Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Mailing list

The following was un-archived by NE Ent. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Back at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 13#Thinking about the mailing list, I started a discussion about mailing list policy, and I'd like to re-start it. At the time, some of the Arbs wanted to wait until January, more or less, and I think we are clearly there (also, from more than a week ago, User talk:Risker#Checking if the time is OK and User talk:Tryptofish#Mailing lists). Really, I hope this doesn't come across as pushing anyone before they are ready. But I think the nature of institutions like this is that it can be helpful to make sure that things don't slip through the cracks, and that's the spirit in which I bring it up again. No pressure, just trying to help!

Here's what I said then:

... I'm not proposing anything that is fully thought-out here, but I hope to start some useful discussion. Perhaps we could revise policy regarding the mailing list so that all material on the list would, in effect, be in one or the other of two categories:

• Category A would contain:
  • anything that would identify or otherwise violate the meta:Privacy of users (people contacting the list, parties to cases, arbitrators themselves).
  • sensitive material, such as stalking situations, users who are minors, etc.
  • What else? We should discuss what else should be included here.
• Category B would contain:
  • everything else.

Category A would continue to be treated as it is now, per WP:AP#Transparency and confidentiality: fully confidential, full stop, violations regarded as very serious problems.

Category B would be treated in a new way. The "default" assumption – the way everything on the list would be thought of, until explicitly determined to be otherwise – would, again, be full confidentiality. But Category B material could be released from full confidentiality by a simple majority vote of active, non-recused arbitrators. Such a vote would have to determine: (1) that there is nothing in Category A (or anything Category A is to be redacted before release), and (2) that there is a valid reason to release the material, either on-Wiki or through a more restricted release to persons not on the mailing list. Anyone could make a request to the Committee for such a release, or any arbitrator could propose it. The majority vote would mean that no individual arbitrator would be allowed to release anything without majority consent, and also that no individual could veto majority consent. (I'm not sure whether the vote itself would need to be recorded on-Wiki. It might be enough to conduct it on the list itself.)

I think recent experience has shown that Category B might include material that most members of the Committee have found to be unhelpful, as well as communications that are more of a gossipy nature, as well as things that are directly related to the Committee's business, but that do not reveal confidential material under the privacy policy. I don't see any good reason for the majority to vote to routinely release wholesale slabs of material, but my hope is that this would give the Committee some flexibility to deal with situations where there may be some value in making something more transparent to the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The response back then seemed to be positive, so let's look into this further. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support per proposer. NE Ent 23:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Thanks Tryptofish for raising the issue of mailing lists again. I think we can now honestly say that there's no such thing as a good time to raise these sorts of issues; with three open cases and a few other serious tidbits to review, we have a pretty full plate. Having said that, after your prod on my talk page, I have initiated a discussion amongst arbitrators to examine the mailing list "alternatives" that we saw in early November 2012 that the WMF is able to support. Many of the issues that we have with incoming mail are stymied by the use of the inflexible Mailman software (for example, we can't delete anything from archives without adversely affecting the posts that remain), and we have too many mailing lists for everyone to keep track of effectively. I won't say that response to my discussion has been enthusiastic, but I'm not giving up hope!

  I think it might be helpful to try to figure out some examples of information that might be considered "suitable for release", both from the arbitrator side and from the community side. I think you might be surprised at how much actually shows up onwiki that is simply a reiteration of the positions of individual arbitrators; the most recent example would have been the motion on withdrawing cases, where there was pretty solid correlation between what people said onwiki and what they said on the mailing list, and indeed some were more expansive here onwiki. Risker (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks Risker, and I'm certainly very sympathetic to how much you and the others have to deal with. Two suggestions: (1) what I'm talking about here is really unrelated to the technology of how the list works, instead focusing on how the humans deal with the material, so I recommend looking at it that way; (2) maybe the best way to figure out what is suitable for release is to start by determining the opposite: what must be kept confidential, because what does not need to be kept confidential becomes suitable for consideration for release. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  Once my colleagues with more knowledge of this issue have had the opportunity to weigh in, I might offer some comments; but for now, I'll keep out of this discussion. Nevertheless, I'd like to thank Tryptofish for how thoughtfully and generously he has framed these issues, and to assure him that I do not consider him to be badgering us in any way. AGK [•] 02:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, AGK, that's very nice of you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about something along these lines myself. I'd say that Tryptofish's proposal is heading in roughly the right direction, but without an explicit, compulsory separation between ArbCom business and ArbCom chatting that is applied to every message, the Committee is going to get itself into trouble again when its members use a 'business' list for 'personal' activities.

I would be inclined to propose two lists, along the lines of

1. Arbcom-en-L The current list, to be used exclusively for material directly related to carrying out ArbCom's responsibilities. Primarily for material related to ongoing case deliberations. -en-L would continue to enjoy its completely privileged status; its messages and contents cannot be released or discussed outside the list (or the other areas similarly sealed to ArbCom) without the clearly expressed, explicit, obtained-in-advance permission of message authors—or as released by the mechanism described below. Arbitrators are expected not to 'game' the protections of this list by, for example, appending significant 'non-business' content on to 'core business' messages. Arbitrators who repeatedly or egregiously abuse the protected, privileged list should be sanctioned: public censure, temporary loss of list privileges, or even removal from the ArbCom.
2. Arbcom-chat A mailing list to which all of the Arbitrators are subscribed, to be used to broadcast messages to the entire Committee that aren't directly related to carrying out the current business of ArbCom. Message content on this list isn't restricted. Arbs are welcome to use it as they see fit, though they are expected to confine official business to Arbcom-en-L as much as possible. This is the list where Arbs can carry out general conversations, discuss changes to policies that aren't directly under ArbCom's control, engage in electioneering, and talk about who is going to bring the potato salad to the ArbCom Picnic. Messages sent to Arbcom-chat are treated exactly the same way as messages sent between Wikipedia editors using the 'Email this user' function, or sent to a fellow editor's private email address. Arbitrators who repeatedly post private, case-related matter to Arbcom-chat should be sanctioned: public censure, temporary loss of list privileges, or even removal from the ArbCom.

What are the practical ramifications?

