering the provocation he was under, that I wanted him to see (and setting this precedent for others) which would have sapped the reward for those putting them up.  Meanwhile, I might as well also point out that since the images were deleted from Commons, and probably wouldn't have lasted long if re-uploaded to Wikipedia, you would not actually have needed some special extra regulation against a userspace gallery of them anyway. Wnt (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh. I see Wikipedia as more of a spam site than a porn site, but it can do without the porn too.  67.117.130.72 (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Jury pilot
I'm inclined to try to get juries working for something small first, like RFC/U, as was suggested above. It would be a huge undertaking, but there has to be a proof of concept. I have a few ideas up my sleeves. I'm thinking about making a userbox service pin/ribbon/badge thing and "allowing" people to display it on their userpage by volunteering to serve as a juror. &mdash; Cup co  05:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we can get around the need to "cold-call" jurors. If we have a few volunteers self-select from a "dramaboard" like Jimbo Wales' page (whether you post there directly or it gets there by word of mouth) we'll end up with more people who know each other and are prone to disagreements (or worse, agreements...) than is preferable.  I think (or at least hope) that a relatively small mass mailing to solicit jurors for an RfC/U, selected by the random process I described, would not draw serious complaints about the spammage. Wnt (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please seek and obtain consensus on a more prominent page than this one before proceeding along the lines of "cold-calling jurors." I can imagine that for an editor quietly and peacefully editing in an uncontentious area of the project, to get an out-of-the blue request to suddenly research and comment on the allegedly problematic behavior of another editor he or she has never heard of, could be quite disconcerting. Newyorkbrad (talk)

