Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}
b. Almost always, yes.
c. Generally yes, but it depends if the evidence is going to make a difference to the arbs' opinions or if it, or something similar, has already been rebutted.
d. I can think of a some situations where new evidence in a PD would be appropriate and could happen. It could be that new evidence has come to light since the workshop closed, or it could be something which an arbitrator found while writing the proposed decision. Arbitration cases don't need to be adversarial, there is scope for them to be more inquisitorial. I don't believe that it would be appropriate, however, for that evidence to be voted on in a proposed decision without giving that editor a chance to comment on it.
I agree with the broad point of OR's second paragraph.
I didn't agree with OR's third paragraph initially as Joe had had chances in the past to change his behaviour (similar to DeltaQuad's argument).
There were two things which made me change my mind to decline. The first is that Joe had demonstrated an awareness of the issues in his behaviour and had come up with a reasonable plan to avoid it. The second was that I didn't believe that enough arbs wanted to have a case on the subject. So continuing to support one, and hence prevent anything happening with the request, wasn't the best approach for me to take, given that I was already being swung by the arguments to suspend the case. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Pre-2016: I think this remedy is one of the strangest I've seen (I remembered it as I submitted a clarification request about it). "Automation" an impossibly large thing and it's impossibly defined in the remedy. I think it actually informed somewhat my process of drafting proposed decisions. I've tried, as much as I can, that I seek feedback from both the rest of the Committee as well as the community so that the decisions are as clear as they can be.
My term: I feel slightly awkward about this as I'm effectively bashing my colleagues, but here goes. I think the number of changes to the Palestine-Israeli 'consensus-required', '1RR' and '500/30' remedies over the past few years is a little ridiculous. As I mentioned above, I think the way to avoid issues like this in the future is to ensure that proposals get feedback from others, and in situations were the remedy is known to be contentious (or complicated) spend some time working out an option (inventing a way to do it if necessary) which is going to work and be clear to the people who need to abide by and enforce it.
Probably my biggest goof was in relation to the proposal I made about changing how
advanced permissions can be removed. I think in that instance I read the feeling of the Committee and somewhat the community incorrectly. Part of the reason it collapsed is because I hadn't spent time asking my colleagues for their thoughts on particular aspects of the proposal before I proposed it publicly.
That's not to hard to avoid in the future as, and I'd encourage all arbs to do this, it's important to first discuss with, and gather a rough consensus from, the rest of the Committee on something you want to change before proposing it. It's also important to consider that there is a belief in the community that any motion an arb proposes is coming from the Committee as a whole rather than an individual. Therefore, ensuring that, when proposing motions, it's crystal clear whether the motion is coming from Committee discussions or an individual is important.
However, as I've also said, I disagree that we make decisions directly on content (that is, we don't say the article is to say x based on source 1 and source 2). Our role, is to decide which editors have followed policy and in so doing interpret and apply relevant policies. Interpreting a policy isn't making a policy. If it were, then many government organisations wouldn't be able to operate as effectively as they can (schools, which interpret a curriculum, are an example which comes to mind). Having said that, though, I think the number of cases which have focused on the type of content disputes you mention) has decreased in the past few years. This is probably partially due to the more robust set of policies we have (that is, there are many fewer 'gaps') and the more robust enforcement procedures the project has.
I wouldn't say that sanctioning one side of a disagreement is saying that the other side of the dispute about content is "correct". Things like POV-pushing, misrepresenting sources (and reliable sources) and failing to discuss issues are conduct issues, but obviously a decision that an editor is doing that (and sanctioning them) is going to have an effect on the content in articles.
It's a good thing, that, historically, the side of a dispute the majority would say is "correct" is the side which hasn't regularly been sanctioned or Wikipedia would likely be a different place.
Eight/Five years (depending how you look at) is a reasonably significant period of time. So if a user presents an understanding of what they did wrong and how they'd avoid it in the future, plus says that they want to edit a relatively mild area I'm generally more inclined to give them a go. That's especially when the user in question is willing to discuss and willingly agrees to unban conditions/sanctions.
I was actually quite surprised that it wasn't announced on ACN as is standard for any decisions by the Committee (with some very limited exceptions), I suspect that was an oversight rather than intentional. When I was clerk, I remember criticising to the (then) Committee for unbanning editors without announcing announcing it so I absolutely agree with that aspect. Regarding not announcing who votes (etc) that seems to come in waves in the Committee, and different arbs do different things when announcing things. I am absolutely one of the arbs who will argue for all of the details (who votes etc) to be included in all of the announcements. In fact I've made the argument that we should be doing it every time we make an announcement in the interest of transparency and accountability, but have lost that a few times for different announcements.
