Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case dismissed

Original announcement

• I'm in shock and disbelief.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oh god no. Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• I commented on Flyer22's talk page hours ago. Will an arbitrator do so, or the committee? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC) - To be clear: I don't think her family will read the arbitrators' noticeboard. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A notice with a link to the announcement was posted by our bot, but someone reverted it. I'm sure her brother is aware of what has happened to the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

    I can't believe it, sorry. I don't mean - at all! - what happeed to the case. I'm waiting for some statement of sympathy by a human being (Mensch) or more. Not a heartless bot-message (which was discussed with L235). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

    Gerda, it is unlikely to go down well if a member of a group of anonymous strangers on the internet, who were just about to sanction the deceased person for their actions, offers their sympathies. Even when sincere its going to come across as callous or hypocritical. Certainly I doubt her family will care. There is no good outcome for what you propose and is more likely to just cause trouble. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    Exactly this. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    I must have a language problem (member of a group? no: human being), but someone understood me anyway, see below. I am done here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    All Arbs are human beings but also members of a group. The highest officials on the project to which Flyer gave so much. It makes sense for Arbs to consider how any expression of sympathy might be perceived from a group perspective; there is a risk of it coming across the way OiD says. It would probably be doing Halo a disservice to assume that's likely though. The Arbs were looking set to only pass a very mild sanction, and were treating all parties with fairness. Flyer was fallible like everyone but generally exceptionally wise, and Halo seems to share much of her quality. Other than Halo, her family are unlikely to recognise an Arb, but at some point may well take comfort from the volume of sympathy & appreciation on Flyer's page. And Halo seems to have enough of Flyers grace that he'd not see any condolence from an Arb as hypocritical or callous, though also would know any Arb who choses to stay silent has still given the matter great thought. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand the Arbcom decision. Wasn't the case supposed to also examine the conduct of WanderingWanda & Halo Jerk1? The Proposed Decision certainly had elements dealing with both WanderingWanda & Halo Jerk1. Banedon (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think if you take a close look at where the proposed decision was at it will be pretty clear there was no point in continuing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I still do not understand - the proposed remedies, last I saw, included a three-way interaction ban & a proposed block for Halo Jerk1. A two-way interaction ban and/or block ought to still be possible. Banedon (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • To add: the point isn't that WanderingWanda and/or Halo Jerk1 need censure, but rather that if the case is dismissed as moot on Flyer22's death, then it makes it seem like the case was, after all that was said at acceptance, about Flyer22's behavior. Some quotes during acceptance:
    1. "As I said above, we ought to investigate the conduct of all the parties involved in this dispute, and the retirement of one of the parties should not put this investigation on hold." (but the death of one of the parties should?)
    2. "to be clear, I would expect any case to be investigating both WanderingWanda and Flyer22 Frozen - I agree, there is little to distinguish between the behaviour of each"
    3. "Flyer's retirement is unfortunate but unlike other cases, here we have conduct from multiple parties to examine and it wouldn't be fair to those still active to keep this case dangling over their head."

  Banedon (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I will try to break it down so that you may see the reasoning:
    • The only remedy that was going to pass was the three way iban. Flyer was essentially the "pivot" in the middle. This is not to say that she was the whole problem, rather the problem as it existed is gone.
    • HaloJerk just lost a loved one he clearly cares deeply about, I don't think there is any interest on the committee to pursue further sanctions on him at this time.
    • A retirement can be undone any time the person retiring decides to un-retire. Death is rather more permanent.
  • I think we'd all like to believe that this shocking, sad event has taken away any appetite for continuing the conflict the case was trying to end. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • A good analogy for this would be members of the U.S. Senate planning to protest the results of the most recent Presidential election. After the 2021 storming of the Capitol which brought with it awful violence and chaos that eventually resulted in several deaths being reported, several of those Senators rescinded their planned protests. Everybody saw the big picture. I think that's what needed to happen here as well. I applaud ARBCOM's restraint, which given the circumstances, really was the only right thing to do. Struck out. In retrospect, the analogy I made was in poor taste and has absolutely no bearing on what transpired in this case. My respect for ARBCOM and their decision to dismiss this case remains in place, as well as my sadness. --WaltCip-(talk) 00:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