• Arbitrators who are using the existing Arbcom-en-L list appropriately and solely for its intended purpose now will face essentially no changes.
• It should go without saying that Wikipedia's privacy policy continues to apply to material on both lists—and to private material whenever and wherever Arbs may handle it on- or off-wiki.
• Material on the Arbcom-chat list enjoys the same protections – and limits to those protections – as regular email between editors. Under the current policy, if Coren mentions on Arbcom-en-L that he will be bringing the potato salad to the ArbCom picnic, and then Newyorkbrad mentions Coren's potato salad on-wiki, it is a technical violation of the list rules for which Newyorkbrad could face sanctions. Under my proposed policy, the picnic and its potato salad would be discussed on Arbcom-chat, and Newyorkbrad could mention it on-wiki without precipitating a crisis.
• Arbitrators who repeat or describe, in whole or in part, content from Arbcom-chat to individuals outside of ArbCom remain fully and personally responsible for the content of what they post, as they would for information (privacy-policy-governed or not) or messages they receive by email. In other words, they are expected to use discretion and good judgement, and not do things like repost or forward full messages without a damn good reason. As part of that discretion and good judgement, Arbs are expected to recognize when their fellows have used the wrong list, and treat the occasional bit of ArbCom business on Arbcom-chat accordingly.

Finally, we have the situations where an Arbitrator has used the Arbcom-en-L list inappropriately, for one or more messages which ought to be on Arbcom-chat. Messages, or portions thereof, can be copied from Arbcom-en-L to Arbcom-chat under the following circumstances (numbers and timing are suggestions, subject to tweaking):

1. With the clearly expressed, explicit permission of the message's author(s);
2. Upon receiving the support of a majority of sitting, active Arbitrators; or
3. If the Arbitrator requesting the transfer identifies his request as 'urgent', with the support of at least two-thirds of the Arbitrators voting within 48 hours (or such longer time as the Arb may request) of the request for a vote.

In all but the most time-sensitive situations, this provides a mechanism by which abuse of the Arbcom-en-L can be moved somewhere where it can be mentioned publicly if necessary. (For example, this would have permitted members of ArbCom to publicly discuss, or at least acknowledge, Jclemens' attempt to use the privacy of Arbcom-en-L to manipulate the 2012 ArbCom elections.) Arbitrators are encouraged to use method #1 informally wherever appropriate and possible.

It's still rough around the edges, but I think establishing a clear demarcation between ArbCom business and Arbitrator chatting (and the appropriate level of secrecy or privilege for each) requires that material be confined to separate lists. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I get where you're going. A couple of issues: So if I post to the list saying that I will be on very reduced activity because I'm going on an exotic vacation, is that business or chat? [Hint: arbitrator absence is business, personal information like holiday plans is confidential, and it will inevitably evolve into chat when a group of people who are friendly with each other have the chance to say "pics or it didn't happen", for example.] Secondly....oh god not another mailing list. Please not another mailing list. Especially not another Mailman mailing list. Risker (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Appending: It is not physically possible to "move" messages from one mailing list to another. We are physically unable to delete "wrong list" messages from the archives without irreparably damaging other posts. At best, one can redirect the *response* to a "wrong list" email to the right list (which we do if an unblock request comes to the main mailing list), but one has to be very very careful to strip off previous messages that are in the right place, which is darn hard to do from one's smartphone. And if anyone thinks that ANY arbcom list is suitable for electioneering, then I think it's time to pack up the committee and go home. That's possibly the saddest thing I've read on this page, ever. Risker (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously 'move' is a figure of speech, rather than a literal, technical expectation. To 'move' a message to the other list simply means to 'copy without violating policy'. I'm sure that that interpretation is understood. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps -chat isn't the best name for the list; perhaps the two lists should be Arbcom-private and Arbcom-mail or something of that sort. Go ahead and hash out a reasonable division. Maybe declarations of absence should be cross-posted. (Sure, arbitrator absence is business, but it is business that should be shared with the community; the mere fact that you're unavailable doesn't trigger the need for secrecy.) Maybe warnings of an upcoming absence should be kept private on en-L at the discretion of the Arb involved, pending their chosen time to announce it.

I'm sure you noticed I explicitly acknowledge that the 'non-private' list still maintains the usual protections afforded by the privacy policy—your fellow Arbs would be in trouble if they told the community where and when to go to rob your house while you were away, regardless of where you posted your messages. Your fellow Arbs should also be able to demonstrate the responsibility and discretion to confine their "pics or it didn't happen" requests to a 'chat' list. Honestly, this new level of care may seem onerous at first, but I expect that you'll quickly get used to it. Further, there's no obligation to participate in, mail to, or even subscribe to the 'chat' list. If important business is appearing only on the -chat list, then there's something wrong.

In all seriousness, if you don't want to get stuck with another mailing list, make an alternative suggestion. When Jclemens abused your current list (in an attempt) to manipulate an important public Wikipoedia process – nominations for the ArbCom election – it took weeks for the ArbCom to come up with any sort of public statement, that came too late to be much use (inasmuch as it was released well after the close of the nomination period), and even then it appears that the ArbCom's principle concern was the leak and not the abuse of their private list. (In techincal terms, this is what we call 'not getting it'.) You're facing these proposals now because it's clear that having an absolutely-inviolably-secret mailing list is too much responsibility. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Right now we have three all-Arb mailing lists, plus the functionaries list to which all arbs are subscribed, plus the appeals mailing list to which almost all arbs are subscribed. Some arbs are also on the AUSC, oversight, and global checkuser list on top of that. What you're proposing is sending messages to a mailing list that...nobody even subscribes to? Nobody can ever make a joke with their colleagues in this brave new world, without risk of being publicly censured? Would you also ban introductory emails to the list? I am relatively certain that if we had done the "right thing" about Jclemens' inappropriate use of the mailing list (and there are multiple interpretations of what that "right thing" would have been, ranging from telling him not to be a jerk to banning him from the project, both of which were suggested by respected members of the community, with several points in between), a significant and equally loud portion of the community would have been just as ticked off at us for making a "political" decision about that, too. We "get" a lot more than we're given credit for. A separate mailing list isn't the solution, and wouldn't have been a solution even if it had been in existence at the time. It seems to me that the problem you're "solving" is the development of any sense of internal community within the committee, rather than how to deal with arbitrators who abuse their position wherever they may do so. Risker (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but I trust that you also understand that there's as much frustration outside the Committee. Based on Jclemens' comment in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Where were the rest of the Arbitrators during all this, and what do they see as their responsibility to the community?, the response of the Committee to his use of the mailing list for his own electioneering – attempting to intimidate potential competitors in the then-upcoming election – was a stern finger-wagging from "a few" other Arbs, followed by utter silence. The ArbCom (according to Jclemens) considered the matter "a resolved issue". Things apparently rested that way for five-plus days, until the ArbCom became aware of the leak by Elen—even then it took two more weeks for the ArbCom to release any statement. A sitting Arbitrator had made a credible attempt to use his privileges to manipulate an election for his own benefit, but the ArbCom was content to keep the community entirely in the dark on the matter.