Misconceived
The jury concept seems misconceived to me. I don't like the arbcom=courtroom metaphor at all, but if you're going to use it, arbcom should be seen as more like a family court than a criminal court. Its duty is to pursue the best interest of the child (or if you prefer, interest of the company), where the child or company is the encyclopedia. It's not about anyone's "rights" since per Elen and others, we have no rights here, only permissions. I've never heard of family courts using juries, though IANAL and maybe I just don't know about it. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The point isn't to extend the trial metaphor for its own sake, it's to get the decisions on sanction away from a group who are constantly being abused and lobbied, and are often unable to avoid involvement in disputes. Arbitrators often say that the abuse they suffer is so heavy that arbitrary volunteers wouldn't be able to withstand it; Elen says not even for a single case above. How is that consistent with being able to make fair decisions? The fact that arbitrators become involved in recurring disputes is perhaps a more pernicious source of bias. Are there any professional systems of justice in the real world which prefer a star chamber committee to peer evaluation? There are other advantages but I am told they are insulting to arbitrators, so I will not repeat them. &mdash; Cup co  20:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have completely misrepresented my point, which was that arbitrary volunteers would not be sufficiently motivated to persist in the face of abuse, and would be very likely to simply say "Sod it, I don't need the aggro" and drop out. It's nothing whatsoever to do with making fair decisions - it's about having a process that makes any decisions at all. And yes, your suggestion that Arbs take bribes is insulting, so don't repeat it. As to courts without juries, family court doesn't sit with a jury, magistrates court doesn't sit with a jury, coroners courts do not usually sit with a jury, the High court doesn't sit with a jury, civil court doesn't sit with a jury, the Court of Appeal doesn't sit with a jury, the Supreme court doesn't sit with a jury, Employment tribunal doesn't sit with a jury (tribunals in general don't sit with a jury).....in fact, the only courts that routinely sit with a jury in most parts of the world are the second level courts of criminal justice, those that hear the prosecution of more serious cases. And I'll say again, Arbcom isn't any kind of criminal court. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not say that Arbs take bribes. None of the courts you mention mete out punishment unless there has been an earlier trial by jury, other than for infractions. Juries in England and Wales seems contrary to at least a few of your claims. What do you think the downsides of a jury system would be, assuming experienced volunteer editors would step forward to serve? &mdash; Cup co  21:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to read around the subject a little more. All criminal cases start with the Magistrates of England and Wales and about 97% are determined in the Magistrates court, and a bench of Magistrates is made up of two or three. The High Court only sits with a jury in a small number of defamation cases, and the County Court only sits with a jury in case of certain actions against the police. The coroner's court is not required to sit with a jury in all cases, only for deaths in prison or police custody, and certain cases pertaining to the Health and Safety Acts, and in certain cases it is at the Coroner's discretion to empanel a jury. Tribunals never sit with juries. In England and Wales, less than 1% of civil cases and 3% of criminal cases are handled by jury trial. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I gather the percentage of charged defendants to jury trials is about the same in the U.S., primarily because of plea bargaining. But this is missing the point. What are the advantages of continuing to subject yourself and your colleagues to abuse and harassment? What are the disadvantages of relying on a randomly selected jury, if volunteers will come forward? If juror harassment is a problem, then don't announce their votes until the case is ready to close. &mdash; Cup co  23:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can get the idea of "juries" (loosely defined) to work, we could try it out. You've got to prove you can get it to work first, though. My objection at this point is only that you won't get anyone to volunteer that you would actually want on a jury. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that is a huge hurdle, and starting small with something like RFC/U is probably not the best way to get past it. I'm trying to think of something. &mdash; Cup co  00:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cupco, from jury it looks like juries are mostly an Anglo-Saxon institution and jury trials (of the US style anyyway) are not customary in legal systems not descended from English common law. I remember the movie Z, about a trial in Greece, that (IIRC) didn't have a jury.   And your acknowledgement that the courts on Elen's list don't use juries in cases involving infractions again shows some kind of conception that WP arb cases are criminal trials.  They are not, they really are not.  For example, traffic infractions can get your driver's license suspended, which is an enormous real-life hassle.  The worst thing arbcom can do to you is throw you off of a screwed-up web site, which is peanuts by comparison.  The consequences of wiki-misconduct are quite a lot lower than real-life infractions that get handled by courtrooms, and as such, arbcom should have lighter weight process than even a traffic court has.  Also: volunteers wanting to act as factfinders in arb cases can do that without any sort of empanelment.  See the evidence and workshop pages of any arb case for many instances of this. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In real life, traffic court judges aren't constantly plastered with abuse and harassment. Do you see any downsides to a jury system, assuming a sufficient number of volunteers? &mdash; Cup co  01:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the whole picture the juries are supposed to fit into is undesirable and therefore the juries themselves are undesirable. I agree with FT2's analysis above and maybe would go even further with it.  Count Iblis on the "party" talk page suggested the juries might have wider sanctioning authority than arbcom currently has, but the proposal as written seems to be the opposite.   I invited Count Iblis to elaborate, but he hasn't done so yet.  I do believe one of the characteristics of real-life juries designed to help their fairness is that participation is not voluntary.  There was a high-profile trial a few years back, where live reporting of the voir dire made it obvious that some of the prospective jurors wanted to be empaneled, and I felt that by itself should have disqualified them.  67.117.130.72 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit late to this, but because Cupco seems to need to have it spelled out, here are some of the disadvantages with a jury system:
 * Jurors would not be authorised to examine private information. A certain number of ArbCom cases involve private information which Arbitrators have been authorised by the WMF to have access to. Randomly selected users would not have such authorisation.
 * Randomly selected jurors would lack the experience and knowledge of the Wikipedia system required to handle an ArbCom case. The vast majority of our users have few edits and little experience, and probably have no idea ArbCom exists, let alone how it works. The group of editors who are sufficiently familiar with our policies to handle an ArbCom case must be a vanishingly small fraction of all active users.
 * Randomly selected jurors would lack the trustworthiness and good judgement required to handle an ArbCom case. Our system for electing Arbitrators does the best we can to ensure they are trustworthy and have good judgement. By contrast, a random selection system would have no safeguards at all, and could easily select vandals, trolls, sockpuppets, POV warriors, and so on. This is particularly likely if the selection was made from an opt-in list: all a malicious user has to do is add themselves to the list, and they have as much chance of being selected for an ArbCom case as User:Newyorkbrad!
 * As has been previously pointed out by many, randomly selected jurors would lack the resilience and willpower necessary to handle an ArbCom case. Arbitrators put themselves forward for the job knowing it will be tough and unpleasant, and accept the responsibility of dealing with all the abuse and fierce arguments it involves. Randomly selected users would be completely unprepared for that, and would be extremely likely to drop out of the case once they discovered what it involves. Alternatively, they may be vulnerable to bullying and manipulation from outsiders, which Arbitrators are practised to withstand.
 * Ultimately, this is an utterly misguided idea. ArbCom cases are the most difficult, complex disputes in Wikipedia; as such it makes sense that they are handled by the few users skilled enough to handle them, and luckily we have an existing system that works well to find and pick such users. Simply put, why on earth should ArbCom cases be decided by a random editor with 50 edits (or an abusive vandal) rather than by an experienced, trusted Arbitrator with 50,000? You can't even argue that ArbCom isn't democratic; the Arbitrators are democratically elected. So what possible problem with the current system is this intended to solve?