    FWIW, some will get it and not be offended or confused. There is no question that excessive polarization (and legalism) in the off-site political sphere have had palpable effects on-site as well, and this very case (involving a false-dichotomy approach to a socio-poltical issue and content-disputing about it) was very symptomatic of that effect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think any of those quotes are mine because I wasn't an arb when the case was being accepted.. However, I think you raise a point that I also thought about as we were discussing/voting on this. What follows is my own thinking only, but based on the information we have I don't believe a 2 way iBAN is necessary - partly for reasons expressed in the evidence in terms of Halo/WW's editing and partly because of private evidence I obviously can't discuss. And obviously I voted against the block of Halo. If I thought that continuing with the two remaining parties was going to improve the project and be worth the drama of continuing, I might have suggested we continue even though we'd have been called insensitive (or worse). However, I don't think that bringing the case to resolution with two parties is going to reduce future conflict and I'd rather we try to be sensitive, which despite some criticism I think we're trying to be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  I've got mixed feelings. Obviously remedies involving Flyer are not needed, and I don't think that there was any public evidence that justified an iban between Halo and Wanda (and certainly not in the absence of Flyer) so it's right that that aspect of the case is declared moot. However, there were several principles that would have been usefully passed and findings of fact relating to WW and Halo that I'm not sure should be regarded as dismissed. Perhaps describing the case as "discontinued" would have given the better impression. Thryduulf (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, my largest concern with dismissing the case was the principles - but they can be discussed another day.
  Banedon Nothing on this encyclopedia matters as much as the real life as an individual. We can always have another case, another day, if circumstances demand. Today, we mourn the loss of someone who made a difference. Worm^TT(talk) 09:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  The legal concept of “dismissed without prejudice” might apply here. The person who brought the case to ArbCom will have their behavior towards others under scrutiny by various users. Repeated problems will have this case to look at. Montanabw^(talk) 15:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Well if the idea is that "hopefully Halo Jerk1 and WanderingWanda will be able to work together now", why not pass that as a motion or something? Or, in the PD, keep the findings of fact and principles and pass the remedy "hopefully Halo Jerk1 and WanderingWanda ...". Again, if the case is dismissed in its entirety because of Flyer22's death, especially with the wording used right now, it gives the impression that Flyer22 is the one and only editor whose conduct was problematic. Banedon (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't say "hopefully HaloJerk and Wandering Wanda will be able to work together now" nor did Worm or any other arb. I wrote, and standby If I thought that continuing with the two remaining parties was going to improve the project and be worth the drama of continuing, I might have suggested we continue even though we'd have been called insensitive (or worse). However, I don't think that bringing the case to resolution with two parties is going to reduce future conflict and I'd rather we try to be sensitive, which despite some criticism I think we're trying to be. for why not pass the 2 way.}} except I should have said "substantially reduce future conflict". The minimal future benefit, for me, did not and does not, come close to outweighing the present cost. So, at least for me, that's why I don't think it's correct to state that Flyer is the one and only editor whose conduct was problematic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Banedon: I wouldn't worry that the case closure "gives th[at] impression", since the very fact that something had to be collapse-boxed in the current discussion dispels any such impression immediately, at least with regard to one party. As for any concerns that Halo_Jerk1 is going to be on some kind of aggrieved warpath (I don't see anyone saying that outright, but I've seen a whole lot of weird stuff on-site and on Wikipediocracy in the wake of all this), the indications I'm seeing in e-mail are that he's unwilling to engage at all with anyone who focused on providing evidence against Flyer22. I wouldn't be surprised if he simply didn't ever return to WP at all (though I am not Nostradamus). He's not even been inspired to add to the obit material at WP:Deceased Wikipedians/2021 or to make a statement in his own userspace (no edits at all since 24 September 2020, and he'd not been involved anywhere near to topic-area of dispute for much longer). I.e., there is no disruption from his quarter, and no indication there will be any. Any further disruption running in the other direction will pretty obviously be shut down rapidly, so there's no good rationale to re-open the case and close it with remedies. As I noted at AE, the fact that the draft mutual I-ban was unanimous among responding Arbs as of the closure of the case (and all those Arbs are uninvolved admins) constitutes multiple admin warnings about behavior, anyway. They don't have to be codified as a formal remedy to be meaningful to community assessment of any later disruption (WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY), with regard to either party, for the same reason that "drive-by" admin warnings/admonitions left at editors' talk pages, rather that coming as formal noticeboard closes, are also actionable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  The current announcement says "The Committee has received word that Flyer22 Frozen has passed away. Accordingly, the currently open case is dismissed." If Arbcom wants to say these other things that are being said here, I recommend changing this sentence. Banedon (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  In addition to what others have said, Halo Jerk1 has barely edited in the past year, and AFAIK prior to this case his last interaction with WanderingWanda (let alone a dispute) was over a year ago. A dispute solely between those two editors would never have been accepted by ArbCom in the first place, and an interaction ban between just the two of them doesn't seem necessary, so it doesn't really make sense to proceed with just them. --Aquillion (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oh no. That's terrible. Loki (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• As someone who was made fully aware of the case not that long before the tragic news came, it's shocking to me in so many ways. GiggityGiggityGoo! 00:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• ARBCOM continues to put its collective foot in its mouth. Good grief. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 09:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think that's a little unfair. Situations like this are, at the core, impossible to resolve in a way that leaves all parties content with the outcome. The human beings on the Arbcom are trying their best in what is a unique and difficult situation. I think we should cut everyone a little slack, and respectfully move on. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Agree wholeheartedly with QuietUnusual. The sentiment might be justified if arbcom had done something completely wack like still tried to sanction Flyer22. But that wasn't what happened here and whatever people may quibble about whether they should have done X or Y, someone would have always found fault with that decision. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. However, there were serious problems in how this case proceeded, especially during Workshop, and also in the Proposed Decision phase. But this is neither the time nor the place to address them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Even if that is true, how is that "ARBCOM continues to put its collective foot in its mouth. Good grief."? That is the topic of discussion in this particular sub-thread. While Roxy the dog did not, and probably will not, offer further explanation, their comment seems to relate to how this was handled after the they found out. If you have some other issues, I suggest you make it elsewhere in this thread or maybe not at all, not here where specific issues are being discussed, unrelated to the earlier handling of the case . Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  After I say there are things needing to be addressed about this case but at another time and place, you then tell me that they need to be discussed at another time and place. Hmm. I think at least one of us needs a fresh cup of coffee. Well, I know I always do, so "a minimum of one" of us does. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Very sad. Paul August ☎ 13:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• The world and Wikipedia are lesser places without her. Peace to her family and friends. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• The timing of this... wow, very sad and unfortunate. Just incredibly sad. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

More heat than light. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

[Content by WanderingWanda removed] WanderingWanda, given that one of the passing remedies of the case was an iBan between you and Flyer, I think in the circumstances it really is inappropriate to be making these comments. In the interest of keeping things calm, it would be best for you to revert yourself and commit to following the intention of the case which is that you do not comment anywhere on Wikipedia about Flyer. SilkTork (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC) And in the same vein, we should remember a three-way iBan was passing; that is, it also applies to Halo commenting on Flyer other parties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Rephrased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Yes. Indeed, it would be more helpful to all concerned if the Committee simply finished the case. I understand the sensitivities involved, but completing the case and putting the remedies in place which included "Parties to the case are reminded to avoid enflaming discussions with flippant or dismissive commentary, and to focus on content, rather than contributors" would be more respectful to Flyer, and potentially prevent problems down the line. SilkTork (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC) On the one hand, I am beginning to agree with that (see my talk), but on the other hand, I think enough anger has already been directed at the arbs, in spite of their sincere attempt to show compassion here (see SMcCandlish's talk), and that they have been put in a lose-lose situation over a predicament that the community failed to address. So I am in the unclear camp on what they might do next, but do know that the thing needs to not continue to spread to veiled threats because one offered evidence in an arbcase. And usually, when one doesn't know what is best, doing nothing for the time being is best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC) I'm not going to fight about the removal of my comment, especially since some people found parts of it insensitive, which wasn't my intent. But I will note that no remedy received the required votes, the case was dismissed, and therefore, by design, no party to the case is under any kind of interaction ban. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Spare us your false disbelief and gravedancing, Wanda. Your behavior is noted by all, and while this case has been dismissed (probably the only realistic outcome given the situation), you weren’t coming out smelling like a rose. SilkTork is correct that you would be wise to just drop the stick. Montanabw(talk) 21:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Terrible, horrible, news. With regard to ARBCOM, I think they took the best of the distinctly poor set of options they were presented with. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• What a horrid, tragic development. Flyer22 was, in so many ways, a remarkable Wikimedian. Yes, she was passionate —you might even say hot-blooded —and it manifested in just how much she cared about this project and its core mission. She will be sorely missed. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not getting into the emotional stuff, but just the case. I looked into the case some, and a spent quite a few hours thinking and writing about it and crafting an entry to the case page.

But I didn't post it. I didn't make the deadline. The rules about what is a principle and what is a statement of fact, whether its necessary to post diffs and stuff at the Evidence page (which was already closed) and point to it, or if you can include it on the main page, and a bunch of other stuff like that. IANAL and it's daunting, and you've got make it punchy and cogent as possible and that takes time, so in the end I didn't quite make the deadline, Got my local time mixed up with UTC and all. Oh well.

Anyway, what I was going to recommend was a topic ban for WanderingWanda, for sex stuff generally. At least. An interaction ban, fine whatever it's moot now, but wasn't going to stop the toxic... editing, which is what is needed here. Anyway it's my understanding that the ArbCom is "on it" in some manner so we don't have to worry about that anymore. Sure hope so.