As someone without access to ArbCom mailing lists, I don't know if this type of abuse is a regular occurrence or not. I doubt that it is, and I fervently hope that it isn't. But right now, the ArbCom is batting 0 for 1 in the sole case that the Wikipedia community knows about. The only thing that the community can see is that the ArbCom didn't take any visible action until weeks after they were aware the matter had been leaked.

You've said that if the ArbCom had handled the matter differently, there would have been a different pool of editors crying for your blood, and I certainly am not naive enough to dispute that. (Sometimes you really are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Being an Arbitrator can really suck, and I wouldn't stand up and volunteer for that misery even in the unlikely event that the community offered it to me.) The unfortunate impression that those of us on the 'outside' get, however, is that the ArbCom's initial choice in the matter wasn't between pissing off Group A and pissing off Group B. Instead, it was between pissing off Group A, and not doing much of anything while relying on the secrecy of the mailing list to protect everyone on the ArbCom from any fallout. To be clear, I doubt that anyone on the Committee was consciously engaging in that sort of deliberate political calculation; rather, I suspect that the ArbCom just plain failed to recognize that they needed to make any decision at all. We are told that "a few" Arbitrators took it on themselves to criticize Jclemens, but did any Arbitrator take any positive step to discuss or direct an appropriate response by the ArbCom as a whole? Forget bringing anything to a vote, did anyone even sketch a motion, or suggest in any more than the vaguest way that ArbCom might be obliged to make an announcement or take other publicly-visible, collective action? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I encourage the committee to do as much discussion and deliberation onwiki as feasible per the study referenced in the SignPost last October: ""the reported use of interaction channels outside the Wikipedia platform (e.g., e-mail) is a cause for concern." That said, arbcom-l must exist to handle information not suitable for public dissemination.
• With regard to the list itself: too much overthinking. Not supposed to a bureaucracy here. Existing policy, to wit,

Committee deliberations are often held privately though the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, unless the matter is unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons. The Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties. is fine. What's lacking is simply a protocol to determine whether a arbitrator sent communication is "in the performance of their duties." Logically, only the committee can decide that because the rest of us shouldn't see it until a determination is made. So simply add a protocol that if one of ya'll think an email is outside the bounds of "performance of their duties" a majority vote can determine it can be revealed.

• I do not care about, and would actually prefer not to know, details of the "potato salad" nature. TMI. NE Ent 14:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• As I compare and contrast the approaches in my suggestion and in TenOfAllTrades', a lot of it comes down to technology versus human judgment, and that's actually something that also arises in Risker's first reply to me. I kind of think that anything that relies on technology, whether that means two separate lists as TenOfAllTrades proposed, or various technological upgrades to the list system, as have come up at various times before, won't really get at the key issue. What matters is letting a consensus of Arbitrators determine whether something on the list should be made public or be kept confidential. I trust collective judgment about that, in a way that I don't trust the judgment of any single individual. If you look back at the archived discussion, you'll see an exchange between me and SandyGeorgia, in which we both agreed that: (1) a single Arb should not decide unilaterally to release something, and (2) a single Arb should not be able to unilaterally prevent the majority of the Committee from releasing something. If there's a decision about which of two lists to post to, that decision will always be made by a single individual. I'd rather have something like a majority vote of Arbs, to decide whether to lift confidentiality for any particular message. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Timestamp. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this might have run its course. There are a number of cases etc taking up the attention. I think the solution is much simpler.

1. There is a list.
   
2. No-one should send personally identifying information to it, because any mechanism that fires messages into the private mailboxes of individuals is by definition not secure. Send it to an Arb you trust, and tell them not to share it, only to summarise it
   
3. The list should only be used for official business. Any use for other business should not expect the level of privacy afforded to official business, and should be showered with sardines.
   
4. If someone announces that they are unavailable due to surgery/visit to Venice etc, and other Arbs want to know more information, that's what personal email is for.
   
5. my personal view is that it's bloody ludicrous that Arbcom should expect to keep its own deliberations secret after the fact, and I don't know how it ever got from the base premises of the Wikipedia founders to that position. But that's my personal view, and not relevant here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Elen – as always, it's good to hear from you. I certainly didn't expect that to be the reaction to my timestamp. In my opinion, what I've proposed has not run its course. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Although we don't run a justice system per nojustice, we can choose to be informed by concepts taken from justice system. In the context of the US Constitution 6th Admendment, a Connecticut public defender notes:

"The right to an open court in criminal proceedings is “an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power,” In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 270 (1948), which functions for “the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned.” Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46 (1984).

and Wikipedia specific research has found "ensuring participation and transparency is crucial for maintaining the stability of self-governing communities." NE Ent 23:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the end of the content that had been archived. The following has been added new, after the restoration of the thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Mailing list section break

In a justice system, you get to see the evidence presented against you. You don't get to read the judges' notes during the case or listen in on the conversations they have with their clerks. NW (Talk) 02:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

True, but what should be done when one judge is using the tools of his office to secretly manipulate the selection of his peers? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd venture to say whatever it is, it's not "each of the other judges gets to personally select the excerpts they think make that first judge look the worst, and submit them anonymously to one reporter of their choice, under the condition the reporter not write about it" or "all the other judges publish the entirety of the case's notes, discussions, and private evidence, with no eye to which items are relevant to misuse." That is to say, any system of handling questionable mailing list (or just routine "FOA"-type disclosure about what goes on on the mailing list) use needs to be a) concerned with retaining privacy in any issues that require it b) determined by the committee as a whole, not presented as a fait accompli by the first arb to decide a message is "misuse" and release it.

I do happen to agree, however, with those who are urging Arbcom to focus more on onwiki deliberations. Private matters need to be handled privately, but everything else - and I'd venture that that "everything else" is probably a vast majority of the discussions that go on - should be happening onwiki. That includes proposing draft/working motions; fighting with each other over which remedies, FoFs, etc should pass; hashing out the wording of things; etc. There is no benefit to keeping those things socked away on a mailing list just because there's a tradition of posting a mostly-cohesive PD onwiki at a later date instead. The community knows you all disagree a lot; for most disagreements among arbs, it is of benefit to the community to see who thinks what and what is going into the committee's convergence on a given PD/motion/etc.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Your point about leaking as a respone to misconduct is one that I touched on way back in November—"I hope I don't...see this mailing list dispute turn into Team Jclemens versus Team Elen. In practice, both of them screwed up in different ways, and neither deserved to be excused for their conduct nor held up as a 'victim'." Pretending that either of them handled themselves particularly well, or that either's conduct should be a template for future policy, is obviously ridiculous.