Hopefully that answered your question? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
In effect, unban requests are about being able to convince those reviewing them that you've changed/understand. Based on the discussions on the mailing list I was comfortable that that was the case. It is true that that isn't/wasn't actually the case. There are really two camps you can be in when reviewing unban requests - lean towards to editor telling the truth (good faith), or lean towards the editor not telling the truth (bad faith). As I've said (since my RfA), I am in the lean towards good faith camp (when there aren't serious conduct issues involved - such as outing or harassment). Sometimes an editor requesting an unban will be able to convince people they've changed and then when they start editing won't do what they've said they'll do and get reblocked. Unblocking/Unbanning someone and giving them some space to either prove themselves capable or incapable of contributing (as I said, when there aren't serious issues) is how I would prefer to look at this type of request. Since then, though, I've tried to look in more depth at requests and be more critical of what they're saying. Keeping in mind that was, and still is to a lesser extent, a gap in procedure to address unban requests, the Committee has been more willing (noting that a consensus needs to be built among arbs to ask the community for comments) to seek feedback from the community before unbanning an editor. However that isn't always possible. I sorry I won't have your support, but that's my perspective on dealing with unban requests.
ArbCom procedures: 1. See above.
2. I support the gist of this one, and have proposed something similarly internally a few times to no avail. One of the reasons it hasn't succeeded is that other arbs have felt that the whole Committee should decide on the scope which can present some significant consensus building difficulties.
3. This has been discussed before (onwiki I believe), and it didn't happen as there was a preference for having evidence finalised before proposals are suggested. From memory, this was around avoiding a fait accompli type situation and so that parties don't have so much to respond to at the same time.
4. A very interesting idea, and worthy of further discussion. Could lead to quite long lists of parties and an unwillingness among community members from submitting evidence. (See comment on word limits below).
5. Different Committees have different preferences regarding word limits. When I first became a clerk it was reasonable lax, then it became more strict and the rough consensus at the moment is that strictly enforcing word limits can sometimes do more harm than good. The purpose of comments from the community, limited how much can be said can make it more difficult for arbs as, if an editor is giving good info/evidence/etc, then limiting them makes the arbs' jobs more difficult. If an editor is posting heaps of stuff which isn't that helpful, it can either be ignored, or if the Committee really wants the clerks can deal with it. We currently decide whether to have sectioned discussion on case talk pages on a case-by-case basis, I think that this is the best way to do it as it allows conditions to be targeted to the circumstances of the case. Including something about the clerks is probably a good idea, as it's not really spelt out in detail in the ArbCom Procedures.
Arbitration enforcement: Not sure that this is really needed, we've had cases and heaps of discussion about this and general agreement has been that AE is supposed to be a quick process and that it needs to be less bureaucratic not more complicated. Likewise, sanctions are intended to be able to applied by an admin without going through WP:AE. We don't want a difference to be created between going to an admin's talk page and posting at WP:AE (which could introduce an opportunity to game the system). I believe that the "Expectations of administrators" section in the Committee's procedures adequately covers this area.
Community motions: This just seems to be a more bureaucratic and complicated way of the community making suggestions to change the internal procedures of the Committee. This can be similarly achieved by filing an amendment request at ARCA. In a way, an amendment request at ARCA only needs one arb to "endorse" it by officially proposing the motion for the Committee to vote on.
I'm going to be relatively broad in my answer to the last bit as I don't want to appear to pre-judge the current case request as I will likely be ruling on it as an arb. Administrators are expected to uphold high standards of behaviour. Any editor with advanced permissions is expected to use them in accordance with community policies, if they're being paid to use them I'd question whether they would have developed a significant-enough COI to make them INVOLVED in that topic area. If the admin has properly disclosed and they are very careful to avoid using their tools in the area in which they are paid editing then I wouldn't necessarily have a reason to desysop them. Having said that, it's going to depend very significantly on the circumstances.
That depends on your definition of a drama board and whether you think that drama boards can still sometimes be useful. I think on a project which has an increasing focus on ensuring that editors have a neutral point of view, COIN has a place in bring attention to articles and editors where a COI may exist so that other editors, who are neutral, can review the article/editor's contribs. I think it's important that COIN's role is focused on content rather than conduct which can be can be difficult to fully discuss in public.
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}
b. Almost always, yes.
c. Generally yes, but it depends if the evidence is going to make a difference to the arbs' opinions or if it, or something similar, has already been rebutted.
d. I can think of a some situations where new evidence in a PD would be appropriate and could happen. It could be that new evidence has come to light since the workshop closed, or it could be something which an arbitrator found while writing the proposed decision. Arbitration cases don't need to be adversarial, there is scope for them to be more inquisitorial. I don't believe that it would be appropriate, however, for that evidence to be voted on in a proposed decision without giving that editor a chance to comment on it.
I agree with the broad point of OR's second paragraph.
I didn't agree with OR's third paragraph initially as Joe had had chances in the past to change his behaviour (similar to DeltaQuad's argument).
There were two things which made me change my mind to decline. The first is that Joe had demonstrated an awareness of the issues in his behaviour and had come up with a reasonable plan to avoid it. The second was that I didn't believe that enough arbs wanted to have a case on the subject. So continuing to support one, and hence prevent anything happening with the request, wasn't the best approach for me to take, given that I was already being swung by the arguments to suspend the case. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Pre-2016: I think this remedy is one of the strangest I've seen (I remembered it as I submitted a clarification request about it). "Automation" an impossibly large thing and it's impossibly defined in the remedy. I think it actually informed somewhat my process of drafting proposed decisions. I've tried, as much as I can, that I seek feedback from both the rest of the Committee as well as the community so that the decisions are as clear as they can be.
My term: I feel slightly awkward about this as I'm effectively bashing my colleagues, but here goes. I think the number of changes to the Palestine-Israeli 'consensus-required', '1RR' and '500/30' remedies over the past few years is a little ridiculous. As I mentioned above, I think the way to avoid issues like this in the future is to ensure that proposals get feedback from others, and in situations were the remedy is known to be contentious (or complicated) spend some time working out an option (inventing a way to do it if necessary) which is going to work and be clear to the people who need to abide by and enforce it.
Probably my biggest goof was in relation to the proposal I made about changing how
advanced permissions can be removed. I think in that instance I read the feeling of the Committee and somewhat the community incorrectly. Part of the reason it collapsed is because I hadn't spent time asking my colleagues for their thoughts on particular aspects of the proposal before I proposed it publicly.
That's not to hard to avoid in the future as, and I'd encourage all arbs to do this, it's important to first discuss with, and gather a rough consensus from, the rest of the Committee on something you want to change before proposing it. It's also important to consider that there is a belief in the community that any motion an arb proposes is coming from the Committee as a whole rather than an individual. Therefore, ensuring that, when proposing motions, it's crystal clear whether the motion is coming from Committee discussions or an individual is important.
However, as I've also said, I disagree that we make decisions directly on content (that is, we don't say the article is to say x based on source 1 and source 2). Our role, is to decide which editors have followed policy and in so doing interpret and apply relevant policies. Interpreting a policy isn't making a policy. If it were, then many government organisations wouldn't be able to operate as effectively as they can (schools, which interpret a curriculum, are an example which comes to mind). Having said that, though, I think the number of cases which have focused on the type of content disputes you mention) has decreased in the past few years. This is probably partially due to the more robust set of policies we have (that is, there are many fewer 'gaps') and the more robust enforcement procedures the project has.
I wouldn't say that sanctioning one side of a disagreement is saying that the other side of the dispute about content is "correct". Things like POV-pushing, misrepresenting sources (and reliable sources) and failing to discuss issues are conduct issues, but obviously a decision that an editor is doing that (and sanctioning them) is going to have an effect on the content in articles.
It's a good thing, that, historically, the side of a dispute the majority would say is "correct" is the side which hasn't regularly been sanctioned or Wikipedia would likely be a different place.
Eight/Five years (depending how you look at) is a reasonably significant period of time. So if a user presents an understanding of what they did wrong and how they'd avoid it in the future, plus says that they want to edit a relatively mild area I'm generally more inclined to give them a go. That's especially when the user in question is willing to discuss and willingly agrees to unban conditions/sanctions.
I was actually quite surprised that it wasn't announced on ACN as is standard for any decisions by the Committee (with some very limited exceptions), I suspect that was an oversight rather than intentional. When I was clerk, I remember criticising to the (then) Committee for unbanning editors without announcing announcing it so I absolutely agree with that aspect. Regarding not announcing who votes (etc) that seems to come in waves in the Committee, and different arbs do different things when announcing things. I am absolutely one of the arbs who will argue for all of the details (who votes etc) to be included in all of the announcements. In fact I've made the argument that we should be doing it every time we make an announcement in the interest of transparency and accountability, but have lost that a few times for different announcements.
