Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:33, 9 July 2008

This page is meant to be transcluded. Portions of this page will appear in any page which transcludes it. The mandatory parameter expand= should be set to yes or no to control whether the summary or the details are transcluded.

Complete RfC: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee.

These statements and responses were last updated at 2008-07-09 05:33:28.

Arbitrators prepared to answer a few questions

Please consider signing up below if, as an arbitrator, you are prepared to engage 'on-wiki' in offering a few thoughts, or answering a few questions. I'm sure many questions will no doubt be submitted - and there may be no way for any of you to be able to answer all of them - but I sincerely believe offering a few answers, as individuals, to a few focused questions would represent a significant way forward....

We can figure out how best to format and structure this page / subpages, but I entreat you to sign up as available in some small way to the community. Please!

Summary of statements so far:

• Arbs prepared to answer a few questions - several arbitrators indicate a willingness to answer questions
• See also - related discussions
• Questions from User:Privatemusings - 3 questions
• Questions from User:Neil - 2 questions
• Questions from User:Alex Bakharev - 9 questions
• Questions from Rootology - 6 questions
• Questions from User:Shoemaker's Holiday - 4 questions, one new
• Questions from User:davidwr - questions related to private evidence and private cases
• Questions from User:LessHeard vanU - question relating to Workshop input
• Questions from User:Hiding regarding how you analyse evidence and reach decisions and the transparency of such

Arbs prepared to answer a few questions

• Kirill 12:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Paul August ☎ 00:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• jpgordon 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC) but I'll ignore all hostile and/or baiting questions.
• bainer (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• FayssalF - 11:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• FloNight♥♥♥ 16:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• James F. (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• FT2  12:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC) (When back properly and able to attend fully to replies)

See also

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee#Comments by FT2
• Charles Matthews on interpretation of what happened in the Orangemarlin affair

Questions from User:Privatemusings

demonstrating what I would suggest is an easy format to follow - also genuine questions

• "Some sort of discussion / process occurred, examining Orangemarlin's behaviour" - does this vague statement ring true?
• Could you say a few short comments about the strengths and weaknesses of that discussion / process?
• Do you edit on the private arbcom wiki?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. Neıl 龱 11:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
3. —Giggy 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I'm not prepared yet to characterize the events in the Orangemarlin case, other than that they revealed dramatic weaknesses and few strengths (other than the ability to correct error) of the current process. We need help. And, yeah, sometimes I edit on the private arbcom wiki, but only trivially. If were drafting cases, I'd use it more. --jpgordon 04:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. In order: yes; that the main fault was in communication failure, but as per Josh I think it's premature to go further right now; and yes, but there's not much about which to talk, as per Josh. James F. (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Orangemarlin merits discussion; I'll come back to it as soon as I'm fully sorted out here since it needs a lot of reading of what's gone on. Skipping some questions until then. FT2  14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from User:Neil

• A couple of suggestions on the RFC are concerned with expanding the pool of arbitrators and/or reducing term length. How do you feel about these ideas? Would either of them be helpful, in your view? Thanks. Neıl 龱 11:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict, but I will place here as it is linking in more or less with Neil's proposal) - Do you agree the workload has increased to a point where increasing the numbers on arbcom by somewhere between 33-100% would be prudent to allow cases to be shared around between a larger number of groups - reducing the workload on any particular arbcom member and/or allowing more time and energy for a longer examination of a particular case?

If yes, what would be the optimum number of arbcom members (using current workload and free time to extrapolate)?