As a matter of the ArbCom's response to the situation, misuse of the mailing list in an attempt to manipulate the candidate pool for a public election was insufficiently serious to prompt a public statement, motion of censure, or any other address to the community. (As far as I can tell from the mostly-stony-silence we've been getting from the ArbCom, nobody even considered making any sort of public statement.) Release of material from the mailing list – material which wasn't related to ArbCom business and contained no personal information – was considered sufficiently serious to prompt a public ArbCom response. I don't know if that's because the ArbCom thinks leaking is more serious than misuse of the ArbCom tools, or if the ArbCom only wants to publicly acknowledge misconduct that's already public knowledge, or if the ArbCom was just plain asleep at the switch and hasn't got a clue how to properly respond to Arbitrator misconduct. So far, though, I'm still waiting to see any Arbitrator offer a suggestion about how to approach any of those possibilities, or offer any alternative explanation for the way they handled things. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to let explanations of what happened in the past go as water under the bridge, but I strongly agree with TenOfAllTrades that it really behooves the Arbitrators to start commenting publicly (here would be ideal) on what they will do in the future. That's really what I'm trying to get to by pushing this discussion.

It seems to me that the kinds of problems discussed just above arise when a single person on the Committee decides to leak something, and the other members are left having to figure out what to do after it happens, or when a single member of the Committee believes that the community would be served by making something public, but cannot. We know that some things on the mailing list need to be kept private, and some other things do not.

I think the way forward does not lie in anything technological, but rather, in human judgment. But the judgment should be collective, and I trust the Committee, as a group, to make those judgments (perhaps other editors disagree). What I want to avoid is: (1) one Committee member decides unilaterally to release something, and (2) one Committee member can veto the release of something that the Committee as a whole believes ought to be made public. My pre-proposal in the yellowish box near the top seeks to avoid both (1) and (2). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• I hope that the members of the Committee will comment here on ways to move forward, because I think that it would be regrettable if you simply wait until the next crisis. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• I realize that the Arbitrators have a lot of people talking at you, and consequently find it hard to attend to this discussion thread. But I'll keep on timestamping here until we get some progress. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Another timestamp, another ping. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hey Trypto, could you perhaps spell out what steps you're looking for? Insofar as current procedures, I don't necessarily see any obstacle to arbs releasing email threads with the consent of all parties (including whoever else is on the thread, assuming it's not just intra-arb stuff.) Doing it by a majority gets a bit more grey, since that's essentially the email participants relinquishing their rights to privileged correspondence sight unseen, and would definitely require a motion, I suppose. That really can't be asked of non-arbs, so I guess your proposal would have to be restricted to solely arb discussion.

The other issue I'm seeing with the proposal is the line that "anyone" could make such a request. I'm not sure how we could honor those requests, however. Editors don't have citation information for an email, after all (or I suppose if they did, that would mean they were either a participant in the email, and thus the above proposal is irrelevant in that we could release it by agreement as mentioned above, or else it was leaked to them and thus a violation of confidentiality already), and "I want to know everything that happened on December 20-January 15" just enables fishing expeditions or wastes a lot of time trying to figure out if it's acceptable to publish, what needs to be redacted, what has or hasn't been redacted (and should be) before it's posted, etc.) If you have any suggestions on how that would work, I'd love to hear them.

(TL,DR version: it seems like you're suggesting essentially a Freedom of Information Act-type setup, I'm concerned about some pitfalls that may not be initially forseen.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The TL,DR version of my reply is that the next step I want to see is the kind of reply that you just provided! (Per my talk page, Risker is also planning to discuss it.)

My understanding of the ArbCom policy as it exists now is that everything on the mailing list is considered private, so making it possible to release anything on the list will require some revision of policy. Therefore, such a revision is what we should ultimately be aiming for. I agree with you that something can be released if everyone involved in the discussion agrees – meaning the entire Committee and everyone else, outside the Committee, who was involved in that discussion. As a practical matter, that is something that happens infrequently.

Although none of us wants to re-litigate the mess that happened just before the last election, it's an example of where existing policy doesn't work, and I hope that this is painfully obvious without going into the gory details. There needs to be a way to agree that something can be made public when it's in the community's interest to do so, even when one member of the Committee is standing in the way. At the same time, there needs to be a way for one or more Committee members who, arguably, want to blow the whistle on something to be able to make it public, but without doing so unilaterally and in potential violation of privacy. I've suggested a majority vote. I see from your comment that you are concerned about what that kind of vote would mean for the minority who dissent. That's a worthwhile question. The Committee is composed of people who have been vetted by community vote; perhaps we can trust a majority of them to do the right thing in such instances? Or perhaps you can come up with a better method – but the status quo isn't it!

Yes, I can see that a freedom-of-information type process would be a troll's delight. That's an example of how my posting is an attempt to generate a discussion, as opposed to being a completed proposal. But there's a TL,DR reply to the question of how the Committee can deal with requests that are just fishing expeditions: say no to them. There should not be anything in any policy change that would obligate the Committee to release anything on demand! People can ask, but they can get a negative reply. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ent version: Arbcom-l (or it's technical successor) is to be used for official arbcom business and the stuff on it is private. If an arb attempts to use it for other purposes, it's not private. Whether a particular post is official biz or not is decided by a majority vote of the committee. NE Ent 20:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

With the additional observation that, when the majority decides that something is not official biz, they don't have to release it publicly, but they should be able to do so when there is community interest in doing so. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Not private = releasable upon an arb's judgement, not "must be released." I'd greatly prefer the committee not release the who's bringing the potato salad stuff. NE Ent 20:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine by me, I hate mayo. I wasn't particularly concerned for the minority of theoretical arbs in this release scenario, assuming that the policy has been changed, but more how the actual process would work. I can see it working fine from the arb POV (in that someone wants to bring the discussion to a wider fora, so we all vote to publish a transcript of what's discussed so far), it's that opening it up to community requests (which would in my opinion from list discussions be a more valuable aspect) brings up the aforementioned cans o' worms. I'm not sure "just say no!" works in this instance, because then we're left with a lot of annoyed people wondering why we denied their requests, and we're not in the position to say why beyond very general (and unsatisfying) reasons.

