Tareen

Introduction

This page represents a proposed discussion draft for community revision and updating of the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. In addition to a general updating of the policy in light of experience in the four years since it was drafted, I have incorporated some of the input from the RfC on the Arbitration Committee that took place over this past summer. Issues relating to the selection of arbitrators (in particular, length of term) are discussed on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee but can also be discussed on this talkpage for consideration of a modification of that page.

In order that all editors can work off the same discussion draft, I suggest that for a few days, editors refrain from editing the proposed policy, except for correcting any typographical or formal errors. Once we have a consensus on whether the discussion draft provides a basis for updating the policy, and what areas require further work, the revised policy can then be opened for consensus editing under the ordinary wiki model. In the interim, I suggest that comments be placed on this page and arranged by topic so that we can see whether we have a consensus or not for any change.

I will add that although I mentioned that I would be undertaking this project to my colleagues on the Arbitration Committee, and some of the ideas I would be raising, the proposed revision is my own work product. No claim is made that other arbitrators support it or any of it, and I expect to see sitting and former arbitrators, along with lots of other editors, here to comment on various aspects. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, I like this, will spend cycles digesting it. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now read it three times, and I like what I am seeing overall. I believe this is a workable and reasonable proposal that takes into account the majority of relevant issues raised separately. Risker (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments concerning specific drafting and policy issues

Case opening criteria and calculation of majority

I agree with the change to the rule on how cases are deemed ripe for opening; I had suggested substantially the same change some time ago (to little feedback).

I still think that my second change is worth consideration; specifically, that arbitrators are not considered active on a case unless and until they either positively state they are or act on the case. The presumption that all arbs not otherwise specifically recused or marked inactive are, in fact, actively monitoring and considering the proposed decisions has been shown to be inaccurate in practice; and cases have often languished without a decision for lack of arbitrator participation, making attaining the requisite absolute majority of sitting arbs difficult or impossible.

It seems perverse that if the only, say, six arbitrators that have actively participated on a case unanimously agree on a proposed decision that it would then been scuttled because of lack of interest/participation by the other arbitrators (whatever the reason(s) might be). — Coren ^(talk) 21:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Although the first change you reference (from "net four" back to "four accepts") may not have received a lot of feedback when you raised it, rest assured that it has been discussed in great detail a number of times. I believe can probably find a number of the discussions, if you are interested, in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration.

Your second proposed change has been discussed from time to time as well. In my experience, there have been relatively few cases in which arbitrator inactivity has wound up ultimately affecting the result. More common is that cases sit around well after they should have been closed, waiting for the last few arbitrators to straggle in. But the latecomers often do contribute valuable comments or additional proposals when they arrive, I'd rather see more active and prompt participation brought about by the presumptive time limits, rather than making it easier to count the additional arbitrators out of the cases altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that, as currently worded, the proposed policy doesn't create actual deadlines so much as a statement of intent to keep the cases under certain timelines — not that I would support strict deadlines either, mind you, since that leaves little room for extending the deliberations when the case is genuinely complex or difficult to reach consensus on.

Is it really that much of an imposition to require that, for an arbitrator to be counted when calculating majorities, they need to have made one positive act at some point in the case? (Whether by opining on the case opening, voting on one of the measures or simply stating somewhere that "I am active on this case")?

I don't want to sound callous, but frankly if an arbitrator can't be bothered to write a one-liner at some point during the case, the presumption that they are not paying attention to it is certainly warranted. — Coren ^(talk) 22:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Issue 2 -- Jimbo-related policies

Prefacing with absolute wonderful work, Brad. This took lots of time and I think you did a great job.

The one tiny bone I'd pick-- if I ran the circus, phrases like "may be appealed to Jimbo Wales" would be replaced with "may be appealed to the individual delegated by the Wikimedia Foundation Board to handle such appeals, Wikimedia Chairman Emeritus Jimbo Wales."

It's a minor thing, but you don't have to go far to hear accusations of dictatorship at Wikipedia. My own experience is that these accusations are utterly baseless. No such dictator exists, Jimbo has exercised his authority with total responsibility.

But, as long as we're getting sitting down to write one article in the constitution of Wikipedia, we might pause for just a second to put our best foot forward.

In the current draft, it's unclear why arbcom appeals go to Jimbo. A reader could ask "Why Jimbo? Why him? Why not somebody else???"

The answer is, of course, that he's the person we all trust-- he is THE most trusted neutral broker the project has. It's not just that he was a founder-- it's that time and again he has earned the trust of those around him.

It would cost us nothing to spell this out by explicitly-- by mentioning that appeals go to the person who is the most trusted member of Wikipedia-- the person who has been entrusted by the board (and the community!) to handle such appeals.

It's pure semantics, but semantics do matter. People like leaders who lead by example and have earned respect and trust. People despise dictators who have the final say for no apparent reason. Let us make it clear at every opportunity what we in the community already know-- Jimbo leads with earned respect and trust.

When weighing how much participation dedicate to the project, when deciding how much money to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, or when writing up a news story that will influence the opinions of the public-- perceptions and semantics DO matter.

If the allegations were true-- if Jimbo were a secret tyrant who clings to power at all costs, well, we'd just have to hope for the best, try and sweep the issue under the rug. But that's not the case. But the allegation are NOT true in the slightest. Jimbo has not dictated his role, he has had his role thrust upon him by virtue of the trust he as earned.

So, let's take half a sentence clause, here and there, to state the truth that makes reflects positively on the project and the foundation-- that Jimbo has been rightfully entrusted with his role by his colleagues, and that he has not simply dictated his role (which, as former owner, he certainly once could have done). --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. As for the Jimbo Wales issue, I understand your semantic point completely. But as a historical matter, it really isn't true that Jimbo is "the individual delegated by the Wikimedia Foundation Board to handle such appeals." To the best of my knowledge, the Board has made no such delegation nor has anyone asked them to (and in fact, the Board would be very unlikely to take an action of this type that would affect just one project). As I understand it, Jimbo's special role here, whatever it is, is a function of history and community acceptance rather than of Board action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected-- I realized the board had never explicitly said so, but I assumed that was their position and that were Jimbo to overrule Arbcom, he would do so on behalf of the board.

Though the answer isn't as simple as I like, I think it would be excellent if we could find some sort of explanatory language to give the reader an answer the question of why Arbcom rulings can be appealed to one particular individual. An answer beyond "That's sorta just how it's always been."

So why CAN arbcom decisions be appealed to Jimbo? Is it because the board or the bylaws says so? Is it because community consensus says so? Or to put a finer point on it-- if the board wanted to end Jimbo's ability to overrule arbcom, could they? If the community wanted to end Jimbo's ability to overrule arbcom, could they?

It doesn't much matter to me which the answer is, but I think somehow we should find an answer and write it down. The important thing is to debunk the smear I see, from time to time, that Jimbo simply "owns" Wikipedia and can do whatever he wants just because he started it. That's not the way Jimbo himself wants it, that's not the way EnWikipedia works, that's not the way the Wikimedia Foundation runs things. The further we can get from that urban legend, the better. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The genesis of Jimbo's role is that he founded wikipedia and gave himself final authority. The continuation of Jimbo's role is that the community has at no point reached a consensus that it wants to change this traditional status-quo. But it is entirely a matter for the English wikipedia project and its community, not for the board. If you can get a consensus to have someone or some process other than Jimbo as a "final authority" then that's what would happen.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Off wiki-deliberation

The arbitrators may discuss and deliberate on cases on their private mailing list, particularly where warranted by privacy or similar factors, but the substantive basis for the final decision should be apparent from the decision itself or from arbitrators' comments on it.

This seems to mean that arbs don't have to discuss on-wiki at all, as long as final decision is clear on-wiki. Sometimes it can seem like there are two discussions, one on the workshop without much arb involvement and one behind closed doors - where arbs try to get agreement before proposing decisions. I would have thought that 1) arbs should engage with community discussion on the workshop where they can and 2) they should show their working (including disagreements) on the proposed decision page. That is DO NOT initially make proposals on a mailing list, make them on wiki!!! The proposed decision page is the arbcom's workshop, not merely a place to disclose what's been thrashed out in secret. (I am here speaking of cases where no privacy is involved.)

I'd suggest changing this to:

Where warranted by privacy or similar factors, the arbitrators may discuss and deliberate on cases on their private mailing list. Beyond that, where practical, deliberation and discussion by arbitrators should mainly be either on the workshop, or on proposed decision page.

Even that is an encouragement to on-wiki discussion rather than an imperative.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Issue 4: Scope, evidence, private communications

Nothing here addresses the scope of cases. Because no formal charges are brought, an editor may not realize that some aspect of his or her actions are being scrutinized and that rebuttal evidence is needed. By the time that the decision is drafted and charges are laid out, it is essentially too late. It would be helpful to parties if the ArbCom could at some point or points explain which issues they are addressing. It might be at the beginning, when a case is accepted, and/or midway, after initial evidence is presented and reviewed but while there is still time to add more evidence.

In a related manner, this policy allows for the private submission of evidence but it doesn't mention sharing that evidence with involved parties. So a party could have evidence presented against him or her but not even be aware of the accusations much less have an opportunity to rebut them. While some evidence may be so confidential that it can't be shared in its entirety, the confidential parts could be redacted or the evidence summarized. Communications with the ArbCom are a topic that seems to generate frustration - parties don't know who to email, and they may not receive replies or even acknowledgements. Would it make sense to designate an ArbCom member or two as the point of contact for emails?

Lastly, an unrelated item - the 7-day periods appear to be illusory. To make editors hurry to gather evidence within a week, and then to have the ArbCom spend months deciding the case is unfair to volunteer editors. If the ArbCom cannot follow schedules like this it's better not to raise expectations. I don't see anything in this proposal which will help the ArbCom handle cases more expeditiously than it has in the past. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments concerning non-policy issue(s)

(S)electing arbitrators

It is not clear if most issues relating to ArbCom properly belong to the Committee, to the Community, or to Wales. Ironically, the group of items that it is clearest do not belong to the committee, that is election frequency, eligibility, term length, etc, that group of issues is absent. Where does that discussion belong? Jd2718 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Per my comments at the top of this page, on a revision of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. I'll hopefully get work up a proposed discussion draft for revising that page, as a companion to this one, in a day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed it. And for this draft... which demands a close read. Jd2718 (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as I think about it, it would probably be better off to have the term-length discussion here. My own view is that there is no need at all to change the current terms or selection process. However, a reasonable alternative would be to go to two-year rather than three-year terms (meaning tranches of seven or eight arbitrators). I could not support any reduction of the term length below two years, as it takes time for some of the arbitrators to get up to speed, and I could not support holding ArbCom elections more often than once a year given the amount of community time and attention they divert from other work. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is important that you mention the time to get up to speed; the opposite poll of discussion is the awful attrition rate. If I read the chart correctly, only three arbitrators have completed 3 year terms (The Epopt, Raul654 and Neutrality, though three more are only 12 weeks away Charles Matthews, Morven, and James F.. (Raul and James F. remarkably have over three years each.) The tension between learning curve and attrition pushes me to think that "no less than two years, no more than 3 years" contains as close to the 'right' answer as we will get. Jd2718 (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, arbitrator certainly is one of the more draining assignments we have, there is no doubt about that, as any sitting or former arbitrator can attest from experience. What we really need is 15 (or however many) fully participating arbitrators to spread the workload around, but for a variety of real-world and on-wiki reasons that can never be guaranteed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)