Other users wanting answers to this question:

1. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
3. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Fainites 22:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
5. —Giggy 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I suggested dramatically increasing the number of arbitrators when I first ran for arbcom. (My idea involved randomly selecting a subset of the large arbitration team for each case. It's probably unworkable, but still an interesting idea.) It would need to be part of a larger scale reshaping of ArbCom. Shortening the term would be a good idea; three years is a hugely long time, and burnout can be dramatic. No idea what number or shape would be optimum. I don't think the workload has increased, but the nature of the problems being dealt with is different from a few years ago; the community is more empowered now to issue blocks and bans, and does so. --jpgordon 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. If the Committee were to be enlarged, I think it would need to involve some reform to allow cases to be heard by smaller groups of arbitrators, rather than by the whole Committee; a simple increase of numbers (I've seen even a doubling of numbers suggested somewhere) would tend to compound problems rather than alleviate them, I fear, by simply making the process that much more unwieldy and complicated. I tend to agree with jpgordon on this point. --bainer (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Having served on the Committee in all its incarnations, I've found that the increase in bodies creates a large increase in communications overhead, which is not entirely offset by having more people around to do stuff; if anything, a slight reduction in head-count would probably work better. This is not to say that I don't have confidence in all other members of the Committee, and I'm certainly not saying that there are those I would have removed! See also my comments on WT:AC just now. James F. (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree with the above comments that simply increasing the number of arbs is not the solution. Reorganization is needed first. I'm mid way through my term and I feel that I can complete my term with out suffering burn out. But my situation is different than most other arbitrators since I'm not balancing employment or school with my committee work. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Alex Bakharev (talk)

1. The visible part of the Arbcom work are the publicly heard cases and amendments. Can you outline the less visible parts of the work like private investigations, appointment of checkusers, oversighters? What percentage of the workload is caused by those invisible duties?
2. What processes are used for those invisible cases: private wiki? maillists? IRC?
3. Some decisions of Arbcom are "proper" that is voted for by the majority of active arbitrators, some decisions seems to be never voted but a result of some sort of consensus (meaning nobody oppose energetically enough)? How Arbcom makes distinction from one set to another? How Arbcom safeguards itself from abusing the consensus process (a proponent of a decision rushes to announce it on behalf of Arbcom expecting that opponents would not create excessive drama by denying the decision)?
4. In the public cases arbirators with a conflict of interests usually recuse. Do they still have access to private discussions and privileged information?
5. What are the safeguards against possible COIs in private investigations?
6. Did the decision to hear the Ornagemarlin case without informing the accused have any precedents? Who made the decision to use such an unusual method for this case? What were rationales for this?
7. Did the decision to make the decision in Orangemarlin case by consensus rather than voting have any precedents? Who made the decision to use such an unusual method for this case? What were rationales for this?
8. It appears that FT2 being a participant in the ID conflict and so having a COI not only did not recuse from the case, but also was the main collector of evidence, most probably the sole author of the text, evaluated consensus and announced the case. Why no safeguards against COI worked? Do you plan to modify the processes to prevent such COI in the future?
9. Would you agree to review the processes of Arbcom and the events of the Orangemarlin case by an independent commission (e.g. m:Cross-wiki arbitration committee)?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
2. —Giggy 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. -Privatemusings (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

1. This format doesn't lend itself well to answering numbered lists; perhaps someone might refactor. Anyway:
   1. Most of the work is the public case-related stuff. I can't really quantify the amount of work done on other aspects, but I'd guess ten percent or less. It probably should be more -- we should be spending more time on things like unblock requests, but we need some structural changes to use our time more effectively.
   2. Mostly maillists. IRC gets some action, but I haven't hung out there for a while. The private wiki mostly gets used for drafting stuff and for keeping track of things like checkuser requests.
   3. It's pretty nebulous and poorly defined. We safeguard against abuses by observing that if such abuses occur, the ensuing drama is far more unpleasant than whatever the action was meant to correct.
   4. Yes. Recusal means an arbitrator may not participate in a case. No comments, no votes, no nothing. However, they still have access to the mail list, the wiki, etc.
   5. None in particular.
   6. For the rest, I'm not prepared yet to characterize the Orangemarlin case. I will in time.