I suppose the ultimate issue I have with the proposal, the more I think about it, is that I'm not sure it's really solving many problems. From my estimation the lists aren't used for gossiping and chatter about who's bringing what to the picnic that much. I feel like the bigger issue that this proposal was obliquely trying to tackle is the matter of making sure deliberations made on-list are appropriately and transparently explained on-wiki. While your proposed policy change could enable arbs to expedite some of that via outright publishing of the emails, I think it requires something a little less legislative in that we (the arbs) should all be more proactive about pushing each other to explain our reasonings beyond the (useful, if dry) list of supports and abstains. Unless I'm completely misinterpreting the impetus of the initial thread, which is always possible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's about JClemens attempting to run an anti-Malleus campaign on arbcom-l and Elen getting her hand caught in the cookie jar trying to figure what the heck to do about it. It shouldn't be something that comes very often, if ever again. While I've commented elsewhere about the desire for AC to be more transparent in certain circumstances, I don't think overly complicated procedures / protocols for the discussion list is the way to go. I want ya to be able to do you jobs efficiently, which includes being able to speak frankly without wondering "oh will this end up be posted onwiki someday?" We just don't want a member to be to abuse the privilege cause there's no safety valve in the system. NE Ent 21:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. While I've been responding to Trypto's comments above, are there any particular actions you think the Committee should take beyond stridently calling out the behavior you described? Does Trypto's proposal count as your safety valve or are you thinking of something else? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For me, from outside the Committee, I very much disagree with the suggestion that it doesn't solve any problems. I'm pretty sure that you will find that a lot of us on the outside came away from what happened last fall believing that there is a problem that ought to lead to policy improvements. Working harder to provide better explanations – sure, no one would say that that's a bad thing! But we're talking about human beings, and it's easy to say that, but difficult to make it happen. I'm uninterested in the potato salad, too, so that's not the issue. And it really isn't simply a matter of greater transparency about how decisions were arrived at. After all, that does belong on proposed decision pages. It's more about clearing things up after something discussed on the list appears to have gone wrong. On the other hand, you've offered your own solution to those people who are annoyed by having their requests turned down: give them better-written explanations.

But maybe it would be a mistake to say that anyone can request. Maybe it should be limited to people who took part in the communications and members of the Committee (the latter, of course, potentially responding to community interest). What would be the arguments for and against that? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tryptofish's proposal would suffice, although I think it goes farther than necessary. Don't see a need to support external requests for release; unless there was a leak they'd essentially be fishing expeditions and the committee is already tasked with many responsibilities; don't see any need to add more. NE Ent 21:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well thanks for your thoughts. I'm going to be busy this weekend with drafting but adapting what you've got into something the committee can vote on will be on my plate for the near future. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be looking forward to it. (And no need for potato salad on that plate.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to make another observation. Potato salad notwithstanding, is there something in the water? I just read Coren's resignation, coming just after Hersfold's. I get the distinct feeling that the Committee needs some more transparency, for its own good. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: Strong criticism ahead. Those with no interest in wikipolitics may not wish to read ahead, but I think this needs to be said.) My colleagues may beg to differ, but I consider Coren's resignation to be the rankest drama-mongering. What you saw when he resigned was an editor, whose judgement was otherwise satisfactory, throwing the toys from the pram because the community has moved on and the arbitrators who now staff the committee were not quite willing to go along with his extreme views on running ArbCom. I wouldn't pay it too much attention. As for Hersfold's resignation, I think it should be clear that his primary reason for resigning has very little to do with the committee in general, a little to do with a vocal minority of the community who will remain unbranded, a little to do with the people at WO, and a lot to do with the fact that he simply doesn't want to spend his nights doing what it is arbitrators do for the project. OMMV. AGK [•] 00:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by the language in Coren's statement, seen it before; but I am surprised he's actually walked away this time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering how he was dragged through the mud on Jimbo's talk page...I'm not.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's time to get back to the main issue of this discussion thread – something along the lines of what I suggested at the top – as well as time for me to try again to forestall the archive bot. I'll also comment on something that occurred to me during more recent discussions. Earlier in this section, I agreed with NE Ent that there's an important difference between ArbCom business on the mailing list, and stuff that really isn't ArbCom business. That's still a valid point, but it subsequently occurred to me that there is legitimate ArbCom business that, nonetheless, really does not need to be considered automatically private. For example, deliberations of the form "if I modify the proposed sanction in such-and-such a way, would you then support it?" are things I bet happen a lot on the list, and are clearly legitimate business, but they don't necessarily need to be kept secret (very different from personally identifying material, for instance), and there are times when they could just as well take place on-Wiki. It's my impression from things I've seen recently that treating such discussions as secret leads to a tendency to worry too much about putting a wrong appearance in front of the community, and that tendency can be counterproductive. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Believe it or not, Tryptofish, I've actually drafted something up for the review of my colleagues; it needs some serious copy editing before it comes onwiki here, but we're not forgetting about this issue. I've structured it into two parts: the first part discusses what we do with emails from third parties (i.e., anyone who is not an arbitrator) including how those emails may be redistributed to other private mailing lists, and the second part discusses what we can do with internal discussion. Within the past hour, I've just sent an email to the mailing list outlining ongoing and outstanding activities (where we need to vote/draft/comment, other decisions that need to be made, etc), and I have included asking my colleagues to review and copy edit this draft. Thank you for making sure this stays on the table. Risker (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks! (Minor observation: per my last comment, there can be downsides to worrying too much about copyediting and so forth before putting something on-Wiki. It's human nature to want everything in good shape before exposing it to public criticism, but Committee members can, after all, also review something that is posted on site.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is one section that I know doesn't say what it should say, and there is no way I am going to put it on this project as it is. You know full well that people will attack any arbitrator that dares to try to improve the wording, viewing it as somehow taking away their hypothetical right to know everything about anything we ever talk about. I know that sounds cynical, but given how abusive the climate has been for the last month, it is the least I can expect. Indeed, every time I have tried to talk to editors about the constant use of the language of abuse, I have been told that I deserve it for having the (insert favoured abusive phrase here, ranging from "stupidity" to "power hunger") to be a member of this committee. Even your post there, "public criticism" instead of "public comment" or even "collaborative comment", is an example. Tryptofish, I might have to urge you to stay away from Arbcom-related pages so that your wise and positive spirit is not further corrupted. ;-) Risker (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, thinking that I'm either wise or positive is clearly evidence of your unsuitability to be in a position of power. Either that, or I have to start screaming that you are owning the page and telling me to go away. Seriously though, sometimes the antidote to nasty speech is intelligent speech. I remember DGG saying that he doesn't try to convince the editor he is discussing something with, so much as trying to convince third parties who are reading. The Wiki model of writing stuff doesn't keep the peanut gallery away, but it should never discourage editors of good faith from writing what they want and letting anyone see it and try to improve it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

But telling me that I should spend more time on content editing is advice I really need to follow, alas! ;-) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbs are people too