There's no bad guys here. Everyone involved is or was a good person trying to do their best according to their ability to understand that. I understand why the ArbCom dismissed the case. It's a natural response. Maybe would have done the same myself. No reprimand to ArbCom, OK? You guys work hard, do your best, it's fine. As long as we get a topic ban or de facto equivalent. Right? Herostratus (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Donald1972 unblocked

Original announcement

Workshops

I'm working on some ideas, just for myself at the moment, about arbitration reform. I have a question for current and former members of the committee about the workshops. Do you read them, and to what extent, if any, do you find them useful? If anyone is willing to share their views, that would be very helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I read them during my term. Their utility varied pretty widely, depending on whether the author appeared to be exhibiting some bias, their writing ability, and their understanding/interpretation of policy. Some were strong enough that when drafting, I pulled directly from the workshop for the final proposed decision (I don't recall which cases offhand, sorry), but even in cases where I didn't do that, I usually at least found them to be a good sampling of the community's take on a case, and worth looking at for that alone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'd echo PMC's points. I read them all, but how much use they are varies. I've seen some excellent suggestions come out, I've seen analysis of evidence change the way I'm thinking. I've seen arbs post an entire PD with good results. However, in more cases than not, I've found little or nothing useful in the workshop. I have considered in the past whether the cathartic element of being able to actually express what you think should happen is a benefit to parties - allowing them to move on.

Those positives being covered, I would say that I do not generally find workshops useful, and were it just my decision, I'd be removing or restructuring the phase. I'll also mention that the committee is actively discussing reforms and I'm sure any ideas you have would be welcome by email. Worm^TT(talk) 08:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Workshops should be better than they are. My preference would be for all cases to be worked up in the Workshop and not in private (either at home or on the Arb website). For cases to be worked up in two different places, with the community (and sometimes the Committee) not seeing what direction the case drafters are taking because they are working in private, and for case drafters and the rest of the Committee not to have a complete picture because suggestions are happening in two different places is a waste of time and resources. Unless there are privacy concerns, the Committee should be using the Workshop, and working with the community. It is not a case of Committee = Good, Community = Bad, so lets keep the community out of it. If there are concerns about personal attacks occurring in the Workshop, then that should be dealt with by dealing with the personal attacks, not by removing the Workshop. If the concern is that the Committee is not using the resource appropriately, then let us as a community encourage the Committee to use that resource appropriately rather than remove it. SilkTork (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that the workshop is a pit to allow the parties to keep on throwing mud at each other away from the building of the encyclopedia. Rarely, someone will write a decent proposed decision there that I could use to build a PD. My opinion has long been that it should be dropped or seriously reformed --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying...you're workshopping some potential improvements? I'll see myself out... ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In my limited time on the committee thus far, I found the workshop suggestions from uninvolved parties much more valuable. When an editor presents evidence in one direction and then proposes a remedy that's an obvious extension of that—well, there's nothing wrong with it, but it adds very little. I can see the positives (place to let off steam) and negatives (inflaming existing tensions) to such an approach. I'll also second the invitation to share your thoughts via email. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

More or less what Worm said. I read them, but what (limited) value they have are as a place for people to raise issues that are relevant but had for whatever reason not been included in evidence, and as a place for people to engage in discussion with the people involved (both the parties and the arbs) in a moderated environment instead of on talkpages where comments are liable to be jumped on by opponents. As a mechanism for proposed resolutions, which is nominally the official purpose, the workshop phase is a pointless time-sink which as far as I'm aware has never once had the slightest impact on any Arbcom decision. ‑ Iridescent 18:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Also always read the workshops, found them a mixed bag. The best proposals were usually from people familiar with the facts of a dispute but not directly involved. I do like the general concept of separating "what happened" (evidence) from "what should we do about it" (workshop), and think the effect is to make the evidence page much better at the cost of moving a lot of the less-useful things people have on their minds to the workshop. I also wouldn't underestimate the ha-ha-only-serious point that the workshop serves as the temporary Argument Isolation Chamber while the arbs work through the PD - a genuinely intractable dispute isn't going to just disappear in the interim, and at least the workshop and case talk pages help keep it out of the rest of the project. I wouldn't drop the workshop concept entirely but I'd consider replacing the "write a proposed proposed decision" format with a much briefer and more goal-oriented structure - everybody gets a short section to describe what they hope to see as a final outcome, no threaded discussion, no back-and-forthery, you still get a chance to say your piece but you don't get to start or continue arguments. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

SarahSV, being through two arbcases in one year, I have a list started at User:SandyGeorgia/Arbcom processes, setup and instructions for whenever workshopping proposals happens. I have fallen behind because my husband just had surgery; if there are questions about anything I have there, please get my attention via a post to the talk page of that subpage. Two factors are most striking to me: a) most arbcom processes are not nearly as clear as folks think they are, and b) people are able to cast aspersions on arb case pages, based on zero evidence, zero diffs. Also, countering WTT's "the cathartic element of being able to actually express what you think should happen is a benefit to parties - allowing them to move on" ... I see the opposite. The Workshop results in an increase in hard feelings and grudges that may be visited upon one for adding evidence, actually complicating things after the case closes. Another point: historically, there were not word limits on evidence, so there was no need for the extended mudslinging in the less formal environment at Workshop. When participants are constrained in presenting evidence, spillover to workshop occurs. Look at older cases for the differences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to spitball what my experience has been: it's almost always a good thing when the drafting Arbs post an early draft of the PD on the Workshop page, because you can get feedback before you actually post the PD. It's really better to get the blow-back earlier rather than later, because you can get insights from it and make use of it, which is better than everyone complaining after the case is over that you botched it. And Workshops need to be more actively policed by both the Arbs and the Clerks. Please remember: that was a significant part of the feedback that you got from the RfC about harassment etc. There should be less tolerance of last-word-ism, and it's a good place for Arbs to tell participating editors "we could use more about X and less about Y". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I was thinking of waiting a couple of weeks, then proposing that the workshop stage be abandoned. It significantly increases the stress to the party at the centre of the case, because it means the pressure is relentless: from request to acceptance to evidence to workshop to proposed decision to closure. This means several weeks under the spotlight, with no representation. The argument I've seen from Arbs in the past (I will try to find a recent diff of this) is that no one is forcing us to edit, we can always walk away, but it isn't reasonable to ask that of someone who has spent years helping to build this encyclopaedia. So I would say the workshops need to go, not as the only reform, but as a first step. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

As Worm mentioned we're discussing reforms and one option that we are discussing is abandoning it. Knowing that was your proposal was helpful (as was Iri's comment above to a similar sentiment). If there are editors who really believe in the value of the workshop (as SilkTork/Trypto have indicated) I would love to hear from them too. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep, thank you for asking. Here is a brief reply. I like Opabinia's idea, just above, about making the Workshop page a place to propose versions of the PD, but not as a place to argue ad infinitum. (But I'd add that it remains valuable to have someplace, somewhere, to analyze evidence, particularly if it can be done sans last-word-ism.) For all the noise that undeniably occurs, the fact is that, sometimes, editors can provide something that the Arbs actually find useful. To go back a few years (and to be entirely self-serving!), when I was the filing party in the GMO case, I suggested language for the Principles that was well-received and ended up in the final decision. An example was a variation on the "Purpose of Wikipedia": link. It would be a net-negative to lose that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding a related example from the same case. Kingofaces43 workshopped language about "aspersions" that not only was used in the final decision, but that has evolved into a widely-accepted idea: link. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that Trypto. As an FYI for others, that was a time where myself and others were dealing with harassment in the GMO topic or editors egging it on in admin boards until we had to go to ArbCom. A lot didn't get done in that case at the time, so the air was already being sucked out of the room with everything else going on. The workshop phase really helped bring the WP:ASPERSIONS issue to the forefront in a more controlled environment (relatively I guess compared to ANI), and I don't think we would have got the principle crafted without it.

It was that principle that ultimately helped to remove other problematic editors from the subject that didn't get handled in the original case, so there is something to be said for workshops, as imperfect as they are, for allowing some key issues to float to the top. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, we're having an internal "pre-discussion" discussion on the matter. The workshop phase was just invented out of thin air in 2009. It is not mandated or even defined in any policy or procedure, so all options are on the table. We weren't going to ask for community input just yet, but since we're here, pleas bring it on. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The workshop phase was just invented out of thin air in 2009. huh? I was unceremoniously hauled to a 2008 Arb case (now banned editor) that had a workshop. But what is most noticeable to me in both that case, and a 2009 case in which I participated, is that the workshops were less toxic because full evidence could be presented in the Evidence phase, sans word limits. To be caught in the middle of two now-banned editors, because I tried to mediate was unpleasant enough; I was fortunate that others were able to present thorough evidence without word limits, as I never would have been able to do it all myself. I would have left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, the earliest workshop I can find was in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alfrem/Workshop, July 2005, although it wasn't used. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we need a "history of arbcom" page to keep all this stuff straight, I was going by what a more experienced arb had said in our internal discussion. I didn't really even know what arbcom was that long ago. Whatever the date they were not standard practice before 2009. It seems originally they were used for the arbs themselves to workshop their own proposals before formalizing a proposed decision, a function that has largely moved to the closed arb wiki, ushering in the modern free-for-all that workshops are now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

In theory, I've thought it was a good idea to separate collections of diffs documenting certain actions or classes of actions from interpretation of these actions. In practice, the evidence and workshop pages are not clerked to enforce this separation, and it's not clear to me that the effort to separate it would provide sufficient payoff. So from a participants' perspective, perhaps it would be simpler to have a single page for submissions, with appropriate subsections within each person's section. From the arbitrators' perspective, personally I think it is beneficial for them to be able to workshop ideas, in order to gain more feedback. However, as I believe in letting those doing the work figure out what ways work best for them, I leave it to the arbitration committee to decide if, for example, discussion during the proposed decision phase is sufficient for its needs. isaacl (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

edit conflict

This is important I think. "...it means the pressure is relentless..." I think there is a grave difference between what the arbs find useful and the impact arbitrations have on editors. Perhaps those two issues should be delineated. Editors brought to arbitration are not always guilty and even if they are our community is collaborative and it is not punitive so presumedly our interest should be not in punishment but in integrating editors who have had problems back into the community. Falsely accused editors and those with issues that have been identified should not feel burnt out after an arbitration. Nor should the arbs feel overwhelmed. Our community is much larger than it was when Arbitrations were designed. They have become a means to assess guilt but in fact guilt is hard to identify for many reasons: Diffs the means we have of deciding who has made mistakes are not always accurate. Diffs are by their nature taken out of context and may not mean what they appear to mean. Decisions are being made about behaviors and three dimensional actions are being assessed in a two dimensional format and platform. There is huge pressure as evidence is open to anyone and an editor wonders who will show up next to attack them and the pool of potential editors who can post has grown since arbitration was developed 20 years ago. The whole thing is so overblown that I doubt Arbs even feel they can read everything closely. And because of that mistakes are made. I have had an arb accuse me of something which was a misreading of a word-date for data. I've watched well-meaning editors railroaded and overwhelmed then ready to leave. All this means to me is that the format for arbitrations needs to change, needs to be updated. This doesn't mean that those who have had problems shouldn't have to face their transgressions but I think we can do it so neither arbs or editors are burnt out at the end of the process. Newer editors often have no clue as to what they should do and are at a disadvantage when facing accusations from experienced editors. We have to fix that too if we want to hold on to our editors.

I have ideas about how to adjust arbitration but I'll stay out of that for now until Slim Virgin has a chance to move on her concerns. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, by all means go ahead. I'd be very interested in your ideas. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'll quote what I said when this was first raised on a user talk page. The Workshop "seems to accomplish nothing whatsoever except to engender massive amounts of ill-will, to enable dogpile harassment, and to permit circumvention of the evidence word count limits by posting it at the workshop. The Arbs did not need walls of text from the rabble, and never have. This would really streamline the process and make it much less of a hell than it currently is."
  Sure, that's strongly worded, but it's honestly how I feel. It's a mess of endless squabbling that does not help solve the problem but makes it worse. Maybe instead the evidence phase could be slightly expanded to allow 500 words of rebuttal on top of the 500 words of evidence to replace the "analysis of evidence" function, and keep a reasonable limit on it, if that is thought beneficial. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Beeblebrox, when I said I was planning to propose the abolition of workshops, I meant I was planning to propose it to the community. If the committee is willing to get rid of them first, that's excellent news. Apart from that, I wonder whether we should host a community discussion to gather as many ideas as possible and perhaps even involve the WMF. For example, (a) could we develop a dispute-resolution wiki; (b) could we introduce a notion of "standing" so that it's not a free-for-all; (c) do we even need an arbitration committee? Everything should be on the table. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• As both a former arbitrator and outside observer, I think removing the workshops entirely would be a very serious detriment to the arbitration process. For the cases I've followed (both as an arb and as a normal editor) I read nearly every word of the workshop and every arbitrator active on a case should be doing exactly that. This doesn't mean they should continue exactly as is, but there does need to be somewhere where
  • Evidence can be analysed. Analyses, especially by uninvolved editors, are frequently useful and can evidence gaps in evidence. It can also shed light on differences of opinion/interpretation.
  • Ideas for principles, findings of fact and remedies can be suggested, again those by uninvolved editors are frequently (but not exclusively) the most valuable.
  • Arbs can provide feedback (this is not done anywhere nearly enough)
  • Decisions can be drafted and feedback given before one appears out of thin air, which can be perceived as a fait accomplis (there was one recentish case, although I forget which, where one aspect of the PD indicated that something key had been misinterpreted/misunderstood by the arbitrators). Public drafting used to be the norm and the trend away from that has been one of the worst changes in recent years.

  However, above all it needs to be moderated (by arbs and clerks) much more firmly than it is at present. Aspersions, whataboutism, personal attacks, and similar must be removed promptly. Repetition and off topic discussions need to be closed and hatted. People disrupting the process need to be managed (page blocks from the workshop should be routine for disruption, personal attacks, etc.). And arbitrators need to be actively commenting and managing the case at all stages (i.e. what the majority of people asked for during the harassment rfc). Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with everything Thryduulf said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Editors can find the policy on how to change things like this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Ratification and amendment, probably the last sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The community is ultimately in control of this, especially so if a large number were to comment. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the workshop falls under procedures, and can be changed by the Committee without community ratification. Primefac (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, unless I've missed something, there is nothing in the policy or the procedures about workshops. The community can change that through the ratification process, but that's a very involved process, whereas the committee can make new procedures by a simple vote. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean the committee couldn't change it, and I hope they do. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Arbitration workshops are like any other part of an arbitration case: they're only as good as the sum total of participants. Cases I've written or co-written have run the gamut from being fully workshopped on-wiki to being drafted off-wiki and posted, depending on the case. Likewise there have been times when I've found the workshop rather useless for useful input to put into a decision, to highly useful, either in running ideas up the flagpole for feedback, or adapting language or suggestions from parties or uninvolved editors. I think the discretion of drafting arbs on whether they think it will be helpful is all that is needed. As a final note to emphasize what has already been pointed out, case procedure is an ArbCom matter. The community hasn't and doesn't decide the form cases take beyond the framework of WP:ARBPOL. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Largely agree with SV here. There's been dozens of studies finding people suffer intense stress from online attacks. Having folk pile on online is "devastating because we've evolved in an environment in which having 20 people pile on you might have been a death sentence" Some of our best editors seems to spend much of their free time here, investing years of effort into Wikipedia, and in some cases likely having more close relationships with fellow editors than anywhere else in their lives. There's all sorts of psychological reasons why it would be impossible for them to walk away even in the face of extreme stress – and even if they could, the risk of loneliness from leaving one of their primary sources of social engagement could be just as dangerous as the stress. Of course, all this is only true for some. Others would be little affected by being a party to even the most fierce Arb case and / or could easily walk away from the project. But if we're serious about retaining a diverse set of editors we should take the need of the more sensitive into account.

That said, as ever there's a balance to be had. It would be disruptive to try too hard to reduce the scope for criticism and rebuke, no matter how distressing some find it. Some direct criticism is essential for community health, otherwise we'd have far more passive aggression and damaging behaviour. And if we solutionise/ bureaucratise too much, it could make it easier for non-hobbyist accounts to influence events. Im of the view that our current structure isn't too far from the best possible setup, and don't agree that clerks should be more heavy handed in restricting discussion, IMO they're largely getting it right. But it would be good to reduce the overall time when parties are under the microscope. Maybe getting rid of the workshop is the best way to achieve that – though if so it may be best if elements of workshop function are allowed in the Evidence phase, including reasonable tolerance of analyses sections on the talk page (all be it with no expectation that Arbs have to read everything posted on talk). Littleolive makes a good point about falsely accused editors, it was great that Arbs exonerated such a party last year, and it might be worthwhile to have Exoneration as a standard remedy.

As others have suggested, in the case of feuds, a simple no fault 2 way iban might be much better than an Arb case. The chance for a fairer and more refined remedy rarely seems worth the stress & community time. Again even ibans aren't something to overdo – some apparent feuds are highly disruptive, some are more accurately seen as productive rivalries. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

About stress, maybe "Arb-stress" should be a subset of "wiki-stress". But I think it's a mistake to pin it on the arbitration procedure. There's stress in having a WP:ANI thread that stays open for days and grows to a wall of text without resolving anything. I can speak from personal experience in saying that there are cases where good faith editors undergo undeserved stress that the community repeatedly fails to resolve. Sometimes, ArbCom just has to rip off the band-aid. It may not feel good, but someone has to do it. But here's a radical suggestion: if editors just worked together peaceably, there wouldn't be any stress in the first place (and, of course, I want a unicorn for my birthday). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I have always looked at workshops before coming up with a proposed decision. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Previous discussion

I've found the previous exchange I was looking for earlier. It was in March 2019 with Opabinia regalis, Littleolive oil and others. I wrote:

The introduction of the workshop page was one of the worst things to happen to arbitration, in my view. The intentions were good, but the effect was to intensify disputes, rather than giving people a rest and allowing time for the strong feelings to die down between the evidence phase and the decision. Now after the dispute itself and perhaps an AN/I, we have a lengthy RfAr, followed by the evidence phase, followed by the workshop, followed almost immediately by the decision and the lengthy voting. It's too much to expect anyone to tolerate. I think these cases are affecting people's mental and physical health, and that we really ought to sort it out.

Opabinia wrote:

Ultimately, arbcom cases are back-office stuff about people being wrong on the internet. If people's health is being affected by their participation in an internet project, that's as clear a sign as anyone could ask for that it's time to step back, arbcom case or not - nothing here, and certainly not an arbcom case, is worth anyone risking their health to participate.

That seems to say that if, as parties, we find an ArbCom case distressing and that it's making us sick, we should just walk away, despite the years of work we've put into the place. It leaves the consequences of our poor dispute-resolution system entirely at the door of the parties. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't read that at all as "we should just walk away, despite the years of work we've put into the place". From the context, it's clear that what Opabinia was saying is that if involvement in a particular dispute is getting you so upset you feel sick, one ought to back off that particular area. In most situations on Wikipedia this is sound advice; situations where the presence or absence of a single individual is going to have a significant impact on how a given issue is treated are rare. Yes, it has the potential to turn heated disputes on topics about which a few people feel strongly but most people don't care into battles between which side can bully the other side into silence (did somebody say "infobox"?). However, for the overwhelming majority of the situations which come before Arbcom, "just because you feel this is a worthy cause doesn't mean you need to be a martyr, just present your evidence and back off until the dust settles" is good advice. ‑ Iridescent 05:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Opabinia wrote: "If people's health is being affected by their participation in an internet project, that's as clear a sign as anyone could ask for that it's time to step back, arbcom case or not ...". Note "arbcom case or not". You can't "present your evidence and back off until the dust settles" if you're a party and particularly if you're the sole party and you're highly distressed. We can say "don't be distressed", but that's no use either. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

During my two terms I was in favor of starting the draft PD on the workshop and did that myself at times. But there definitely needs to be stricter patrolling by Arbs and clerks. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The base line issue is not that there shouldn't be constructive criticism but that overwhelming an editor or arb is not productive both for editors and the community as a whole. Since Sarah asked for thoughts on this issue as a a whole, here we go.

Evidence phase: This phase allows for multiple editors to pile into the arbitration. Single editors have to read the posts and defend themselves against possibly 20-30-40 editors. And yes, editors presenting evidence have to be watched for accurate information.

Solution: Limit editors presenting evidence to a specific number selected by the the defending editor or editors and a specific number selected by the editor who brought the case.

Comment: Much evidence now is redundant and repetitive. We can be more succinct in how we design the arbitration. With fewer posts editors may also be able to present contextual information; arbitrations are two-dimensional, technology-driven situations but we are dealing with real people, their Wikipedia work and their lives; context matters.

Format: Once an arb becomes aware of the evidence and feel they understand the issues they should ask questions. Editors should be allowed to address specific concerns, to even know what the concerns are, to defend themselves. This is especially important with newer editors who are at an arbitration for a first time, who aren't sure what Wikipedia aspects they should address to defend themselves.

Tone of arbitration: Stress levels should be contained as much as possible. Arbs should be treated with respect whether we like what they say or not. Editors should be treated with kindness and respect whether we think they are "guilty" or not. All personal attacks, affronts, in fact what doesn't support a non- damaging atmosphere should be removed. After the first removal and editor can rewrite the content and repost, after the second, content is removed and cannot be rewritten. If there is a third issue the editor should be removed.