   jpgordon 04:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Alex, good questions. I will need some time to answer them. Get back to you soon. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
   1. Varies from arbitrator to arbitrator, and not tracked. For example, some arbitrators do most of the leg work for the on site cases and give replies to most requests for clarification, while other arbs spend more time doing follow up for previous cases such as doing checkusers for suspected banned user socks, and other arbitrators do more ban reviews or answer emails. We have no formal system for assigning these tasks or tracking them.
   2. Most off site discussion happens on either the arbcom mailing list or the newer sitting arbs mailing list. The arb wiki is mostly used for recording information sent to arbcom mailing list in a more organized way than emails threads allows. IRC and Skype are used by some arbs but not for formal meetings or discussions.
   3. No safeguards currently other than arbitrators being willing to speak up internally if some acts prematurely.
   4. Recuse means no participating in the case in anyway as an arbitrator, on site or off site. But arbitrators do have access to mailing list discussions.
   5. Nothing specific other than arbitrators and former arbitrators observations.
   6. 7, 8, 9. Internal discussion of our methods of handling private cases and summary cases has happened and more to come.

   FloNight♥♥♥ 18:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

3. I will be notable in my disagreement with Josh here on the first part, who I hope will forgive me; I find the off-wiki workload to be very significant (having expanded in particular in 2006 and early part of 2007 from previous levels), and takes up something like 50% of my time (5-10 hours a week), along with another 40% (3-8 hours) of actually wading through evidence and so on for cases. Note that the disagreement will stem mostly from our different styles, where Josh is much more active on writing cases up whereas I check against cases already written, which could well be argued is a much smaller workload. Other than this, I agree with Josh's points. James F. (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Rootology

Thanks! rootology (T) 05:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC) (edited to lose the numbered format per Jpgordon)

1. Recusal & mail lists?

Just a follow-up to the recusal question above. If an Arb is recused, are they allowed to participate in discussions of the issue on the mail list?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. No. They can watch; that's all. --jpgordon 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. No, they're not. Kirill 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. No discussion. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4. There has been trouble in the past with this, but it seems the current arbitrators have taken a firm stand regarding this problem. It is not appropriate to recuse and then vigorously argue on the mailing list for whatever resolution you favor. Fred Talk 12:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Per above. This of course means that recused Arbitrators are in a very difficult position (they shouldn't talk about a case, from which they are recused or not, on- or off-wiki in case they prejudice the process or the appearance thereof), which is why most of us strive to avoid being in positions from which we will need to recuse. James F. (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Arbitrators as a group seem to be extremely careful of their neutrality, behind the scenes. There isn't much treading over the lines, and people are quite able to tell what is a helpful comment and what isn't. I don't know if "allowed" is the right word or not, but recused arbvitrators just don't take part in the discussion on a decision, or use their access to present a matter favorably. Most cases where an arbitrator is recused they say absolutely nothing on the matter, for the entire duration of the case.

   Example of an exception - during the unban appeal of Peter Damian (where I was a party), I posted to the list my concerns that he needed to be seen to have a fair hearing, given there was a member of the committee involved. However had I not been on the committee, and had that concern for any reason, I would have likewise submitted it by email to the list; it was sent as a party and not as a committee member, and understood as such. I also asked in the same email that all discussion of his appeal be held off-list out of my hearing, so that it could not be said I had any access to the discussion which he did not have. That is an example of arbitrators mailing the list to discuss a case where they are recused. FT2  14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Opposition voting on Proposed Decision?

It seems like the drafted cases that are put on Proposed Decision pages are very focused. Are Arbs free if they disagree with the internal or private consensus on the case during drafting to put forward an opposition or contrary finding/remedy/etc. on the Proposed Decision to force a vote on a contentious point?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Sure. --jpgordon 14:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Most initial drafting is actually done with minimal (if any) private discussion; what people first see on the proposed decision page is, in the majority of cases, simply what the drafting arbitrator came up with, not the result of prior discussion by the Committee as a whole. Kirill 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Usually full cases are not discussed on the mailing list or the arb wiki prior to being placed on site. There are rare exceptions. Usually one arbitrator write the whole case. All arbitrators are free to discuss their views on a case and offer any proposal on site. It is not unusual to see alternative proposals added to cases that are already drafted. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Per above, though it does happen that a case's outline and salient points to address are considered privately before the case is written up, and even then, we sometimes will subsequently disagree publicly with the PD as initially written. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Any arbitrator is free to make such posts and decisions as they choose, during a hearing. Especially, any arbitrator is free to amend, comment, disagree, or post alternatives on the Proposed Decision page. Usually one committee member leads on drafting, and others then concur or differ when they post a view. Over time that is more how consensus builds. Private discussion tends to be on making sure we understand the import of the case, its actual thrust or subtle issues, and matters needing taking care of (or not pivotal enough to need mention). But anyone who disagrees and feels others may concur, is always free to post their own approach. Usually this is done judiciously, since a view which would not get significantly more support than an existing proposal is not going anywhere. FT2  14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Is the Workshop worth it?

Is it worth it for people to put so much energy and work into the Workshop? How much does this actually affect the Proposed Decision?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. It depends on the case. On relatively simple cases, workshops do most of the work for us (as it should be.) On highly contentious cases, though, I've not found them helpful, except inasmuch as they bring problematic behavior to one place. --jpgordon 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Speaking for myself, I've tried to use the workshop more for my own drafting in the recent past; so, yes, I'd say that the workshop can affect the final decision quite a bit. Kirill 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Depends on the case. In high profile cases I think the workshop pages and the other talk pages are not as helpful because they are too cluttered with extraneous comments. In other cases, I find the workshop pages and talk pages extremely helpful. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree with Josh. I do find the Workshop a very good read into the case just before I'm going to the PD, so as to see what different parties think are the main points. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
5. A lot of the time, the case evidence, and our own checking, will be enough to give a very good idea what's up and what's needed. But in complex or contentious cases, often the workshop shows up what's actually going on, and who is actually acting in what ways -- the dynamics of it, or the main themes within the dispute (as opposed to the evidence backing those themes). That can be extremely helpful. It also gives the community a place to express thoughts or concerns which may not have a voiice elsewhere. This happens helpfully, and also unhelpfully. FT2  14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Why not port stuff from Workshop to Proposed Decision more often?

If a given item on the Workshop gets significant support or becomes a major point of contention (as in something that is obviously key in the minds of the community) is there any reason why it may not get onto the Proposed Decision?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. No reason one way or another. Decisions sometimes (often? I haven't really counted) take language directly from the workshop. --jpgordon 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. There's more to putting together a focused decision, in my view, than merely lumping everything that might pass into a single document. In most cases, items from the workshop aren't carried over—at least when I'm drafting—because I think they're (a) redundant, (b) irrelevant, or (c) undesirable. Other arbitrators may later add an item if they feel it useful; but, generally speaking, if no arbitrator puts something up for voting, it's because no arbitrator feels such a finding would be of value to the final decision. Kirill 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Often the wording of the Rulings come from prior cases. The ideas from the workshop page my be included on the PD page in different wording. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Our job is to do what we think is right for the project, and sometimes that means not doing something that is popular, doing something despite objections, or failing to address something in terms of black and white when a spectrum exists and "solving" the issue might seem like a good fix in the short term. This extends to porting Workshop issues over to the Proposed Decision as much as other places. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

5. James, Kirill, FloNight, have said it. One area that I do often port, is suggestions how to approach the rssolving of the dispute, if I think they might be good ideas. This applies especially to temporary injunctions. If the parties and community feel a temporary injunction may help hold back dispute whilst allowing productive editing of content, then I'll usually be inclined to strongly support that, although I'll often tighten up the wording or post a proposed version for discussion first. My role there is to make sure if it is ported, then it's ported in a way that stands a good chance of actually working, ie preventing gaming or dispute explosion if so.