I have written the above essay as a reminder to all concerned in ArbCom disputes that arbitrators are people too. Perhaps this should be considered more often. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I for one appreciate the sentiment. Regards, AGK [•] 00:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

	The Kobayashi Maru Award
	Awarded jointly to all members of the 2013 arbcom, for earnest, diligent and responsible efforts to find the best possible solution to a no win situation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to hope that conflict resolution is not a "No win scenario" on Wikipedia, but good call Demiurge1000, AutomaticStrikeout and AGK!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I will endorse that so far 2013 has been a vast improvement on 2012. I still have major reservations about this year's case actions, mainly sanctioning users on historical problems, rather than being forward looking. However while negative outcomes continue to be the norm, at least they are not in the extreme vein of many (indeed, possibly all) 2012 outcomes, and it is good to see positive steps to re-integrate valuable editors into the community, and to remove some of the really old and outdated remedies from years ago. Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

OK I have reviewed some of the 2013 actions I wasn't aware of. I can now say that we are closer than I thought to the old model where the community would be best served by implementing the direct opposite of what ArbCom first decides. Rich Farmbrough, 08:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

I am actually not sure what 'Arbs are people too' actually means. Sure, Arbs are people, but 'Wikipedia:Admins are people too'; 'Wikipedia:Bot-owners are people too'; 'Wikipedia:Spammers are people too' (at least, most of the time); 'Wikipedia:Vandals are people too' ... maybe that is also something that should be considered more often. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"It's easier to be an asshole to words than people" Worm^TT(talk) 11:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, WTT. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have been and remain heavily critical of ArbCom as a body (as opposed to its members). I grant they are people too. So is everyone else on this project; something that is lost on many people, not just the members of ArbCom and the people who are critical of ArbCom members. Where people tread on criticizing individual members of ArbCom, them being people too applies. Where such criticism is towards ArbCom as a body, it does not. ArbCom as a body has for years now been woefully inadequate to the tasks laid before it. The structure that is in place to deal with final conflict resolution on this project is in abstract, in my opinion, a serious detriment to the furtherance of the project. ArbCom has been brought to the well many times over the last many years to fix the inherent problems in their structure and conduct. To date, ArbCom has refused to drink on almost every occasion. A serious, deliberative, and professional overhaul of the final dispute resolution steps on this project is extremely overdue. As is, this latest series of dust ups will be swept under the rug, and nothing will be done to learn from it, to improve the process. These problems will continue to arise. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll repeat what I've said to you before, Hammersoft. There will not be a "professional" arbitration body on this project or any other unless and until someone draws up the proposal, including costs, and effectively presents it to the WMF in a way that persuades them this is necessary. The individual projects have no budget, and in particular the Arbitration Committee definitely doesn't have a budget. We're certainly the gorilla in the room, but we're still just one of hundreds of projects, so any proposal will have to bear that in mind. Risker (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• On the sports field, players who repeatedly foul or attack other players are sure to get a yellow or red flag. The excuse that a player is "important"　and "has a clean slate" and so should not be penalized for repeated fouls and attacks on other players is laughable. But threats/attacks on referees (or unarmed peacekeepers) are taken much more seriously—players (or spectator cronies of players) who threaten the referee to try to get a penalty reversed are likely to be removed from games for the whole season. It's a similar story for threats or attempted attacks on democratically-elected heads of state and the like in some countries. Maybe WP needs similar rules? Criticism is not forbidden, but maybe personal attacks and intimidation directed at the referees should be dealt with more severely? LittleBen (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• @Risker; and I'll repeat myself as well. It's not necessary to 'hire' people as a professional arbitration panel, nor is it even necessary for their to be costs associated with professionalizing the committee. As is, the committee is a group of amateurs^* with no training, no background, and no particular abilities within dispute resolution. This is by design. The output from this committee is in abstract quite predictable. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC) * - I mean no disrespect in any sense; this is simply categorization of the reality.

It's perhaps worth mentioning that arbcom, or at least some current members of it, have quite regularly criticised ordinary editors for not acting in a "professional" manner. This should perhaps be avoided, in the future, if the word "professional" is not really appropriate for arbcom itself. (I'm aware the word has various shades of meaning, but that's exactly why it's problematic to use it.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the word "professional", as we use it in this discussion, means having the expertise or credentials of a learned profession. In contrast, when users are sometimes told to conduct themselves in a professional manner, the word means something else: to conduct oneself in a responsible and adult manner, as one would do at a job, pretty much any job, not just a job requiring special expertise. It's really two different things, and I don't think it's inappropriate to encourage all editors to behave professionally, even though we are not professional editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate iconography

Scales of Justitia

Just kidding!

WP:AE "Cutting the baby in half"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.67.194.192 (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If "Arbitration is not a legal process", why then has the Arbitration Committee adopted as its logo a symbol that represents the judicial system?

Time to pick something more appropriate, guys. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It tickles my sense of irony, but not everyone will get/share that. I've invited alternatives here before and didn't get very far. We usually get a few highly pointy ones. It really is difficult coming up with something memorable and neutral. This is the last discussion.

On as related subject, I'd really like to ditch use of the word "appeal" too. They're rarely actually appeals and instead usually a request for reconsideration and/or (and I hate to use yet another quasi-legal expression but I can't think of a succinct synonym) clemency. However, appeal is probably too ingrained in the community psyche ....  Roger Davies ^talk 12:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, I'm glad you've given some attention to this. Maybe a design contest is in order? Everybody loves a design contest. It would also be a nice indicator of ArbCom wanting to be straightforward and easier to deal with. I also appreciate that you have concerns over some of the language that's used. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a fine idea. I've been meaning to propose one myself for ages, but the moment never seemed right moment ...  Roger Davies ^talk 16:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• @Hex; ArbCom itself frequently uses legal terms in its comments and public deliberations. For example, "on behalf of the appellant", "remanded to community", and many more. Even Wikipedia:Arbitration says "adjudicating serious disputes"; Adjudicating; v: "To hear and settle (a case) by judicial procedure." Their conduct and structure are inescapably tied to a court like system. This is a major source of angst among people who interact with ArbCom in one form or another. Such people are frequently expecting a legal type process with concepts of fairness and due process which do not exist here, despite the logo of ArbCom implying concepts of fairness. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I'd like to see that kind of language done away with as well. Perhaps a worthy project would be for a glossary of all arbitration-related terms created, then translated into more appropriate language; then enshrined as a style guide for proceedings. I think the atmosphere around arbitration would benefit from that. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