Workshop phase. Once again why are multiple editors, anyone off the street, allowed to pile into the arbitration; we don't need every opinion on the site. I would wonder if we control the evidence phase, a workshop would be easier on everyone. I would apply the same criteria to the workshop phase: Limit who can post. I wouldn't be against limiting the workshop to the arbs, or doing away with it. The value of a workshop seems to be for transparency to understand how solutions are reached. Is it possible that a very transparent evidence page would be enough. If not, it seems to me that we are sacrificing editors and perhaps arbs to allow every man/woman and his or her dog to take part. The result is fatigued editors and in some cases productive editors who leave Wikipedia.

Add: Arbs are not judges they're arbitrating situations on behavior between editors. They make mistakes in part because it's not always easy to see a whole picture and they should be able to deal with mistakes with out community attacks. It might be that there should be a question phase where the editor can address the arbs once a decision is drafted. Right now I know of no appeals on Wikipedia that really work or even mean anything. Arbs shouldn't have to reread a case again including an AE case. At the same time, how are potential mistakes addressed, and believe me, mistakes are made, editors are hurt, and those mistakes are responsible for editors leaving Wikipedia. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I want to be clear that while I know where the problems are I don't have solutions. I like to brainstorm and to see what happens when the collective wikipedia intelligence comes together. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Back when there was a request for comments on the effects of the arbitration process on editor retention, I suggested having co-ordinators to collect evidence and feedback from all interested parties, and then present the collected information concisely on the case pages. This should help reduce the amount of time individuals need to spend on a case, saving everyone time and making it easier to follow the latest updates. isaacl (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Using "coordinators" or otherwise limiting who submits evidence will in effect be having a form of advocate, would it not? From my limited knowledge of how arbitration works elsewhere, I would think they almost always have advocates and witnesses.
• While I found the threaded disagreements in this last arbitration to be problematic, I found the workshop to be essential. I believe the arbitrators will need analysis of evidence from those who are experienced with the editors and/or facts in the dispute. I was disappointed that there was not more participation from arbitrators, and I wanted to see commentary on the proposed findings of fact especially. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  My suggestion was for the supporters of each major viewpoint to select a co-ordinator to represent their point of view. With all of the collected info on a working page, participants would be able to work with each co-ordinator on placing appropriate weight and context for all lines of argument. isaacl (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, so in this scenario anyone may participate, but there is an extra step where coordinators work with editors to organize the evidence into one presentation. Would that be the same as if we left the evidence phase as it is but the coordinators followed by workshopping the proposed findings of fact? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  One has to be careful not to lose out on input from uninvolved editors who might not be obvious participants, but who have something valuable to offer, and also that editors who have useful input not be shut out by others who have conflicting agendas. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, each different significant aspect should have a co-ordinator selected. Because the information is collected on working pages, the effectiveness of the presentations by the co-ordinators can be verified. There could be an option for individual submissions, perhaps upon agreement by the co-ordinators that there is a gap that needs to be covered. isaacl (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  My suggestion was to avoid the need for everyone to read the working pages, and instead for there to be a concise presentation of a given viewpoint, whether it consists of evidence, analysis, or proposed principles, findings, and remedies. Thus this isn't quite the same as having co-ordinators only involved with a workshop page. isaacl (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Where's the middle ground? Littleolive oil (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, you found the workshop essential, but it wasn't about you. How differently might you feel if you were at the centre of such a thing?

A key issue is how long the process lasts. The request for arbitration in Flyer's case was made on 5 December 2020, and she died on 16 January. That's around 40 days of watching yourself be picked apart. It isn't reasonable to expect unpaid volunteers to go through this, especially not without help or representation, and after they've devoted years to Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I certainly hope my position is unique, and that very few other editors have been through what I have ... but considering what I have been exposed to via arbcases, this talk of co-ordinators and such makes me very nervous. I was unceremoniously and completely gratuitously hauled before ArbCom in 2008, to be completely absolved, after I got caught in a jar full of now-banned editors, as I was trying to mediate between them. The things that were said about me in that case were quite horrific, I was equated to a prostitute and more, and the situation was made worse by admins who were after my head for unrelated reasons. My only salvation in that case was the number of other editors who presented evidence on my behalf, as the situation was so shocking and distressing that I was overwhelmed, yet understood the serious need to defend myself by gathering the facts. And second, this year, an arb who first refused to recuse, but later did, put up findings about me on a Workshop page for which not only were no diffs provided-- no such diffs exist, as no such issues have ever occurred. Period. Please don't do anything in this restructuring/workshop that will prevent a vigorous defense when one is overwhelmed and under fire. Do not restrict the ability of others to help. Speaking as a victim of a gratuitous arbcase, where there were no findings about my conduct, but the others are banned, I can say that feedback, whether via Workshop or Evidence, is helpful and a crucial part of the whole messy thing; I could not have done it alone. And finally, the most effective parts of the most recent case were questions from arbs during workshop, where clarification could be provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that no one can navigate an arbitration case alone and therein lies a problem for editors with little Wikipedia experience or friends. How do they deal with an arbitration? Sandy, if you an experienced editor had such a horrendous experience what about those with no experience. We need answers here and maybe the answer is we don't need an arbitration committee or arbitrations at all. And your situation is not unique which may be why we're here. Just brainstorming again. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I was a relatively new editor then. And the arbs got it right, which ultimately helped, in all cases. And most often, the problem with experienced editors is that their “friends” led them astray. How to make the process easier is the dilemma. I, perhaps, will never fully recover from what was done to me, as I often realize that the experience still affects me, but I also have faith in the arbs and the process which eventually sorts it all out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI, AE, and arbitration all have different structures and none of them work particularly well IMO. Similar to what Sandy said about the arbitration workshop, in my experience at AE, I found the case to be much more productive once administrators asked me questions before stating their conclusions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea is that rather than five people repeating similar evidence from slightly different perspectives, a consolidated statement regarding one particular viewpoint is presented. Hopefully this reduces anxiety as a party doesn't have to read certain complaints over and over, and has a moderating influence on the language used. It wouldn't stop anyone from presenting evidence or from providing assistance; it would just minimize redundancy and avoid unduly antagonistic statements. isaacl (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Friends: Those that help the editor successfully navigate an arbitration, are helpful to the editor in understanding the arbitration. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I absolutely agree that the process is slow and difficult - and when I draft cases, I try to overlap the workshop and evidence to reduce the timeline. However, equally we need to be aware that people are not beholden to wikipedia, and may not be available to take part in the case - where their thoughts would be particularly valuable. People regularly ask for time extensions, and I, for one, am generally pretty happy to grant some - real life should take precedence. It also doesn't help that the case was over the holiday period - which slows things down too.

As for representation, I'm loathed to go down the route of wiki-advocates, but alternatives would be no one can advocate for others - or status quo, where it happens ad hoc. Worm^TT(talk) 09:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

WTT, would you say more about how you feel about advocates? (I'm not sure what to think.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I'm trying to think if there is any benefit in a role of someone who is a) familiar with Arbcom processes and b) is willing to help a user facing the process. They would be able to guide that user through the process, hopefully lessening the stress put upon them. What's more, they'll be able to let the committee know if the user is particularly struggling outside the process.

What I'm loathed to do is create more roles, more hats for people to wear that have nothing to do with the important part of creating an encyclopedia. So, it's something that would probably have to fit under an existing role - perhaps an arbitrator could recuse from the case to take it on, or a clerk? I'm also not looking for a "prosecuting or defence lawyer" style role - I don't want to turn Arbcom more into a court - but rather someone who's just looking out for the person in the process.