   As regards wider remedies, a lot of the time, remedies proposed at workshop are too light, too extreme, or misdirected. The idea of a good arbitration remedy/enforcement is that it does what is needed to allow things to move forward. Mantanmoreland #1 was a classic example of workshop misjudgement - many people called stridently for a ban without calmly considering whether a lesser measure would do the job. The job in that case was to prevent manipulation of an exceptionally well defined set of articles, and prevent socking (especially with proxies)... and beyond that to allow a user who had contributed productively in other areas, the chance to show if they would change or not. The measures needed to fix that case were not a site ban (initially unless repeated) however much emotion there was, but 1/ a topic ban and strong protection for the disputed articles, 2/ restrictions on proxies and multiple accounts, and 3/ close monitoring if necessary indefinitely, after the case, to ensure compliance and to make repeat socking (if applicable) easier to detect. Without going into the politics of Mantanmoreland/Overstock, purely as an example, this is a constant issue with heated /Workshop cases - the workshop becomes polarized and what is posted is often battleground mindset, not resolution mindset. It's easier as an arbitrator, to skim it for ideas and views, and then draft for oneself. FT2  14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Notification of evidence?

If one party submits evidence by direct email that isn't restricted by the Privacy Policy, is there any method in place for the other parties to know about this, so they can fairly respond?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Nope. --jpgordon 14:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   I didn't know that... is there any reason why? It seems like that can cause problems such as people getting caught blindsided. rootology (T) 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   We don't have a lot of processes for exceptional situations; see the next answer. --jpgordon 15:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Not in the general case, although we have at times notified people of evidence regarding them. Kirill 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. The idea is dispute resolution. Usually not telling the involved parties the angry stuff that the other fellow says about them behind their back is for the best. But if there are serious allegations that need to be addressed by one party then the party will be notified by one or more arbs to hear the other side of the story. We usually forward these inquiry email discussions to the full mailing list. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. No, though we will often ask for evidence submitted by e-mail where it isn't necessary to keep it private to be made public. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

5. No, and often no need. We aren't naive, and any of us would check things out or consider their validity and completeness before basing any further thoughts on them. If we need to check something out that came in by email, or if it raises a genuine concern, we tend to discuss thoughtfully and make inquiries, not assume. A surprising amount of time there will be checkable corroberation -- things don't often happen with no context. A pinch of salt may be needed as well, since some things by their nature are not checkable, and are capable of fabrication, and do get fabricated, and we know this.

   Ultimately though this isn't actually the real answer. This question in a way, is largely a misunderstanding. The real answer is, we aim for dispute resolution, we aren't a court. The fact A said this, or B said that, or A alleges whatever, is in a way, almost secondary. What matters is the general behaviors shown, and identifying what might help resolve the issue going forward. That is often a focus that gives a very clear direction, and all the evidence received on or off wiki, is merely a kind of indication what approach might help the community to do that. When you look at it that way, you aren't taking evidence as "OMG LOOK WHAT HE SAY! MUST ACT!". You're looking to the evidence as a guide, to help make a ruling in a divisive issue, how the dispute is best to be resolved for all parties and the community, going forward... which can be a different question entirely. FT2  14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

6. Frequency of email evidence?

How often does submitted evidence come by email that isn't restricted by the Privacy Policy?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Rarely; such evidence properly belongs on the evidence page. --jpgordon 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Indeed. Sometimes we do see evidence come from people that can't, or don't want, to post it publicly. In theory, we could probably come up with some formal process to get such stuff onto the evidence page (perhaps anonymously); but, as Josh points out above, we don't have much process set up for dealing with unusual situations. Kirill 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. As I allude to in my above comment. The emails that we get are often opinions rather than evidence. These do not influence us any more than the opinion comment on the evidence page. Unique evidence by email is much less common. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Infrequently, but it can be problematic when it does and my suggested action above is not followed. James F. (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Rarely; people don't usually email the Arbitration Committee without good cause. (Exception, a few hardened banned users who repeatedly seek unbanning, typically every few weeks even whilst still being caught socking.) Sometimes private evidence might be people with suspicions or concerns that they feel we ought to know of, but who don't want to be drawn into the morass of a heated open war zone. Another circumstance might be "I think there is a problem here, but not 100% sure and would not like to inflame the issue". I would support the right of a user to say "I have some insight that may help, but I would like not to be set upon for saying it or post without advice, since my role here is mostly to quietly edit content."