  Ditto, though curiously Hammersoft himself slips into legalese with his "public deliberations". I don't know about my colleagues but while I sometimes think things through, sometimes muse about, I don't think I've ever conscously deliberated.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It is inevitable that a quasi-legal process will attract legalese, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stamp it out in some cases. I wouldn't bother going through random comments and redacting them, but surely the main image on the main page deserves some editing. I'm not sure what it should be, but I think Hex makes a valid point. I'll also agree that the word appeal perhaps should be avoided, although I recognize the lack of perfect substitutes. Request for reconsideration? Simply "reconsideration"?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The more troublesome term is "arbitration" because it isn't, but that may be too much of an inertial mountain to move.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's the perfect word either but I think we're just stuck with that.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• The entire system is a massive inertial mountain. Despite all the ruckus over the last few weeks about major mistakes made by ArbCom and/or its members, nothing has changed. I think we can reasonably expect that nothing will change. As to the logo; simple is an alternative; how about no logo at all? Is there a reason there has to be a logo? As to the "appeal" language; this is a misnomer. An "appeal" implies a request of a higher court to consider and possibly overturn a lower court's decision. That structure doesn't exist here. There is no means of appeal for ArbCom's decisions, language to that effect notwithstanding. You might get them to reconsider or review a decision, but you can't appeal their decisions. To that end, changing "appeal" wherever it appears to "reconsider/review", with appropriate tenses, is in order. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a misnomer. I said so above an hour or so ago. Though that's a victim of wikipedialese. It's entered the site's sociolect/ethnolect] and is shorthand for review/reconsideration. Incidentally, I've been thinking about your remark about appearances above. Do you really think that people believe that ArbCom's a court in the conventional sense. Okay, courts come in all shapes and sizes, with wildly differing approaches and procedures, but I've never come across one where just anybody can turn up and make a speech; make snide remarks to the judges; or camp outside the judges' houses and shout things through their letterboxes.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• That it has entered into common usage as a shorthand doesn't erase its burden as a misnomer. I pumped 'judge threatened' (not in quotes) into Google News and got back 39,000 results. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• With over 250,000 whits, changing appeal, misnomer or not, is likely an uphill battle.

  It's not very clear what your other point is ... you're surely not saying it's okay to threaten arbitrators because threatening judges happens in the real world?  Roger Davies ^talk 17:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Come on Roger, of course not! My point is that criticism comes with the territory. You indicated you'd never come across such things for real life judges. My intent was to show you it is otherwise. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps then it was off the mark to search on "judge threatened" which is illegal practically everywhere, apples and oranges?  Roger Davies ^talk 21:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• I made my point, and rather well I think. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Some time ago, I tried to remove the scales of justice from the ArbCom information page; somebody chided me and reverted my edit. Needless to say, I still think it is a wholly inappropriate (and unnecessary) icon. AGK [•] 20:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that there are probably better options out there, although looking at the history of the template, the previously expressed choices weren't all that much better. I'm not a fan of anything that implies a court (or Snidely Whiplash, as in the previous public attempt to find a new icon). At this point, I can't help wondering if we aren't just better off with no image at all. Risker (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently a previous Committee (the 2011 one?) felt very strongly otherwise, but I agree that no image is preferable. NW (Talk) 20:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer a logo of some description, to brighten the page up. I'd welcome alternatives,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are plenty of stylistic things that could be done to 'brighten the page up'. This should not be a reason to provide a logo that is misleading, as is the current state. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

For a logo, maybe some kind of image of people around a table, having a discussion? For the (ingrained) language, perhaps an essay, clarifying the resulting misunderstandings, could be created and linked from the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's about balance and wisdom, not "justice"

The primary function of the committee is to resolve difficult cases where the "right" of a situation isn't easy to find (it if were, the community should've addressed the situation before it got to the committee). Often, conflicting interests must be balanced, I suggest Yin and Yang to represent the quest for balance. NE Ent 01:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the ArbCom election system

I want to start a discussion about making changes to the way we elect ArbCom. The current system puts way too much emphasis on the qualities of individual editors as potential Arbitrators while the problems with ArbCom are i.m.o. (and also what Coren mentioned in his resignation letter), due to the Arbitrators not collaborating well enough with each other. Therefore, it seems to be that the system can be improved when different groups of editors run together based on different platforms. The winner of the election will be that group that wins the most votes, so you get an ArbCom consisting of people who share the same ideas, who can work together as a group much better.

I.m.o. this will hugely improve the way cases are handled. If I were part of collaborative group, but I don't share some of the fundamental ideas of a few of the other members, then dividing up a big task into separate parts will be difficult. If I can't trust the judgement of someone who has looked into certain issues, then I want to see for myself a lot of the details. But if I don't really have the time to look into everything then I'll tend to take decisions based on only part of the available information.

In the present system, decisions can be the result of tactical games. E.g. ArbCom initially didn't want to put the desysopping of Cirt to a vote (presumably because for such a big decision, you want to have a degree of consensus that wasn't there). But then JClemens started to play games, he didn't what to support decisions he actually agreed on unless the desysopping was put to a vote. This lead to Cirt being desysopped by a very slim margin.

What I'm proposing looks like politicizing the ArbCom system, but one has to consider that it's already severely politicized, the problems are caused by not dealing with this fact well enough. The outcome of the US elections was not that Obama and Romney had to form a government together, I don't understand why on Wikipedia we assume that such a system can work. Count Iblis (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A tyranny of the majority may be faster and smoother, but I'm not persuaded that the cosmetic improvement of 'making the trains run on time' outweighs the problems likely to arise. Instead of being able to choose individuals on their own merits, the community would be forced to choose among pre-assembled slates—each of which might have a few 'star' candidates bundled with a bunch of seat-warming 'padding'. Given that we already have trouble finding enough barely-acceptable candidates – and the now-recurring problem of seating sub-70%-approval candidates suggests that this is a serious problem indeed – deliberately diluting the quality of the committee seems counterproductive. Looking at the list of candidates from the most recent election, would we really have had a better ArbCom this year if we had dropped half of the 'winners' and picked three or four names from the bottom of the list instead? This proposal isn't really a way to get a smoother-running ArbCom; it's a recipe for seating otherwise unelectable and untrustworthy candidates.

Secondly, even if a slate of candidates seemed to be able to work together (or claimed to be able to work together) before the election, there is no guarantee that they would still be able to do so a year, or a month, into the job. Finally, if ArbCom members continued to be elected on staggered two-year terms – a practice which is almost certainly a Good Thing, as it preserves at least some experience and institutional memory from one year to the next, and it means that there can be some arbitrators who can do their jobs instead of just electioneering in November and December of each year – then each year's election will mean the creation of very clear new-versus-old, us-versus-them lines. You would be trading ad hoc alliances for pitched battles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't consider an inability to work with one another to be a significant problem on the committee. While it is certainly true that Coren was not easy to work with, he's gone now (and things are a lot less tightly-wound as a result). The rest of us arbitrators seem to work together effectively enough. While we regularly (and sometimes vociferously) disagree, such is the nature of a committee. The premise of your proposal is that the committee's problems derive from the fact that arbitrators cannot work together, but considering my experience on ArbCom I would consider that premise to be incorrect. I've set out an alternative argument as to what is wrong with ArbCom today, at this page, if you are interested in the subject, and I suspect it's not the election we need to fix—but what ArbCom does during the rest of the year. AGK [•] 15:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Just responding to AGK's userspace page, I think that it's a very good start towards something that is important to pursue. I'd like to see it discussed and developed some more. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, I understand your arguments, but I think we now have democracy at the wrong level. At the highest ArbCom level, the Arbs deliberate and decide by majority, which isn't a very profesional way of making decisions. If we have a system along the lines I'm proposing, you'll have a lot more discussion at the community level before and during the elections. The winning team will have had a lot more discussions with the community about their program.

AGK, I'll look at your page and give my feedback. But note that the current system is adapted to the current situation. So, doing business as usual may not lead to much problems with disagreeing Arbs, but one can ask if ArbCom should do its job differently. Count Iblis (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is a horrendous idea. It is essential that we have different perspectives and points of view within the Committee, based on our different Wikipedia experiences, our different wikiphilosophies, and our different real-world skills and interests. That is one of the two reasons (the sheer workload being the other) to have a Committee in the first place, rather than a single decision-maker. Beyond that, if the community wishes to elect candidates who have common points of view on various issues, as reflected in their candidate statements, their answers to questions, and their editing histories, then of course the community can do so. But to mandate that candidates form alliances in advance is guaranteed to be counterproductive, not to mention fundamentally at odds with every aspect of how this project operates. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

We already saw the last time around how abysmal a failure your attempt at a party system was, Iblis. Your attempts at restating it in even more vague terms remains just as clueless. If you had even the most basic understanding of party politics, you would realize that your idea would achieve the complete opposite of what you expect. You want to change the qualities of individual arbiters to the qualities of parties - making individual arbiters subservient to whatever insiders control whatever party they represent. You argue that factionalization and "tactical games" within arbcom is problematic, yet propose to entrench those same problems. The only thing you could hope to accomplish is to formalize various divides that exist, serving only to undermine both arbcom and the community itself. Resolute 00:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, what an Americocentric point of view from Count Iblis; however, the fundamental problem with this theory is that party politics are (sometimes) useful for governance, and the Arbitration Committee is not a governance body. It handles a very tiny number of disputes (fewer in a year than are handled by frontline editors in an hour), and a few bureaucratic tasks, almost all of which we share as much as possible with the community and/or the WMF. I've recently posted that it would be fantastic if the community found a process to select editors to review non-Arbcom/non-AE blocks and bans and take that load off the committee. I see no takers. Risker (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the idea that Count Iblis presents, valid or not, it does bring a fundamental problem to light and that is that there is a growing concern in the community about how Arbcom works and more and more individuals interested in changing it. I doubt that anyone would argue that some type of Arbcom process is needed, even me, but the one we have, in the manner that it has been utilized, simply will no longer do. The haphazard nature of how the cases are carried out, the vague dialogue used in the cases and the lack of interaction between the Arbcom members and people commenting in the cases and at AE all need work. Maybe that means that cases take a little longer or that more members are needed to help disperse the work or in a complete overhaul of the process (maybe some combination of the above plus others). Whatever the case, Arbcom is increasingly viewed as the Gorilla in the room and that perception, in my opinion, needs to change. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I would really love to see you propose something then. It would certainly be more productive than your constant whining. Resolute 05:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok Resolute, here is a couple suggestions although I have serious doubts that it will change anything.

1. When the Arbcom writes a decree, it should be clear and precise. Not vague and open to interpretation. Their lack of ability to describe what constitutes automation is a huge problem in the Rich F case.
2. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the Arb Enforcement process. There needs to be lateral limits to the punishments inflicted. 1 year blocks shouldn't be handed out like candy.
3. A pool of editors should be established that can act as the jury to the Arbcom's judge and the AE's executioner. Surely there are some level headed folks among the community that would sign up. Of course these folks would need to be uninvolved in the case. For example I myself, Fram or CBM wouldn't be able to participate in the Rich F case because we are involved but someone else like The Rambling Man or some other random user might. Perhaps as part of the Admin role they are open to request to participate in Arbcom cases as "Jury" members.
4. The Arbcom needs to undo the perception that a user case that gets accepted ends in Wikideath for that user. Right or wrong that is the perception of many so there is little reason to spend much time arguing ones case.
5. AE shouldn't be a one man show. That needs to change.
6. There needs to be changes made to the length of comments. If an infinite number of accusers are allowed to comment and the accused is only limited to a 1000 word rebuttal, some information usually isn't covered.

I would also note that being smart enough to question stupid decisions made by smart people who should know better isn't whining. Just because I choose not to fall in line and fallow bad decisions doesn't make me a whiner. It means that I am not just going to sit idly by while others are doing things I think are against the greater good of the project. Even if those comments are unpopular or hurt their feelings on occassion. I kept quite for a long time and now we have serious problems with the culture largely because those of us that saw it did nothing. I feel just as responsible for allowing these problems to continue without saying anything as those that perpetuate them should. A lot of people know there are problems, even many of the Arb members have stated as such but no one does anything to fix it. You don't agree, fine. You don't like my ideas? Thats fine too. But don't mistake my lack of desire to go along with the problems as whining. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Short Staffing on the Arbcom

I couldn't help but notice the latest sad resignations from the Arbcom, and I am deeply concerned about the extra workload that must have placed on the remaining Arbs. It seems to me that they need to co-opt on a new member, and as Sandstein already seems to do all the Arbcom's dirty work (without guidance or supervision) it would be a good idea if he became an Arbitrator-Extraordinaire - a sort of flying assassin. His unchecked blocking would negate the need for so many cases and his zealous and conscientious executions following cases would certainly quieten the encyclopaedia down. Obviously, he already behaves with full Arbcom sanction, but it would be nice if the Arbcom gave him their official blessing because I don't think they are being quite fair to him. So co-opt him on to the committee and bless him. The other advantage is that once a person is on that committee, the writing is on the wall for them.  Giano  10:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)