I've been thinking of the human element in these cases - and actually, when you consider Arbcom a "disciplinary committee", which unfortunately we are for some cases, there's good arguments that we shouldn't be considering those cases in public. Equally, our wiki way is that everything (where possible) should be public for transparency and recording of history. There's no easy answer here. Worm^TT(talk) 11:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

WTT, I wouldn't want to see the case become less public. I'm not familiar with your experience, but I was frustrated with the proposed decision phase where it appeared to me that arbitrators had kept their discussions off-wiki.

I think everyone agrees that we want more civility, which would necessitate more active participation from arbitrators or clerks, and perhaps different standards for threaded discussions. I think it would be a great idea for clerk(s) to support the parties to a case. Users who are less experienced should be able to bring a case to arbitration without struggling with the process. I feel that to better build an encyclopedia we need to improve the working environment here, but I'm not sure what the answer is, and I understand the resistance to creating more bureaucracy.

I am hearing some support for asking questions of the participants. How do you feel about that piece? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC) add, reformat Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I could definitely see benefit to restructuring the workshop to be a combination of analysis of evidence and clarifications / questions from arbitrators. Worm^TT(talk) 12:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut, I hear what you're saying but I admit to being skeptical about the sinecure of "Arbs draft the decision in the workshop". First there would have to be a culture of allowing arbs to make mistakes. I'm not sure we have that culture and so the arbs are pressured to refine their ideas off wiki so that they are a certain level of polish and acceptance before they come on wiki. Like there is benefit to an arb writing a statement and then seeing, with the collaboration of the other drafting arb(s) whether that's a good way of interpreting the evidence. If that's not and the it's been drafted offwiki, no harm. If that happens onwiki we've hurt an editor without cause.

But let's presume that would still happen off wiki. So now the Proposed Decision is presented at the workshop. Feedback is offered and taken, the draft is improved. What ends up at the proposed decision is now better. However, that improvement also means that things are that less likely to be changed there. And there are editors, and this was me for some cases pre-arb, who checkout during the workshop and become re-engaged during the PD. So now we have a situation where we're being criticized for proposed decisions that are really final decisions because we don't change the PD all that much. Is that a better status quo? I think not but would be intrigued to hear from those who think the answer is yes. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I was referring to the drafting of the decision in the proposed decision phase, not the workshop. The proposed decision phase at the last case was not initiated until one hour before that phase was schedule to close.[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand or am confused. In the Flyer case, the Proposed Decision was drafted and was undergoing discussion when the committee dismissed the case. There is no time limit to the PD phase of the case. I believe you are suggesting that rather than a complete Proposed Decision being posted, that the writing of this should be done as part of the case. I presumed this would be done at the Workshop, as has been suggested by some in this discussion and has been done in some previous cases. But even if it were done at the PD and not the workshop my overall points about our culture around arb mistakes remains. Do I have that right/does my thinking make more sense? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. The case pages stated: "Proposed decision to be posted by 20 January 2021". I interpreted that to mean that the only thing that happens after 00:00 21 January is voting. I am not sure if I understand the difference between making mistakes in the drafting process and making mistakes in the final decision? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean voting does happen. But so do changes, amendments, whole new Principles/FoF/remedies. The proposed decision is just that, a proposal, that is then discussed by the arbs and the community. Nothing is final until the case is closed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I have seen several PDs turn on a dime when additional information comes to ArbCom's attention --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 17:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I have too. But I think that's a feature not a bug. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I would want to see arbitrators discuss and vote on every proposal made in the workshop. I want to see questioning and analysis of the analysis. From there proposals can be made in the proposed decision phase. If arbitrators are not willing to put themselves at risk by discussing things on-wiki...maybe they shouldn't be arbitrators? I certainly did not feel safe participating in this case. Arbitrators are the ones who have the most power to make us more safe. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think voting on every workshop proposal is an effective mode of decision making. In no venue is every idea an editor puts out there guaranteed to get a response, let alone one as fraught asn ArbCom case. I don't think that gets us to a better outcome and think it's likely to make the process more acrimonious. {{pb}}And the point about arb criticism was to show two points. First that arb speech has consequences, so there is a reasonable pressure to not write things that haven't been thought through fully. Second that we need to decide at what point we should be inviting feedback on arb ideas. Ultimately ArbCom is an elected body and by its nature not as democratic or consensus oriented as our general methods.{{pb}}As for not feeling safe, you're obviously not the only one to express the idea that there needs to be more moderating at the Workshop. Fundamentally I agree with this. However, high quality moderation is very time consuming. Do the positives the Workshop offer make it worth the time it would take to moderate more? And that's not considering the blowback arbs/clerks would face from people who are asked to change their tack and perhaps experience consequences if they don't. No one likes to imagine that they're the problem, it's much easier to imagine the other person is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is effective or efficient to require every proposal to be discussed and voted on individually. There is often a lot of redundancy in proposals, and many proposed principles are written more like lines of argument for proposed remedies versus statements of general principles. Those resolving disputes need some liberty to organize their deliberations in a way they find effective, and not be beholden to how information is presented to them. isaacl (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, that being said, what can be done to make it safer for arbitrators to make mistakes? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Well in some ways I'm not sure it needs to be made safe. Arbs do have power and our words do matter. We should be acting accordingly. That said, Arbs are criticized for "mistakes" that aren't actually mistakes, just a reasonable difference in perspective. So that muddies the water in the first place. That said I think members of the community need to also point out to other members of the community when there's a good faith explanation. I tried to do that a couple times last year and I hope others will do the same for me this year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I touched on this in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 21 § Transparency in arbitration deliberations, as well as in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 19 § Requests to community. I think the community needs to better appreciate that it places contradictory demands on the arbitration committee (and, generally speaking, many English Wikipedia processes), so what takes place is going to be a compromise, and that forbearance is a virtue. It would also be helpful for many editors to realize that not adding another reply to a thread can be the best response (something I sometimes find to be a personal challenge). Once people already know you disagree, it isn't always necessary to underline it again. As I've written elsewhere, we should be designing our procedures to provide incentive for collaborative behaviour, particularly to resolve content disputes more efficiently and effectively, thus forestalling behavioural issues that end up needing interpersonal dispute resolution. isaacl (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Isaacl, I read your post at "Transparency in arbitration deliberations", but I'm not sure what the contradictory demands are, unless you are referring to some editors wanting shorter arbitration. I'm not sure what the concerns are with "messiness". There was a week of silence between the close of the workshop and the initiation of the proposed decision phase. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

In the referenced case, some editors were concerned about discussion taking place in parallel on the principles, findings, and remedies, expecting there to be a smoother progression from one to another. In the referenced discussion (and others that have taken place previously), editors wanted as much on-wiki discussion as possible. If you want to see all discussion on-wiki, you're going to see feedback loops from one discussion thread to another. You're also going to see tentative ideas and positions put forth, with arbitrators trying out wording and revising it. You can't expect working discussions to also be polished, fully consistent presentations.

As another example of contradictory demands, some (probably most) people do think that arbitration cases go on too long. Asking for every submitted proposal to be considered separately adds discussion time. One of the requests I made to the community was to trust that your submissions were considered, even if the arbitrators didn't respond specifically to them. Some people think irrelevant evidence should be clerked, but of course what they consider to be irrelevant differs from what other people think is irrelevant. It's natural for different people to prioritize different objectives, and so they make requests that can't all be mutually satisfied. isaacl (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Isaacl, just for context, are you a former clerk or arbitrator? I would very much like to see the tentative ideas and positions which are put forth. Personally there is no contest between "polished" and transparent; transparency is the priority. What about Ymblanter's comment about the ArbCom of the Russian Wikipedia where they "had all discussion off-wiki, had it recorded, and published the discussion after the decision has been taken? If arbitrators are given a chance to discuss things amongst themselves without interference, and then they post the proposed decisions along with their deliberations, and editors are given a chance to read the deliberations and comment on the proposals, that may please...more people? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your viewpoint. Others want arbitrators to deliberate on-wiki but in a different manner. A lot of time one way isn't significantly better than the other; they're just different. I have not been an arbitrator or a clerk. Fyi, as I am watching this conversation, using the notification mechanism is unnecessary. isaacl (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll also say that the idea of arbs having to vote on every proposal in the workshop is a non-starter, even though it's coming from a good place. Besides significantly adding to an already significant workload, I'd be concerned with maneuvers like those in real-world legislatures (US Congress, at least) of making someone "take a difficult vote", even when it may have little to no impact on the final decision. Consider also that active arbs don't even have to vote on parts of a formal decision. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

To be more specific, I wanted to hear arbitrators' thoughts on my findings of fact, which I felt were straightforwardly accurate, and yet were left out of the proposed decision. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

My position is that findings are only useful if they serve as a "bridge" between the evidence and a specific remedy. In a case where there is only one remedy under serious consideration, a slew of findings are not necessary. This isn't to say we didn't at least look at the workshop proposals, but there were fourteen different workshops going, each with their own premises and conclusions, that's part of the problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what Beeblebrox wrote. I would add there were multiple arbs who did engage with your proposed remedies, so it's not like we were just ignoring you Kolya and if the case had been seen to conclusion you'd have had a chance to state that you thought some FoF was important to include in the PD talk. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There were two remedies under nearly equal consideration, and the findings of fact I proposed would have applied to the second remedy. Do you support the idea of posting your discussions publicly at the time when you post your proposed decisions? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, no I do not. I don't see how that would be productive, part of this whole thing is about improving the signal to noise ratio in arbcom cases. If parties have questions about the formulation of a PD they are always welcome to just ask. To be honest most of what goes on in the off-wiki drafting is pretty dry and boring, discussion about phrasing, being clear about intent, etc. The recent case is not something to look to as a representative example, as it was briefer than most PDs, and we stopped and canceled the case only a day after the PD was first posted. In many other cases, the PD is a much more dynamic process, arbs not involved in the drafting may add their own findings or remedies, and so forth. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Advocates

• We used to have an advocate system, the Association of Members' Advocates, which some felt was helpful to inexperienced or vulnerable users; however others felt it was bureaucratic and divisive, and pointed to the Help desk as an alternative. The AMA directly gave advice and assistance to less experienced users who were experiencing disputes with more experienced users or couldn't quite cope with some aspects of our dispute resolution system, such as ArbCom. My memory of it (and I was an advocate for a while, at a time when I myself wasn't that experienced) is that the idea was good, but that not enough experienced quality users became advocates, and that there were some advocates who perhaps got involved in wikilawyering rather than giving simple neutral advice, and others who, like me, rather flapped around amateurishly in a well intentioned but no doubt irritating manner.

There are many ways of grouping people on Wikipedia, though grouping people into experienced and inexperienced reveals one of our tectonic plate points of tension. The inexperienced do things "wrong", and when reverted they question. The experienced are volunteers, have no obligation or time to explain and train, and just wish that something they have spent years working on was left alone. The inexperienced wants help. The experienced has no time or desire to help. We either have the inexperienced giving up in frustration and we lose a potentially good volunteer. Or we have a conflict when the inexperienced user doesn't get the appropriate answers so attempts to reinsert their "wrong" edit.

Shortly after starting at Wikipedia I noted that we have regular users and we have admins; and that the admins don't so much have a helping, advisory role, but more of a dispute resolving role. Essentially, admins often come in when it's already too late. What I thought then, and I'm thinking now, is that there could be a role midway between a user and an admin; or perhaps running side by side in a complimentary manner - a "senior editor" or "instructor" or "advisor" role. Someone who can and is willing to assist and explain to new users how things work, and who has advanced editing tools, but not the blocking tools. This senior editor would be someone who is both experienced at editing articles (has at least one Good Article) and has a calm, helpful manner. So, not quite an advocate, more an instructor. Someone who is able to resolve disputes before they start. Someone who can help both the inexperienced and the experienced by resolving any potential conflict before it starts. Sometimes, as we know, it is not the inexperienced editor who is "wrong" - sometimes the experienced editor has not looked or thought carefully enough about the edit they feel is wrong. The "senior editor" should be able to point this out in a calm and neutral manner, and if the experienced editor disagrees then the matter could be discussed at a senior editors noticeboard, without needing to involve and potentially stress out the inexperienced editor.

So, I don't think we need advocates; we need advisors. SilkTork (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I like the word "counselor", because it could mean someone who advises and mediates (but it could also mean attorney...). My concern with administrators has always been that someone who is great at editing is not necessarily great at handling interpersonal problems; they are very separate skills. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Something like peer support might be useful for arbitration participants who are experiencing distress, to help navigate and manage the process. They could watch the pages for the participant, and let them know when their responses were required so the participants don’t get stuck in an unhealthy loop of constantly hitting refresh on the arbitration case pages. –xeno^talk 14:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If admins are coming in when it's already too late, then ArbCom is coming in when it's past due. This, for me, is an essential part of understanding Arbitration and also a real limit on how we can make it feel. I think to the anecdote that Ritchie333 has told a few times about how hard it was to be having a pint with someone who was the center of an ArbCom case and who was feeling bewildered and hurt to be in that position despite the ample evidence of failed attempts outside of ArbCom. Like being told "You've made some mistakes" is hard let alone "You've made some mistakes and these are the consequences for doing a volunteer job which you've done out of the goodness of your heart and genuine desire to make the world better." So I think avenues like this, where we think about ways to be helpful earlier are important and offer greater opportunities for benefit than reforming (or eliminating) Workshops (which we should do too). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm lukewarm on the idea of advocates in the sense of a person speaking instead of the involved party, but I recognize that this is at least in part due to personal bias towards strong communication skills. In the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC, Bilby suggested having neutral advisors to help guide editors when they have some kind of conflict. I agreed that this would be a good approach, and I think it could be helpful for all sorts of issues. (I guess the Wikipedia:Teahouse partially covers some aspect of this.) The trick is, though, what to do when the editor decides to ignore the advisor. After all, there are plenty of cases where quiet words with an editor have not worked out.

I'm not sure how well a "senior editors noticeboard" (shades of Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion) would work out—it feels like a great way to have arguments about who is a senior editor. isaacl (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)