   I would also respect a user who wished to avoid stirring "drama": unlike some, my view on drama is that we have no need for other than calm dispassionate productive collaborative discussion; anything else is a complete distraction and unhelpful to the project, and damages it. So I would not feel it necessary to force a naturally low profile person into drama, against their will. Usually the reply will be a polite "thank you for your comment", and we'll note it was said, but no special weight is given to it. That said as a rule, this is rare, though; people tend not to email us that way unless there really is a privacy issue or genuine need. If it's a blatant /Evidence page matter they'll be directed to post it there. FT2  14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

6a. Dealing with evidence or allegations whose nature does not warrant privacy when it is received by email

This additional question is added by Irpen. I planned to start my own section but figure it is best to ask this question right next to a related question.

If an arbitrator receives an email from a complaining editor with evidence or allegations against the other editor but such allegations do not fall under the category where the off-line submission is uncontroversially justified (such as privacy, sockpuppetry, RL identity and other sensitive issue) is it customary for an arbitrator to still forward this evidence to other arbitrators? Or is the editor told to use the evidence section of the current case or, if there is no case, use the normal channels of DR, invluding submitting a case? --Irpen 06:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. There is nothing unusual about having two matters being looked into at the same time. Thus a user may have an RFAR case (or a mediation, or a matter at ANI) and also be looked into by a CheckUser for bad-faith socking concerns. The fact a user is at RFAR doesn't mean that all issues about that user are arbitration issues; if they act up elsewhere (eg legal threats) then it may happen the new concern is dealt with not by the committee, but by an individual arbitrator or administrator (by email, talk page, or admin tools). But it is customary that correspondence received by an arbitrator that seems to be for general information of arbitrators, is made known to the rest of the committee (even if dealt with personally), so that we are on the same page on such matters. So for example, if I get an unban appeal, or FloNight gets a "is this evidence of socking by the other party" email, we'll deal with it but it will usually be forwarded or summarized to others (along with the response and handling if any), so that nobody is left out of the full picture, whether it's valid or not. One very good reason for this - they will often approach others too (for valid reasons, or sometimes forum shopping). Whether it is forwarded to others is separate from what response the user gets.

   A separate point is to do with approach more than action. There is a lot of mutual trust between arbitrators. The list is busy, and we see each others actions and views in very frank discussion, every day. A lot of mutual trust and knowledge builds up even if sometimes one arbitrator does not agree or even get on with another (different approach, etc). So a huge part of our work is on the basis of letting each other make judgements as needed, including the judgement when to forward or anonymize information, when to handle it personally off list, and so on. (The flip side is, were that standard and ethic found not to be upheld behind the scenes, the judgement of the others on the Committee would probably be forceful, strict, and unaccepting.) It works very well in almost all cases. FT2  14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Question 1 from Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Would the arbcom be willing to use the Workshop more, putting decisions on the Workshop first for a few days, instead of the current practice of skipping the workshop and going to proposed decisions? This would allow more input, and might help improve phrasing of decisions, which are not particularly well-crafted at times.