 * I'm sorry for making such a long comment here, but this idea is so wrongheaded it seems to me to need a comprehensive rebuttal. I've been on Wikipedia nearly seven years, and deciding ArbCom cases by randomly selected juries might just be the very worst idea I've seen proposed in that time. No one would suggest admins should be selected by random lottery, rather than by elections; so why would anyone suggest the considerably more senior role of Arbitrator should be performed by users picked out of a hat? Robofish (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can give you a few counterexamples that proves your assertion wrong. While you are right that ArbCom does often do a good job disentangling complex disputes, the type of disputes we're then talking about are feuds between editors that have escalated. Basically, you have the social aspect of being a editor here and that comes with all the usual problems. The problem with ArbCom is that all disputes tend to be framed that way, and ArbCom ends up making mistaken decisions when this model isn't valid.


 * A good example is the Climate Change case where you did have some behavioral issues with a few editors (e.g. William), but that was exploited by the people who wanted to see William and others banned, so a year before the ArbCom case they provoked disputes with him and the other regulars allowing them to build a dossier that could be submitted to the ArbCom case. Other examples could be the Cirt case (Admin desysopped despite no problems with sysop tasks, dossier building happened at Wikipedia Review), the Fae case (editor banned indefinitely from Wikipedia, not as a last resort but as a first resort, despite no problems with editing articles here) etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Some comments
While the process does need reform badly, I am concerned that these proposals do not meet the need. (I see incidentally that ArbCom are changing their own rules again.)

Here is what I see as the important steps forward.


 * 1) Acknowledgement of the adversarial nature of the current process
 * 2) Building a corps of volunteers who will move forward to a collegial process.
 * 3) Taking professional advice on productive mediation and arbitration.
 * 4) Redesigning the systems to be feasible for Arbitrator and parties to work.

And I see some very important meta-process changes
 * 1) Separation of powers - Arbs should not be simultaneously checkusers, oversighters, bureaucrats etc, and should probably disengage from normal administrative activities
 * 2) Changes to Arbitration rules and processes to be subject to community approval
 * 3) Audit trail made available on checkuser and oversight actions

Also there are many minor steps
 * 1) Arbitrators should forgo their right to use the process during their tenure. Neutrality of arbitrators is critical.

These are just an outline, off the top of my head. I am not sure I agree with the idea of editors getting elected to effect these types of reform (rather than simply to be the best Arbitrators they can), since the community can make reform happen with or without the committee's help (and they did take on one or two suggestions I made, so they are not totally reactionary). I do however strongly applaud and encourage reform, the most critical being to attitude, which can only be facilitated by process.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC).