[WikiEN-l] ArbCom Legislation

[FT2]

(CAVEAT:  This can only be my own view, other Arbitrators will have theirs.)



Firstly, a clarification to the Footnoted Quotes case remedy will be issued
shortly, which may answer many questions. That was noted on the propose
decision 3 days ago, before it went final.


In the meantime, here's what is being ignored in the debate: the community
is only half of the equation. 


Wikipedia is not just "a community". It is a community to write an
encylopedia of a certain standard and with certain mandatory policies and
norms, including some at WMF level (NPOV) some traditional, some emergent,
and some created by the community. 

Within that system, the Arbitration Committee serves a number of purposes. 

Its first role is to handle cases the community cannot, and to decide what
handling will allow the project to move forward effectively and best resolve
the problem that led to the community failing, if it happens again.

In that aim (doom-sayers not withstanding) Wikipedia arbitration has proven
in fact, fairly successful. Of about 400 arbitrated cases I can find from
the start, where a full case was heard on the wiki, less than one in ten
(7.5%) come back for a second time or more. (A number come back purely for
change of remedy, not the same thing, and cases are not shy to come back if
unresolved.) Around 1 - 1.5% come back a third time. Users who breach a
ruling and their second chance find that the scope for misconduct and
"smoke" following an Arbitration case is usually quite severely limited and
readily backed by a ban. There are reasons for this, which are obvious to
arbitrators, but which the community has probably never really had explained
in detail. We can discuss them another time. And indeed the cases
Arbitrators see are capable of more fine grained solutions now. (And note...
these are the site's most complex cases, and rough statistics only.)

A second role is to handle serious privacy-related issues. Harassment is
one, access to privacy policy information another.

A third role is ban handling/serious admin misconduct allegations. The aim
of a ban is that content-writing editors should not be troubled further. The
Arbitration Committee takes these cases on, including the safeguard of
appeal case handling, for the community, for that purpose. This may change
or may not in future.

A fourth role is exceptionally complex investigations and situations - high
profile, prolific sock operators, a number of known active sock farms,
unusually delicate cases, and so on. Arbitrators, who are elected by the
community (despite Jimbo's notional input, all arbitrators in the last 3
annual elections were "community choices" with minor adjustment 3 elections
back for a couple of existing members re-standing) handle these cases, which
would burn out many other editors.

A fifth and final role, which in a sense is integral to all of the others,
is relevant here. Arbitrators also, as a committee, act as a check and
balance, ensuring the pendulum does not move so far to "the community" that
it moves away from its principles and away from the "writing a neutral
encyclopedia", so far as to be itself damaging to the project. The community
is not monolithic, and at times, needs a reminder what matters, what
priorities are, to let go of the past more and not dramatize the present,
and to resolve disputes (not escalate them) -- even if prurience and
external parties wants all the gossip, or loud voices and strident parties
want a damning verdict. We aren't a court or legal system, we're
encyclopedia writers. We have traditional norms on a range of editor
interaction to ensure that's possible, that guide us pretty well, and those
norms include things like second chances, or keeping the good and removing
the bad (non-punitive blocks, topic bans, restrictions etc). Sometimes that
can be lost in the shouting. 

BLP is an example of this latter role. There are good reasons why BLP
matters, and yet instead of focussing on them, we have some degree of
persistent issues over the interpretation and enforcement of this norm. This
has led to editing concerns surrounding some BLP articles (or as some see
it, BLPs generally). Arbcom's role here is to identify the issue, and to
identify its best resolution within communal principles, if we are able, and
take the steps we deem necessary to ensure communal norms do in fact get
taken seriously in this most crucial type of article, as near to "all the
time" as we can. To be plain, we do that in /every/ case we hear, whether
the principle forgotten by the parties is BLP, NEUTRALITY, or some other. 

That is where "serving a project to write an encyclopedia" comes into its
own. Whilst the communal voice matters, it is only half of the equation, and
sometimes (often), it needs balancing by re-affirming the other half (that
the community's role is to write an encyclopedia). Despite much discussion
and debate, and many attempts to find a working consensus by talk page and
project page posting, the community has not achieved what it hoped to on
BLP, and concerns persist. There is so much dispute over BLPs that the
simple issue we all agree on - very high quality - is being insufficiently
enforced. This may help remedy that, and although there may be many
approaches and many views, this along the guidance being drafted is the one
we feel goes directly to the point. Given the singular lack of strong and
effective enforcement measures that the community has produced for itself by
dialog, and which are needed to back the essentials of writing encyclopedic
BLP articles to the standards aspired by the spirit of BLP policy, this may
help. If not, we'll try something else.

Lastly, recognize that as a communally elected committee we have spent time
looking into it, and take a lead from the work we have already done in
reviewing the community's difficulties. This problem needs addressing, and
not just in theory, or at some vague future time.  Consider this situation -
if a couple divorce with $500k assets, but spend $240k each arguing over it,
it's rather ineffective, if your goal is in fact a constructive, productive
outcome. Moral:- a reasonably good working solution that is adopted without
interminable dispute and wastage is likely to be better than years of
argument. That is part of the nature of arbitrated solutions in the real
world as well. Plus, on wiki, we can adapt further from our current
standpoint. Many things we are fine with now were seen as controversial at
the time - checkuser was one, so were some ban types. This probably will be
too. 


Guidance and comment on the whole area - a crucial part - will be posted up
shortly.


Best and regards, and once again, this is a rough comment only and I
acknowledge the fact.


FT2