For the record, I was thinking more "feedback" than voting - the arbcom has every right to ignore the feedback, but I think it would help avoid some of the poorer phrasing that ends up in the decisions at times. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I wouldn't. That defeats the whole purpose of the proposed decision page. --jpgordon 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I've been making an effort to do that more in the past few months, actually. With the slower rate of cases coming in, there's not much reason for rushing past the workshop, in my view. Kirill 15:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. There are pros and cons to this approach. The interaction between the arbs, parties, and the community can be good in as much the arbs can explain why some proposals work for them and others don't. But the workshop page can not become a pre-vote vote page in my opinion. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Well, there is the Proposed Decision's talk page; we often react to feedback there (as well as the inevitable user talk, IRC, and e-mail messages). James F. (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
5. I would rather look at how cases and workshop work first. As much as I'd like to, and in a way feel it's appropriate, I'm not sure the workshop and talk pages as presently structured are the best vehicle for multi-way discussion of the case. FT2  14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Question 2 from Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Does the arbcom, with reasonable diligence, read the workshop and case talk pages? I ask because there have been numerous incidents of very pertinent questions being asked on talk pages, and getting no comments for weeks, and I don't think I've ever seen a user-created Workshop proposal used.

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Speaking to your second point, I've personally used a number of outside proposals in the decisions I've drafted. More generally, yes, we make an effort to read all the discussion; but keep in mind the ease with which an unruly group of editors can flood a page to the point of unreadability. Perhaps we need to have some sort of dedicated area for actual questions to the Committee, where they wouldn't be lost in the general back-and-forth arguments quite so easily. Kirill 16:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I read all the pages before I vote. Prior to voting to close, I do a recheck to look at the new comments and respond to the important stuff. It is extremely difficult to reply to every comment and question in the highly contentious cases that draw loads of comments, especially if the cases stay open for a prolonged period of time. If an user feels that an important question is being missed, then they should contact the clerk or an arb directly. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I can't speak for others, though it's clear to me from their actions that they generally do; for myself, yes, though some threads quickly become pointless from the POV of Arbitration (namely, fixing the problem), instead descending into posturing from the trenches of an embattled dispute. Workshop issues are frequently used in real cases (though often re-worded into more normal language for Arbitration cases, which can mean just using a previous case's proposed item and so look like ignoring input to the Workshop). James F. (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Question 3 from Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

This is case-specific, I fear, but somewhat pertinent: Does the arbcom intend to restore the (deleted) evidence page to the Homeopathy case? If not, why? If yes, why did the arbitration committee wait so long that the case was left to run for its entire last month open without the ability of anyone to add more evidence? What steps are being taken to prevent this in future?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Gnixon (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I was away when that happened (I think) and not clear what was going on. I meant to check on that when I became active again because I was curious myself. Been sidetracked by other events. I'll look into it and reply here or else where if more appropriate. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   Asked arbcom mailing list for information. I agree that it is extremely unusual for a case to have no evidence page and we need to sort this out. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Question 4 from Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

The arbcom has, in the new Giano case, once again moved to voting before either party being sanctioned has provided any evidence. In the middle of a scandal bout a violation of due process, to circumvent due process by not giving the parties a chance to respond is frankly, appalling. While I accept Thebainer acted in good faith, and I by no means want to condemn him, this repeats controversial actions from the MatthewHoffman, Durova, and echoes the main objections to the Orangemarlin case: that the parties are not being given the chance to defend themselves.

I accept that there may be emergency situations where such a rush is appropriate. This case is not one of them. I therefore am going to have to ask the arbcom whether they are willing to put a hard-and-fast restriction on themselves, because this kind of thing really must stop.

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2. It looks more like a statement than a question. Still I will be interested to read the arbitrators comments Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

Questions from User:davidwr/(talk)

About how much of your word deals with privately submitted evidence? About how much of your work deals with cases which are not public? Of these cases, about what percentage would be good candidates for having a public summary of some sort or other? Addendum by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) at 13:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC): I should have explicitly included ban appeals and other items that are not "regular arbitrations" that are the proper domain of ARBCOM in your workload.

