As some may already know, the Arbitration Committee is undergoing some changes in the way cases are handled. Cases will be processed by two or three Arbitrators depending on the case while Proposed Decisions' voting will be done by the whole Committee — not including, of course, inactive and/or recused Arbitrators.
It has been proven many times in the past that Workshop pages produce more negative results than positive ones. In other times, ArbCom case pages were left unsolicited, for one reason or another, by Arbitrators until the time the Proposed Decision was processed. There is no doubt that all that have helped little and made some cases take more time than it should have taken or that the decisions were not well-taken and remedies not well-tailored.
My idea, as well as that of other Arbitrators and Community members, is to act proactively in managing case workflow. That is to have the Arbitrator(s) as the guiding and leading party of the whole process. Clerks will be empowered to make sure the case is run smoothly and disruption inexistent. There are many advantages to be sought by taking that approach. The Arbitrator(s) could assess the situation better and look for opportunities which can be taken Just-In-Time instead of missing them and leaving the case take its flow under no control until everything gets missed.
Some of the opportunities could have material effects; the Arbitrator(s) may find out that the case may not need any sanctioning remedies because parties may probably agree with the Arbitrator(s)' opinion that other ways of resolving the case could bring better results. Other opportunities could have intrinsic effects making the case serving as a learning stage for the parties. Another very important gain is leveraging users' conduct and establishing a clean atmosphere and a better environment for a smooth case with the least disruption possible. In most cases, the pressure and the lack of organization in case pages lead parties to behave and act nervously, impatiently and inappropriately resulting in more complications and consequences which are unneeded. Parties and/or non-parties get impatient and tired day after day while waiting for the final decision as well and that could easily influence their behavior on-site. That is not a good and fair thing for sure. We are all contributors and do not deserve that. We didn't commit crimes after all to deserve that. Let's not forget after all the time saved and gained —a time which should be invested in other productive things for the project.
Basically, what I am suggesting here is a new procedure of running the case efficiently. There is nothing set in stone and the Arbitrator(s) or the Clerks, under their own discretion, may change the procedures if needed and parties and non-parties alike must respect Arbitrators and Clerks directions. The workshop page will serve as what it is set for; just Workshoping (no forumshopping) and no unnecessary details and discussions will be held here. In fact, most has been already said and documented by the parties through statements and evidence presentation. I am suggesting to change radically the way discussions are produced in case pages (mainly workshops). As suggested here by user:Future Perfect at Sunrise, interviews may be a very good idea.
Prior to any questions, I'd like to give an opportunity to every single party of the case to express themselves in a 500 words statement. And, no. I'd not ask for a statement with evidences since the evidence page is set for that. I'd not read and comment on statements full of accusations. I'd probably ask the Clerk to remove it if necessary. What I'll be asking for is a statement where parties lay out what they believe they are having a case and what is the outcome sought.
I will then proceed to noting (See example), review notes and non-detailed Proposed Decisions made by non-parties (see below for more details about non-parties PD) at the talk page and prepare the Proposed Decision if there are no significant objections to noting by the parties. Following that, a Proposed Decision will be posted at the Workshop page for review by parties and non-parties who would use the talk page where concerns and/or significant objections about Proposed Decision —if any— will be addressed. Where there are no significant objections to proposals, they will be posted on the Proposed Decision page ready for voting by the Committee.
Non-parties' participation in general have usually brought many positive things than negative ones. However, in many cases, that was proven totally wrong. In many cases, non-parties uncontrolled participation has brought more damage to the case than any good. For this reason non-parties participation will be guided and directed by the Arbitrator(s) and the Clerks. Proposed Decisions by non-parties are always welcome; however, and in order to have fast track cases with the minimum of time wasting, non-parties will be asked to produce general points at this talk page. Non-parties will be able to mention the general points without needing to follow any format or template. The simple the better. More details on this will be posted this week-end.
The idea of questions is not a novelty. In many cases, Arbitrators used to ask involved parties questions which are related to evidences or others for clarifications. In some other cases, and due to privacy concerns, questions are sent and replied via e-mail.
Questions should never be inquisitional. Questions, in general, are set to help Arbitrators analyze the situation better. What is new in this process is that questions will have a form and will be devided into two separate rounds. The first round will involve general questions that will be asked to the parties. The second round will consist of detailed questions depending on the course of the case and the answers of the other party.
Arbitrator(s) may take notes during or after reception of answers. The notes will be posted just under the answers sub-section. Once all answers are responded, the Arbitrator(s) will summarize all notes and post them at the bottom of the page. The Arbitrator(s) may use some indicators such as
and
to indicate to the parties that S/he is satisfied with the answer or not. In case more clarification is needed, the Arbitrator(s) may use the
sign.
In practical terms, the Arbitrator(s) will look at the evidence and prepare a list (not very long actually but that depends on the case) of questions for parties to answer (less than 500 words per answer). The parties would also be able to ask the Arbitrator(s) to produce further pertinent questions to the other party if they believe the Arbitrator(s) missed any.
The number of questions may differ from one party to another. That should not be considered as an indication of anything apart from the simple explanation that the Arbitrator(s) may need more answers for their analysis. Parties are requested to answer the questions within 7 days.
Participants to the case use to post their Proposed Decisions at the Workshop main page. This method has had some advantages such as easy access and formality among others. However, Proposed Decisions by participants, especially when there are many, use to clutter the Workshop and making it hard to load —especially for people with slow connections. Other inconveniences include lengthy and unnecessary discussions which sometimes result in inappropriate behavior between participants. As we are trying to make the case work smoothly in a more organized manner, I'll ask participants who would propose desicions to start a Workshop subpage for that purpose with the WP:RFAR/Casename/Workshop/Username-PD format —making it easier for the Clerks to track them using Special:PrefixFinder. We will create sections in the Workshop main page where participants will link to their own Proposed Decisions.
Also, previously, many participants produced quasi-similar Proposed Decisions where the difference is minimal. I'd encourage similar Proposed Decisions to get merged into one. That is to say that two participants with quasi-similar PDs can merge their PDs into a single page (as the Committee does with the final Proposed Decision). I'd like then participants to add briefly in a few lines (not exceeding 10 lines) a summary of their PDs just below the link to it. Once the case is closed, Proposed Decisions by participants can be posted to the Workshop page for convenienece and formalities purposes so their subpages can be deleted.
'Analysis of evidence' will be transferred to the /Evidence talk page. Opinions and discussion of policies and principles should be steered away from the evidence pages to the workshop page.
The main role of the Clerks is to assist the Committee with procedural aspects of its work including enforcing Arbitrator(s) guidelines on statements and comments. This gives the Clerks and empowers them to mantain order in case pages. The parties and non-parties are expected to respect Clerks' decisions and action unless they believe there is some sort of abuse in which case, they should be noted at the talk page of the Arbitrator(s) handling the case. Workshops and other case pages should not be used to report or discuss Clerks' actions. Reporting Clerks's actions during case proceeding to ANI or other Wikipedia venues before contacting the Arbitrator(s) would be inappropriate. That should be observed at all times and repeated inappropriate actions by the parties or non-parties may result in a restriction to use the case pages where troubles are noted.
This is a new approach we'll be taking. After a few days from starting the process formally, the Arbitrator(s) will ask the parties to estimate a deadline for the case closure. After a consensus is reached, the Clerks will make an announcement to the rest of the Committee and the Community via proper channels. The reason for this is to make everyone responsible for the process. It will also be taken as an incentive for the parties to work harder and avoid disruption which would delay the case process to no set date. Deadlines are not set in stone and can be updated depending on the course and the flow of the case. However, parties and non-parties are urged to do their best to respect them. I am working on the details and I am planning to announce them this week-end.
Because of the new introduced procedures and the points addressed above, the Workshop page and its related talk page will undergo some changes for that purpose. The clerks and Arbitrators are working on the new pages' layout which will be ready before April 14, 2009.
Users will be requested to move their Proposed Decisions to their mainspace as explained above before that date and wait for the Clerks instructions.
I am placing this section here so that it'd make more sense
Everyone participating in the case pages is bound by the Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
The purpose of these pages is to fix long-term issues. This is neither ANI nor any other place in the project since this deals with the last step of the dispute resolution process. This place should not be used to extend the dispute. Conduct between participants should follow the Wikipedia prescribed policies and guidelines. There will be no place for personal attacks and incivility; as an example, here 'b*l**h*t' is counted as a violation of the civility policy while 'x is stupid' is counted as a violation of no personal attacks policy (no - 'x is lazy' is not a personal attack). There's a reason for that; if participants keep attacking and being uncivil to eachother they would risk stricter remedies. So conduct is important to participants because bad behavior would affect the final decision since the Committee would consider that the problem of behaviour is still unresolved and constitues the main problem and therefore should be remedied with the adequate measures. After the first and last warning, any participant who violates the policy again will be blocked or restricted up to a period of 24h.
IPs are allowed to participate as long as they are bringing positive points. Disruption by IPs is not allowed and blocks may be issuedon the spot. In case of suspicion of sockpuppetry, I'll ask the Clerks to file a sockpuppet investigation.
I need to make clear that this not set to scare participants as much as it is set to protect participants against eachother and to help them avoid harsh or negative remedies.
Please let me know if you do agree to this approach ASAP because I have to set up a deadline to the case. If you have any other practical idea please let me know. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
All seems ok to me. As for a deadline, maybe by the end of this month, or May 7th at the latest? We seem to be fairly well into proposals by now; at this rate we'll probably see remedy suggestions (if necessary, as stated above) within a week or two. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 19:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up that per the above thread, /workshop like discussions are continuing on the above page. Tiptoety talk 23:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just changed the new Workshop page format here. Arbitrators may be posting the questions (Round I) during the week-end. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Just so I think everyone is clear, only Arbs, Clerks and the Parties should really ever add or remove any content from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop in this system? rootology ( C)( T) 06:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure where to put this but I am putting this out for discussion.
This is something I should have done almost a month ago before this case opened. I am asking that Newyorkbrad recuse him/herself from this case for reasons below:
I know that the Arbitration Committee most likely knows the policy, but would like to remind everyone that the arbitration policy states that:
Could somebody notify Newyorkbrad of this proposal to maintain neutrality? — Mythdon t/ c 21:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"There's no assumption of bad faith on my end. " - Quote: "This whole situation is starting to look more and more vengeful"''. That comment is an assumption of bad faith. Saying that this appears "vengeful" is a direct assumption of bad faith, given that the word means the same thing as "vengeance" accompanied by the situation. "Once again, you appear to be accusing NYB of having a rather severe character flaw" is a comment you said telling me not to assume bad faith. I have told you that I am not assuming any bad faith, but you continue to accuse me of assuming bad faith. Now, it is time that you cease accusing me of assuming bad faith. And believe it or not, you did too tell me not to do something then did it yourself. — Mythdon t/ c 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The suggestion for my recusal is noted. Any other party or editor wishing to comment should do so within 72 hours. I will respond here after that. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a question about the RFA "involvement". Based on that, could no sitting Arb participate in any RFAR where someone voted them up or down in that Arb's RFA? What about that Arb's AC election? Or their 'crat election? Or their future Checkuser/Oversight election, if one of them become Arbs? What if I voted to give a user Rollback today, and he became an Arb in 4 years? What if I left that user a welcome template message? rootology ( C)( T) 01:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
As requested by Mythdon, I have considered whether I should recuse myself from this case. As indicated above, I requested comments from parties to the case and other editors on this request, and have considered all of the input received. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the discussion. Because the question of when arbitrators should recuse is a recurring one, I will take this opportunity to discuss the standards that I believe should govern recusal in general, before applying them to the facts of this case. (I acknowledge with a smile the irony that I am about to type a lengthy post on this talkpage, despite the discussion on the workshop talkpage in the Abd and JzG case about the need for brevity in talk posts. Accordingly, advance "tl;dr" dispensation is granted to anyone requesting it, and those uninterested in my philosophy of recusal or the details of this case may skip to the last paragraph, far lower on this page.)
At the outset, I will emphasize that I am sure no personal slight at me was intended, and certainly none is taken, at the suggestion that my arbitrating in this case could create an appearance of partiality or impropriety. I am fully familiar with recusal practices both on the Arbitration Committee as well as in real-world judicial systems where I have studied this issue (as it happens, I am the major contributor to recusal in mainspace, which ought to be globalized and brought up to FA standards) and have at least once litigated them in an appellate court.
The policy that governs my, and I believe the other arbitrators', decisions regarding recusal from cases is that I will recuse when either circumstances outside my role as an arbitrator create a conflict of interest should I participate, or where it is my view that because of such circumstances, my impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Applying these criteria, I have recused myself as an arbitrator in cases as varied as the Zeraeph case (because I had once called on ANI for a sanction against the main party) and the September 11 conspiracy theories line of cases (because I live and work 4 miles from the World Trade Center sight and may be unable to evaluate edits addressing the absurd and loathsome "controlled demolition hypothesis" without emotion), among others.
It is my view that in cases of genuine doubt, an arbitrator may properly err, if at all, on the side of recusing. Unlike prior periods where only 4 or 5 active arbitrators were shouldering the workload, at present we have 16 active arbs, all of whom are fully engaged. So long as this is the case, a decision by one or two to sit out a case is not likely to unfairly delay a decision or burden the other members of the committee. At the same time, though, and as I wrote in a proposed redraft of the arbitration policy, recusal should be neither sought nor granted for slight or trivial causes. We do not have or want a situation in which the parties are allowed to select from among the arbitrators who hear their cases, which would allow for "gaming the system" and create the problems akin to those categorized in the real world as "judge-shopping." (I do not in any way suggest that this is what Mythdon has sought to do here.)
With this as background, I have considered whether I should participate in this case. I do not believe that the two items cited by Mythdon in his initial request, without more, would be sufficient to warrant recusal. First, the fact that Ryulong cast a supportive !vote in my RfA more than two years ago strikes me as irrelevant. I do not believe that a reasonable and impartial observer of the arbitration process would consider that a party's favorable (or unfavorable) vote in an arbitrator's RfA, or for that matter in the ArbCom elections themselves, would raise questions about the arbitrator's impartiality in a subsequent case involving that editor. The fact is that despite the vast size of Wikipedia, we have a core community of probably a few hundred people who participate in things like RfAs and elections. We also, as I said, now have 16 arbitrators. Although I have not done any analysis, I suspect that in virtually every case we have, one or more of the parties have cast RfA votes for one or more of the arbitrators. Myself, I am sure I have helped decide cases involving several of the people who voted for my adminship or my arbship, and the fact of their having done so has never weighed in any of my thinking on the cases. So I put this first issue to one side.
Mythdon's second diff, in which I commented on Ryulong's talkpage concerning an earlier aspect of the current dispute, raises a closer question. At least to some extent, it could be said that I expressed a view on part of the issue now being arbitrated. To be sure, it was hardly a controversial or emphatic view, but more of an attempt to defuse tension at a moment in which two editors were involved in what struck me at the time as a needlessly emotional and bitter dispute. The statement and my fleeting "involvement" in this dispute would not color my view of this case. Until Mythdon reminded me of it, I had forgotten having said it. Moreover, making comments like these is part of what I do around Wikipedia. Sometimes, though not as often as I would like and apparently not in this instance, it actually helps. It used to be that I would spend a few minutes of my wikitime each day scanning down AN and ANI, trying to make helpful comments and suggestions for resolving or toning down disputes. I do a little bit less of that now, in large part because I have learned that any comment made by an arbitrator in a community discussion is subject either to being given disproportionate attention, or to later becoming the basis of a potential recusal issue if the dispute comes to arbitration. (I refer to this, at least in my own mind, as the "Miltopia effect", after the former user who once predicted in a Wikipedia Review thread about my election that exactly this would happen. But I digress.)
I do not, however, endorse the idea that an arbitrator's having made a passing comment on a dispute automatically warrants recusal. Arbitrators are drawn from the administrator corps, and in particular typically from that segment of the administrator corps that tries hardest to resolve disputes and work with problematic situations and unhappy editors. To take 16 of the most active admins away from commenting on day-to-day issues of administration would be damaging. Moreover, just as it is often (justifably but exaggeratedly) suggested that many administrators become detached from day-to-day editing, so too I am concerned with any policy that would cause the arbitrators to become needlessly detached from day-to-day administrating. So it is a closer question, but I do not believe that either the reality or appearance of a conflict of interest or a lack of impartiality is created by Mythdon's second diff, either.
I therefore conclude that these two issues by themselves would not warrant recusal. I am also comforted in that conclusion by the fact that it is also the view of most of those who have commented above.
Nonetheless, apart from the concerns Mythdon initially raised (which honestly had not struck my mind at all), I had been considering recusing myself from this case for a separate reason, alluded to in his second post above. This is that I previously commented at great (and according to some, undue) length about Ryulong's conduct as an administrator, which is what I was referring to in my comment at the case-acceptance stage. The comment in question is archived in Ryulong's talk archives here for those who may wish to review it.
I am not certain whether this comment either could give anyone grounds for questioning my impartiality in this case. It would not even be clear to me whether it would work to bias me favorably toward Ryulong (because I opposed a call for his desysopping once before), or unfavorably toward Ryulong (because I would be disappointed that he has allegedly not corrected all the concerns I raised with him a year and a half ago). Nonetheless, I cannot reasonably categorize it as a fleeting or passing comment; it was a substantial examination of his work as an administrator, which, brought up to date, is pretty much the same issue before the committee in this case. Reviewing this colloquy has also brought back to my mind a couple of conversations I had in the past with Ryulong on IRC concerning certain issues; these, too, would not warrant my recusal in and of themselves, but they must be considered in the overall mix.
When I combine the prior commentary on my part with Mythdon's presumedly good-faith concerns about whether I should sit in this case, I reach the conclusion, by a narrow margin, that in view of the cumulative weight of circumstances that I should not. Accordingly, the request for my recusal is granted, albeit primarily for different reasons than those initially suggested by Mythdon, and I shall mark the ACA template accordingly. I would again like to thank those who have commented in this discussion. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem as though any more proposals have come up lately, and discussion is stalling on most of them. With two weeks left before the deadline, maybe it's time to start moving some things over to start the voting phase? Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 19:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems that we are a bit behind schedule but I hope we can try to catch up.
-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Due to the appearence of new evidence, the case closure is postponed for 3 additional days to let participants respond to the additional questions. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This is to inform all participants that I've just posted the general questions at the Workshop page. As discussed before, participants may suggest additional questions here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm uninvolved, but from analyzing the evidence, a common theme here seems to be rules layering. On one hand you have Ryulong thinking himself unable to do anything about Mythdon annoying him all the time, because Mythdon isn't technically breaking any rules, and on the other hand you have Ryulong threatening good faith newbies with bans for violating the rules.
What I've also noticed, is Ryulong seeing rule violations when they're not there. For instance punishing that user due to violating the talk page guideline of not signing their posts, or rolling back "vandalism" when the edit is actually in good faith.
So whether or not the arbitration committee finds him to have violated any rules concerning administrator conduct, and whether or not they believe he'll not violate those rules in the future, I think that Ryulong should be de-admined. Ryulong seems to be more concerned with enforcing the rules than with fostering an environment that is conductive to writing an encyclopedia. Simply put, people like Ryulong having access to admin tools is bad for wikipedia's editing environment, especially the fifth pillar.
Look at things this way. If he retains his adminship, there will be all sorts of paper work, requests for comment, heated discussion concerning the legitimacy of AOR, filed complaints and general drama. If he loses his adminship, then the worst thing that can happen is that he'll ragequit, and the best thing that can happen is that he'll have more time available to actually edit articles, instead of meta-meta-meta type stuff.
-- ScWizard ( talk) 05:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This is to inform all participants that I've just posted the specific questions at the Workshop page. As discussed before, participants may suggest additional questions here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I have received some new private evidence that I'll be adding to the evidence page later today. Consequently, some new questions may be added to let the parties respond to the evidence(s). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom PD is posted. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
As some may already know, the Arbitration Committee is undergoing some changes in the way cases are handled. Cases will be processed by two or three Arbitrators depending on the case while Proposed Decisions' voting will be done by the whole Committee — not including, of course, inactive and/or recused Arbitrators.
It has been proven many times in the past that Workshop pages produce more negative results than positive ones. In other times, ArbCom case pages were left unsolicited, for one reason or another, by Arbitrators until the time the Proposed Decision was processed. There is no doubt that all that have helped little and made some cases take more time than it should have taken or that the decisions were not well-taken and remedies not well-tailored.
My idea, as well as that of other Arbitrators and Community members, is to act proactively in managing case workflow. That is to have the Arbitrator(s) as the guiding and leading party of the whole process. Clerks will be empowered to make sure the case is run smoothly and disruption inexistent. There are many advantages to be sought by taking that approach. The Arbitrator(s) could assess the situation better and look for opportunities which can be taken Just-In-Time instead of missing them and leaving the case take its flow under no control until everything gets missed.
Some of the opportunities could have material effects; the Arbitrator(s) may find out that the case may not need any sanctioning remedies because parties may probably agree with the Arbitrator(s)' opinion that other ways of resolving the case could bring better results. Other opportunities could have intrinsic effects making the case serving as a learning stage for the parties. Another very important gain is leveraging users' conduct and establishing a clean atmosphere and a better environment for a smooth case with the least disruption possible. In most cases, the pressure and the lack of organization in case pages lead parties to behave and act nervously, impatiently and inappropriately resulting in more complications and consequences which are unneeded. Parties and/or non-parties get impatient and tired day after day while waiting for the final decision as well and that could easily influence their behavior on-site. That is not a good and fair thing for sure. We are all contributors and do not deserve that. We didn't commit crimes after all to deserve that. Let's not forget after all the time saved and gained —a time which should be invested in other productive things for the project.
Basically, what I am suggesting here is a new procedure of running the case efficiently. There is nothing set in stone and the Arbitrator(s) or the Clerks, under their own discretion, may change the procedures if needed and parties and non-parties alike must respect Arbitrators and Clerks directions. The workshop page will serve as what it is set for; just Workshoping (no forumshopping) and no unnecessary details and discussions will be held here. In fact, most has been already said and documented by the parties through statements and evidence presentation. I am suggesting to change radically the way discussions are produced in case pages (mainly workshops). As suggested here by user:Future Perfect at Sunrise, interviews may be a very good idea.
Prior to any questions, I'd like to give an opportunity to every single party of the case to express themselves in a 500 words statement. And, no. I'd not ask for a statement with evidences since the evidence page is set for that. I'd not read and comment on statements full of accusations. I'd probably ask the Clerk to remove it if necessary. What I'll be asking for is a statement where parties lay out what they believe they are having a case and what is the outcome sought.
I will then proceed to noting (See example), review notes and non-detailed Proposed Decisions made by non-parties (see below for more details about non-parties PD) at the talk page and prepare the Proposed Decision if there are no significant objections to noting by the parties. Following that, a Proposed Decision will be posted at the Workshop page for review by parties and non-parties who would use the talk page where concerns and/or significant objections about Proposed Decision —if any— will be addressed. Where there are no significant objections to proposals, they will be posted on the Proposed Decision page ready for voting by the Committee.
Non-parties' participation in general have usually brought many positive things than negative ones. However, in many cases, that was proven totally wrong. In many cases, non-parties uncontrolled participation has brought more damage to the case than any good. For this reason non-parties participation will be guided and directed by the Arbitrator(s) and the Clerks. Proposed Decisions by non-parties are always welcome; however, and in order to have fast track cases with the minimum of time wasting, non-parties will be asked to produce general points at this talk page. Non-parties will be able to mention the general points without needing to follow any format or template. The simple the better. More details on this will be posted this week-end.
The idea of questions is not a novelty. In many cases, Arbitrators used to ask involved parties questions which are related to evidences or others for clarifications. In some other cases, and due to privacy concerns, questions are sent and replied via e-mail.
Questions should never be inquisitional. Questions, in general, are set to help Arbitrators analyze the situation better. What is new in this process is that questions will have a form and will be devided into two separate rounds. The first round will involve general questions that will be asked to the parties. The second round will consist of detailed questions depending on the course of the case and the answers of the other party.
Arbitrator(s) may take notes during or after reception of answers. The notes will be posted just under the answers sub-section. Once all answers are responded, the Arbitrator(s) will summarize all notes and post them at the bottom of the page. The Arbitrator(s) may use some indicators such as
and
to indicate to the parties that S/he is satisfied with the answer or not. In case more clarification is needed, the Arbitrator(s) may use the
sign.
In practical terms, the Arbitrator(s) will look at the evidence and prepare a list (not very long actually but that depends on the case) of questions for parties to answer (less than 500 words per answer). The parties would also be able to ask the Arbitrator(s) to produce further pertinent questions to the other party if they believe the Arbitrator(s) missed any.
The number of questions may differ from one party to another. That should not be considered as an indication of anything apart from the simple explanation that the Arbitrator(s) may need more answers for their analysis. Parties are requested to answer the questions within 7 days.
Participants to the case use to post their Proposed Decisions at the Workshop main page. This method has had some advantages such as easy access and formality among others. However, Proposed Decisions by participants, especially when there are many, use to clutter the Workshop and making it hard to load —especially for people with slow connections. Other inconveniences include lengthy and unnecessary discussions which sometimes result in inappropriate behavior between participants. As we are trying to make the case work smoothly in a more organized manner, I'll ask participants who would propose desicions to start a Workshop subpage for that purpose with the WP:RFAR/Casename/Workshop/Username-PD format —making it easier for the Clerks to track them using Special:PrefixFinder. We will create sections in the Workshop main page where participants will link to their own Proposed Decisions.
Also, previously, many participants produced quasi-similar Proposed Decisions where the difference is minimal. I'd encourage similar Proposed Decisions to get merged into one. That is to say that two participants with quasi-similar PDs can merge their PDs into a single page (as the Committee does with the final Proposed Decision). I'd like then participants to add briefly in a few lines (not exceeding 10 lines) a summary of their PDs just below the link to it. Once the case is closed, Proposed Decisions by participants can be posted to the Workshop page for convenienece and formalities purposes so their subpages can be deleted.
'Analysis of evidence' will be transferred to the /Evidence talk page. Opinions and discussion of policies and principles should be steered away from the evidence pages to the workshop page.
The main role of the Clerks is to assist the Committee with procedural aspects of its work including enforcing Arbitrator(s) guidelines on statements and comments. This gives the Clerks and empowers them to mantain order in case pages. The parties and non-parties are expected to respect Clerks' decisions and action unless they believe there is some sort of abuse in which case, they should be noted at the talk page of the Arbitrator(s) handling the case. Workshops and other case pages should not be used to report or discuss Clerks' actions. Reporting Clerks's actions during case proceeding to ANI or other Wikipedia venues before contacting the Arbitrator(s) would be inappropriate. That should be observed at all times and repeated inappropriate actions by the parties or non-parties may result in a restriction to use the case pages where troubles are noted.
This is a new approach we'll be taking. After a few days from starting the process formally, the Arbitrator(s) will ask the parties to estimate a deadline for the case closure. After a consensus is reached, the Clerks will make an announcement to the rest of the Committee and the Community via proper channels. The reason for this is to make everyone responsible for the process. It will also be taken as an incentive for the parties to work harder and avoid disruption which would delay the case process to no set date. Deadlines are not set in stone and can be updated depending on the course and the flow of the case. However, parties and non-parties are urged to do their best to respect them. I am working on the details and I am planning to announce them this week-end.
Because of the new introduced procedures and the points addressed above, the Workshop page and its related talk page will undergo some changes for that purpose. The clerks and Arbitrators are working on the new pages' layout which will be ready before April 14, 2009.
Users will be requested to move their Proposed Decisions to their mainspace as explained above before that date and wait for the Clerks instructions.
I am placing this section here so that it'd make more sense
Everyone participating in the case pages is bound by the Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
The purpose of these pages is to fix long-term issues. This is neither ANI nor any other place in the project since this deals with the last step of the dispute resolution process. This place should not be used to extend the dispute. Conduct between participants should follow the Wikipedia prescribed policies and guidelines. There will be no place for personal attacks and incivility; as an example, here 'b*l**h*t' is counted as a violation of the civility policy while 'x is stupid' is counted as a violation of no personal attacks policy (no - 'x is lazy' is not a personal attack). There's a reason for that; if participants keep attacking and being uncivil to eachother they would risk stricter remedies. So conduct is important to participants because bad behavior would affect the final decision since the Committee would consider that the problem of behaviour is still unresolved and constitues the main problem and therefore should be remedied with the adequate measures. After the first and last warning, any participant who violates the policy again will be blocked or restricted up to a period of 24h.
IPs are allowed to participate as long as they are bringing positive points. Disruption by IPs is not allowed and blocks may be issuedon the spot. In case of suspicion of sockpuppetry, I'll ask the Clerks to file a sockpuppet investigation.
I need to make clear that this not set to scare participants as much as it is set to protect participants against eachother and to help them avoid harsh or negative remedies.
Please let me know if you do agree to this approach ASAP because I have to set up a deadline to the case. If you have any other practical idea please let me know. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
All seems ok to me. As for a deadline, maybe by the end of this month, or May 7th at the latest? We seem to be fairly well into proposals by now; at this rate we'll probably see remedy suggestions (if necessary, as stated above) within a week or two. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 19:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up that per the above thread, /workshop like discussions are continuing on the above page. Tiptoety talk 23:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just changed the new Workshop page format here. Arbitrators may be posting the questions (Round I) during the week-end. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Just so I think everyone is clear, only Arbs, Clerks and the Parties should really ever add or remove any content from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop in this system? rootology ( C)( T) 06:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure where to put this but I am putting this out for discussion.
This is something I should have done almost a month ago before this case opened. I am asking that Newyorkbrad recuse him/herself from this case for reasons below:
I know that the Arbitration Committee most likely knows the policy, but would like to remind everyone that the arbitration policy states that:
Could somebody notify Newyorkbrad of this proposal to maintain neutrality? — Mythdon t/ c 21:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"There's no assumption of bad faith on my end. " - Quote: "This whole situation is starting to look more and more vengeful"''. That comment is an assumption of bad faith. Saying that this appears "vengeful" is a direct assumption of bad faith, given that the word means the same thing as "vengeance" accompanied by the situation. "Once again, you appear to be accusing NYB of having a rather severe character flaw" is a comment you said telling me not to assume bad faith. I have told you that I am not assuming any bad faith, but you continue to accuse me of assuming bad faith. Now, it is time that you cease accusing me of assuming bad faith. And believe it or not, you did too tell me not to do something then did it yourself. — Mythdon t/ c 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The suggestion for my recusal is noted. Any other party or editor wishing to comment should do so within 72 hours. I will respond here after that. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a question about the RFA "involvement". Based on that, could no sitting Arb participate in any RFAR where someone voted them up or down in that Arb's RFA? What about that Arb's AC election? Or their 'crat election? Or their future Checkuser/Oversight election, if one of them become Arbs? What if I voted to give a user Rollback today, and he became an Arb in 4 years? What if I left that user a welcome template message? rootology ( C)( T) 01:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
As requested by Mythdon, I have considered whether I should recuse myself from this case. As indicated above, I requested comments from parties to the case and other editors on this request, and have considered all of the input received. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the discussion. Because the question of when arbitrators should recuse is a recurring one, I will take this opportunity to discuss the standards that I believe should govern recusal in general, before applying them to the facts of this case. (I acknowledge with a smile the irony that I am about to type a lengthy post on this talkpage, despite the discussion on the workshop talkpage in the Abd and JzG case about the need for brevity in talk posts. Accordingly, advance "tl;dr" dispensation is granted to anyone requesting it, and those uninterested in my philosophy of recusal or the details of this case may skip to the last paragraph, far lower on this page.)
At the outset, I will emphasize that I am sure no personal slight at me was intended, and certainly none is taken, at the suggestion that my arbitrating in this case could create an appearance of partiality or impropriety. I am fully familiar with recusal practices both on the Arbitration Committee as well as in real-world judicial systems where I have studied this issue (as it happens, I am the major contributor to recusal in mainspace, which ought to be globalized and brought up to FA standards) and have at least once litigated them in an appellate court.
The policy that governs my, and I believe the other arbitrators', decisions regarding recusal from cases is that I will recuse when either circumstances outside my role as an arbitrator create a conflict of interest should I participate, or where it is my view that because of such circumstances, my impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Applying these criteria, I have recused myself as an arbitrator in cases as varied as the Zeraeph case (because I had once called on ANI for a sanction against the main party) and the September 11 conspiracy theories line of cases (because I live and work 4 miles from the World Trade Center sight and may be unable to evaluate edits addressing the absurd and loathsome "controlled demolition hypothesis" without emotion), among others.
It is my view that in cases of genuine doubt, an arbitrator may properly err, if at all, on the side of recusing. Unlike prior periods where only 4 or 5 active arbitrators were shouldering the workload, at present we have 16 active arbs, all of whom are fully engaged. So long as this is the case, a decision by one or two to sit out a case is not likely to unfairly delay a decision or burden the other members of the committee. At the same time, though, and as I wrote in a proposed redraft of the arbitration policy, recusal should be neither sought nor granted for slight or trivial causes. We do not have or want a situation in which the parties are allowed to select from among the arbitrators who hear their cases, which would allow for "gaming the system" and create the problems akin to those categorized in the real world as "judge-shopping." (I do not in any way suggest that this is what Mythdon has sought to do here.)
With this as background, I have considered whether I should participate in this case. I do not believe that the two items cited by Mythdon in his initial request, without more, would be sufficient to warrant recusal. First, the fact that Ryulong cast a supportive !vote in my RfA more than two years ago strikes me as irrelevant. I do not believe that a reasonable and impartial observer of the arbitration process would consider that a party's favorable (or unfavorable) vote in an arbitrator's RfA, or for that matter in the ArbCom elections themselves, would raise questions about the arbitrator's impartiality in a subsequent case involving that editor. The fact is that despite the vast size of Wikipedia, we have a core community of probably a few hundred people who participate in things like RfAs and elections. We also, as I said, now have 16 arbitrators. Although I have not done any analysis, I suspect that in virtually every case we have, one or more of the parties have cast RfA votes for one or more of the arbitrators. Myself, I am sure I have helped decide cases involving several of the people who voted for my adminship or my arbship, and the fact of their having done so has never weighed in any of my thinking on the cases. So I put this first issue to one side.
Mythdon's second diff, in which I commented on Ryulong's talkpage concerning an earlier aspect of the current dispute, raises a closer question. At least to some extent, it could be said that I expressed a view on part of the issue now being arbitrated. To be sure, it was hardly a controversial or emphatic view, but more of an attempt to defuse tension at a moment in which two editors were involved in what struck me at the time as a needlessly emotional and bitter dispute. The statement and my fleeting "involvement" in this dispute would not color my view of this case. Until Mythdon reminded me of it, I had forgotten having said it. Moreover, making comments like these is part of what I do around Wikipedia. Sometimes, though not as often as I would like and apparently not in this instance, it actually helps. It used to be that I would spend a few minutes of my wikitime each day scanning down AN and ANI, trying to make helpful comments and suggestions for resolving or toning down disputes. I do a little bit less of that now, in large part because I have learned that any comment made by an arbitrator in a community discussion is subject either to being given disproportionate attention, or to later becoming the basis of a potential recusal issue if the dispute comes to arbitration. (I refer to this, at least in my own mind, as the "Miltopia effect", after the former user who once predicted in a Wikipedia Review thread about my election that exactly this would happen. But I digress.)
I do not, however, endorse the idea that an arbitrator's having made a passing comment on a dispute automatically warrants recusal. Arbitrators are drawn from the administrator corps, and in particular typically from that segment of the administrator corps that tries hardest to resolve disputes and work with problematic situations and unhappy editors. To take 16 of the most active admins away from commenting on day-to-day issues of administration would be damaging. Moreover, just as it is often (justifably but exaggeratedly) suggested that many administrators become detached from day-to-day editing, so too I am concerned with any policy that would cause the arbitrators to become needlessly detached from day-to-day administrating. So it is a closer question, but I do not believe that either the reality or appearance of a conflict of interest or a lack of impartiality is created by Mythdon's second diff, either.
I therefore conclude that these two issues by themselves would not warrant recusal. I am also comforted in that conclusion by the fact that it is also the view of most of those who have commented above.
Nonetheless, apart from the concerns Mythdon initially raised (which honestly had not struck my mind at all), I had been considering recusing myself from this case for a separate reason, alluded to in his second post above. This is that I previously commented at great (and according to some, undue) length about Ryulong's conduct as an administrator, which is what I was referring to in my comment at the case-acceptance stage. The comment in question is archived in Ryulong's talk archives here for those who may wish to review it.
I am not certain whether this comment either could give anyone grounds for questioning my impartiality in this case. It would not even be clear to me whether it would work to bias me favorably toward Ryulong (because I opposed a call for his desysopping once before), or unfavorably toward Ryulong (because I would be disappointed that he has allegedly not corrected all the concerns I raised with him a year and a half ago). Nonetheless, I cannot reasonably categorize it as a fleeting or passing comment; it was a substantial examination of his work as an administrator, which, brought up to date, is pretty much the same issue before the committee in this case. Reviewing this colloquy has also brought back to my mind a couple of conversations I had in the past with Ryulong on IRC concerning certain issues; these, too, would not warrant my recusal in and of themselves, but they must be considered in the overall mix.
When I combine the prior commentary on my part with Mythdon's presumedly good-faith concerns about whether I should sit in this case, I reach the conclusion, by a narrow margin, that in view of the cumulative weight of circumstances that I should not. Accordingly, the request for my recusal is granted, albeit primarily for different reasons than those initially suggested by Mythdon, and I shall mark the ACA template accordingly. I would again like to thank those who have commented in this discussion. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem as though any more proposals have come up lately, and discussion is stalling on most of them. With two weeks left before the deadline, maybe it's time to start moving some things over to start the voting phase? Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 19:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems that we are a bit behind schedule but I hope we can try to catch up.
-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Due to the appearence of new evidence, the case closure is postponed for 3 additional days to let participants respond to the additional questions. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This is to inform all participants that I've just posted the general questions at the Workshop page. As discussed before, participants may suggest additional questions here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm uninvolved, but from analyzing the evidence, a common theme here seems to be rules layering. On one hand you have Ryulong thinking himself unable to do anything about Mythdon annoying him all the time, because Mythdon isn't technically breaking any rules, and on the other hand you have Ryulong threatening good faith newbies with bans for violating the rules.
What I've also noticed, is Ryulong seeing rule violations when they're not there. For instance punishing that user due to violating the talk page guideline of not signing their posts, or rolling back "vandalism" when the edit is actually in good faith.
So whether or not the arbitration committee finds him to have violated any rules concerning administrator conduct, and whether or not they believe he'll not violate those rules in the future, I think that Ryulong should be de-admined. Ryulong seems to be more concerned with enforcing the rules than with fostering an environment that is conductive to writing an encyclopedia. Simply put, people like Ryulong having access to admin tools is bad for wikipedia's editing environment, especially the fifth pillar.
Look at things this way. If he retains his adminship, there will be all sorts of paper work, requests for comment, heated discussion concerning the legitimacy of AOR, filed complaints and general drama. If he loses his adminship, then the worst thing that can happen is that he'll ragequit, and the best thing that can happen is that he'll have more time available to actually edit articles, instead of meta-meta-meta type stuff.
-- ScWizard ( talk) 05:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This is to inform all participants that I've just posted the specific questions at the Workshop page. As discussed before, participants may suggest additional questions here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I have received some new private evidence that I'll be adding to the evidence page later today. Consequently, some new questions may be added to let the parties respond to the evidence(s). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom PD is posted. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)