Hopefully that answered your question? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
In effect, unban requests are about being able to convince those reviewing them that you've changed/understand. Based on the discussions on the mailing list I was comfortable that that was the case. It is true that that isn't/wasn't actually the case. There are really two camps you can be in when reviewing unban requests - lean towards to editor telling the truth (good faith), or lean towards the editor not telling the truth (bad faith). As I've said (since my RfA), I am in the lean towards good faith camp (when there aren't serious conduct issues involved - such as outing or harassment). Sometimes an editor requesting an unban will be able to convince people they've changed and then when they start editing won't do what they've said they'll do and get reblocked. Unblocking/Unbanning someone and giving them some space to either prove themselves capable or incapable of contributing (as I said, when there aren't serious issues) is how I would prefer to look at this type of request. Since then, though, I've tried to look in more depth at requests and be more critical of what they're saying. Keeping in mind that was, and still is to a lesser extent, a gap in procedure to address unban requests, the Committee has been more willing (noting that a consensus needs to be built among arbs to ask the community for comments) to seek feedback from the community before unbanning an editor. However that isn't always possible. I sorry I won't have your support, but that's my perspective on dealing with unban requests.
ArbCom procedures: 1. See above.
2. I support the gist of this one, and have proposed something similarly internally a few times to no avail. One of the reasons it hasn't succeeded is that other arbs have felt that the whole Committee should decide on the scope which can present some significant consensus building difficulties.
3. This has been discussed before (onwiki I believe), and it didn't happen as there was a preference for having evidence finalised before proposals are suggested. From memory, this was around avoiding a fait accompli type situation and so that parties don't have so much to respond to at the same time.
4. A very interesting idea, and worthy of further discussion. Could lead to quite long lists of parties and an unwillingness among community members from submitting evidence. (See comment on word limits below).
5. Different Committees have different preferences regarding word limits. When I first became a clerk it was reasonable lax, then it became more strict and the rough consensus at the moment is that strictly enforcing word limits can sometimes do more harm than good. The purpose of comments from the community, limited how much can be said can make it more difficult for arbs as, if an editor is giving good info/evidence/etc, then limiting them makes the arbs' jobs more difficult. If an editor is posting heaps of stuff which isn't that helpful, it can either be ignored, or if the Committee really wants the clerks can deal with it. We currently decide whether to have sectioned discussion on case talk pages on a case-by-case basis, I think that this is the best way to do it as it allows conditions to be targeted to the circumstances of the case. Including something about the clerks is probably a good idea, as it's not really spelt out in detail in the ArbCom Procedures.
Arbitration enforcement: Not sure that this is really needed, we've had cases and heaps of discussion about this and general agreement has been that AE is supposed to be a quick process and that it needs to be less bureaucratic not more complicated. Likewise, sanctions are intended to be able to applied by an admin without going through WP:AE. We don't want a difference to be created between going to an admin's talk page and posting at WP:AE (which could introduce an opportunity to game the system). I believe that the "Expectations of administrators" section in the Committee's procedures adequately covers this area.
Community motions: This just seems to be a more bureaucratic and complicated way of the community making suggestions to change the internal procedures of the Committee. This can be similarly achieved by filing an amendment request at ARCA. In a way, an amendment request at ARCA only needs one arb to "endorse" it by officially proposing the motion for the Committee to vote on.
I'm going to be relatively broad in my answer to the last bit as I don't want to appear to pre-judge the current case request as I will likely be ruling on it as an arb. Administrators are expected to uphold high standards of behaviour. Any editor with advanced permissions is expected to use them in accordance with community policies, if they're being paid to use them I'd question whether they would have developed a significant-enough COI to make them INVOLVED in that topic area. If the admin has properly disclosed and they are very careful to avoid using their tools in the area in which they are paid editing then I wouldn't necessarily have a reason to desysop them. Having said that, it's going to depend very significantly on the circumstances.
That depends on your definition of a drama board and whether you think that drama boards can still sometimes be useful. I think on a project which has an increasing focus on ensuring that editors have a neutral point of view, COIN has a place in bring attention to articles and editors where a COI may exist so that other editors, who are neutral, can review the article/editor's contribs. I think it's important that COIN's role is focused on content rather than conduct which can be can be difficult to fully discuss in public.