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. I sense that there has been an up tick in the percentage of our work that has private evidence. This is because the community deals with more and more of the less complex stuff. There are few fully private cases. The few that are private are done for a reason and usually are not good candidates for public summary. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I can only speak to the last six months, of course, but relatively little. There is rarely any private evidence submitted with respect to regular arbitrations. Obviously things such as ban appeals which are conducted by email consist entirely of "private" evidence submitted directly to us, but even then it consists of "normal" evidence fodder (lists of diffs and so forth). --bainer (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

   I should have explicitly included ban appeals and other items that are not "regular arbitrations" that are the proper domain of ARBCOM in your workload. Given that clearer definition, how much of your workload is either done in private and how much of your workload consists of items that the public never knows about? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from LessHeard vanU

More regarding community participation in the Workshop pages

Are Committee Members aware that the Workshop editing is the reflection of the concerns of the community, or portions of it, in the particular matter, and that it may be useful to address those concerns even if - or perhaps especially if - they are not specifically referred to in the Proposed Decision page?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. Yes, aware. Not sure of the best method to address them though. Often the Community will be split on the best course of action, and the Committee will be split as well. We actually have diverse opinions on most these topics. If the community is split and so is ArbCom, not much can happen to address a concern as a body. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Irpen

Dealing_with_evidence_or_allegations_whose_nature_does_not_warrant_privacy_when_it_is_received_by_email

Please see #6a. Dealing with evidence or allegations whose nature does not warrant privacy when it is received by email

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

Questions from User:Hiding

I've presented evidence and analysed that evidence at a couple of arbitration cases, and proposed principles and remedies based on the evidence and analysis. I have never once seen an arbitrator engage with anything I have presented. Why is that? How am I supposed to know the evidence has been reviewed? How am I supposed to know on what the arbitration committee bases its decisions? Why does the arbitration committee fail to engage?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

1. - jc37 09:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses from arbitrators:

Questions from User:Alanyst

The ideal arbitration contributor

How would you describe the "ideal" contributor to an arbitration proceeding? This would be a normal editor (not necessarily a party) who contributes in order to assist you in resolving the dispute efficiently; what sort of behavior would the ideal such editor display? What behavior would they avoid (assume that all obvious WP policy violations are already covered).

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

Diffs and interpretation of diffs

Is commentary accompanying diffs more useful than diffs alone, or do you prefer to let the diffs speak for themselves? If the former, what style of commentary is most useful? (Links or quotes of examples would be nice but not essential.)

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

Feedback to contributing editors

What would be the pros and cons of giving more (and more immediate) feedback to editors who contribute to arbitration proceedings, regarding the usefulness (or lack thereof) of their evidence and commentary?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

I know this guy

When considering evidence and commentary, do you factor in who contributed it, or do you try to ignore the source and attend only to what they are saying? If you do take into account who the contributor is, what measures do you take to ascertain that your perception of the editor is accurate and not out-of-date?

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

Questions from User:jc37

Workshop usage

The "wiki-way" would seem to include an attempt to "foster discussion". It doesn't seem very much like a discussion on the workshop pages. If the arbitrators feel that they' shouldn't interact on the workshop page (as seems noted by some above), why get our hopes up that things will be commented on by having an arbitrator-specific section under each entry? - jc37 09:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

Recusal

I note in some of the comments above that the arbitrators as a group seem to feel that recused arbitratos shouldn't join in on the discussion. Are you only referring to "private" arbitration discussion, or the "open" pages (and sub-pages and talk pages) of the request, or both? I ask, because I would think that an arbcomm member is "just another editor" and so when recused, should be able to edit in the "open" pages as such (though not commenting in the arbcom-specific section, etc.) - jc37 09:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators:

1. On a case where an Arbitrator is recused, the arbitrator is "just another editor". This means that they can make comments on open pages but not in the arbitrator section. If the arbitrator is directly involved, then they participate the same as ny other involved party. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions from a user

This is a question written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.

Other users wanting answers to these questions:

Responses from arbitrators: