User talk:Arcticocean/Functus Officio

Yup; good start

Thanks for working on this.

There are a bunch of trusted user groups (OTRS volunteers, checkusers, oversighters, stewards, Wikimedia Foundation staff) who can handle a lot of what ArbCom is currently trying to handle. And roles and responsibilities are already somewhat delineated (other groups, queues, mailing lists, etc. already exist), but you're absolutely right that it could be better. If none of these other trusted user groups are willing to deal with a particular request type, those requests can probably be safely ignored or punted back to the broader community. (It's not as though requests aren't being ignored already, this would just make the process clearer to everyone involved.)

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees asked Sue Gardner to narrow the Wikimedia Foundation's focus recently (cf. m:User:Sue Gardner/Narrowing focus). I think ArbCom should seriously consider a similar tactic. ArbCom should figure out what it can do well and what the community wants it to do well and then do that. Easier said than done, I realize. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Just want to say that I strongly support this. The increasing flow of problems to ArbCom not only overwhelms them and means cases don't get dealt with in good time, but it also undermines the other groups (e.g. admins, functionaries), who becomes less used to acting independently. Good dispute-resolution takes time to learn, and these different groups need to be allowed to develop their expertise independently of the committee. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom spends a lot of time declining requests - and would have spent more had not (a) RfCs worked better, though there is something inherently wrong in their design, and (b) more admins taken a more collaborative role in managing difficult situations such as arbitration enforcement and other difficult ongoing disputes. Kudos to those who stay involved in trouble areas as it is incredibly time-consuming to do it properly. I recall us trying to deflect to mediation as much as we possibly could. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

+1 to the strong support above, and to having a network of dispute resolution groups that help one another to develop expertise. – SJ + 07:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Email

I think a fair number of potential candidates are turned off by the prospect of having their email box stuffed endlessly with ArbCom emails. Somebody mentioned that the Malleus situation resulted in 1,000 email. It would be great to minimize email usage. I get it that the clerks need to have a way to email the Arbs for guidance, or that there needs to be a way to notify people to go vote on a matter. Email can be used for procedural stuff, but the substantial discussions would be most beneficial if held in the open. That would tend to increase trust. People are scared by what they don't know. If they can follow a discussion, there is less fear, and the result is less of a surprise or shock. Jehochman ^Talk 22:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• You know, here's AGK trying to put a few thoughts together in his userspace. And lo and behold, there's already half a dozen people telling him how to do it, what to include, what he should think, and how he (one arbitrator) should make the committee *and the WMF* act. Do you not see why arbitrators go off into a corner to talk by themselves? Risker (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That's why you should go to some other English-language wiki where nobody is stalking your contributions to do this sort of thing. --Rschen7754 05:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    • As though there's a lack of private wikis. Risker: nobody has touched the subject-space page, but they have offered comments, feedback, and insight on the talk page. This is collaboration and engagement and it's nothing to be ashamed of. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, MZM. The namespace page has two sentences. This is not comments, feedback or insight; it's others pushing their own points of view. I'm not seeing engagement: I'm seeing others deciding what opinions should be present in someone else's personal essay. People complain that arbitrators don't communicate enough; here's one who's trying to pull his thoughts together, and what little he has said has been drowned out. It tells me that what people are really complaining about is that arbitrators don't think exactly what they think, or do exactly what they'd do if they were arbitrators. Perhaps they should persuade the community that they should be arbitrators. Risker (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

After your sourpuss comment, I doubt very much there will be a lot of interest or engagement on this page. Do think whether your comment is helpful or hurtful. Jehochman ^Talk 01:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Part of the larger governance and diplomacy process is sometimes commenting on pages. These comments will be read by AGK and others. It's certainly possible that AGK and others will choose not to respond (on this talk page) and that's perfectly fine, but I think we can rest assured that unless the conversation is off-topic, others (possibly including current and future Arbitrators) might have a good takeaway from reading the comments here and elsewhere. And we can hope that some of the insights, learnings, and experiences from others will eventually find themselves in the writings and thinkings of current and future Arbitrators.

In other words: yes, sometimes it looks like more of a monologue than a dialogue, but that's sometimes okay. :-) As long as the feedback and comments are on-topic and contain some detectable level of clue, I think we should view participation as a Good Thing. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

On one hand, I was blissfully unaware that any comments had been left here (though I didn't add this page to my watchlist). On the other, participation is wiki-like and a generally good thing; and every comment that has been left so far has been helpful in some way. So… as you were (sans bickering, if possible). AGK [•] 20:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

@Jehochman, I can comment from experience - yes in 2009 the email inflow was...erm...challenging to keep up with, especially as I am in Australia, and much of the dialogue would happen when I was asleep, and I'd wake up with dozens to read. By 2011, this had settled down alot - not quite sure why but the difference was marked. Dunno if this was a conscious decision on part of arbs or what but made the list alot more manageable.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"and so on"

Could you please clarify what you mean by "and so on" in "Hand off socking matters to the functionaries,[1] child protection enforcement to the Office, and so on. " I don't think that all too many people who are dissatisfied with the 13 arbitrators handling the very occasional sockpuppetry case offwiki (if you recall, the last sockpuppetry allegation we received is being handled onwiki right now, as is the case for most of them) are going to be satisfied with 30 functionaries, most of whom are ArbCom appointed, handling it in private. Additionally, we just had a big discussion about child protection with the Office on functionaries-en and it seems pretty clear that the Foundation is not going to step in. Do you propose that we simply stop taking action on child protection reports? NW (Talk) 00:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't this policy discussion happening on wiki? Who are you all to go around making policy by fiat? Jehochman ^Talk 00:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What policy discussion? Making sure that requested resources are in place before changing an existing policy is not a policy discussion, it's making sure that a change isn't made that cannot be supported. It would be the equivalent of asking the developers if it is technically feasible to do something. Risker (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what "and it seems pretty clear that the Foundation is not going to step in" means. If they're actual child protection issues, it's isn't optional for the Wikimedia Foundation to step in. If the Wikimedia Foundation ignores actual child protection complaints, it can be liable, both in criminal and civil court. If they're not actual child protection complaints, then ignoring the e-mails, requests, etc. is probably fine. Clarification here is definitely needed. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the relevant policy is WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a lot of different things. If objectionable editing is detected, block the user, and if the editing appears to be criminal, call the police. The police can then investigate, and if they need help, they will figure out who to call, and things will come down the chain of command. It's all very simple. ArbCom need not intervene. If the blocked user appeals, ArbCom can ask the blocking admin to explain the nature of the block. "I thought the user was doing something illegal, and I don't want to explain it on wiki--please email me for details" is a perfectly fine explanation. It is possible to balance transparency and confidentiality. Jehochman ^Talk 03:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Solicited comments

Bravo! Bravo!
Easiest way for ban appeals is restored talk page access for banned user and post notice on WP:AN that a ban modification discussion is underway. NE Ent 01:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bows. That might be the best way – it would keep it simple. AGK [•] 06:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Forgotten items

If it hasn't been resolved elsewhere you might mention that ArbCom should not undertake sua sponte cases. In the past these have caused serious trouble, as have cases initiated by Committee members themselves. I'm not sure what the solution is if a committee member in their individual capacity gets into an intractable dispute and feels the need for arbitration.

My own experience, what makes me especially jaded and obstreperous toward the Committee and some of its members, is that on three different occasions sitting arbitrators have initiated actions against me, none of which resulted in the least little finding against me. I consider all three incidents to have been severely abusive. In two cases the initiating arbitrator was voted out of office at the very next election. In the third case the arbitrator resigned. One of the cases was subsequently blanked and the decision was vacated. Let's not name names or dredge up old battles, but do remember the point: when sitting arbitrators (or the Committee as a whole) have initiated cases, rather than waiting for editors to request cases, nothing good has resulted and their reputation has been severely damaged. If a case is needed, surely somebody else will notice and file a request. Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree that strictly speaking isn't a good idea, however, being at the nexus of conflict and conduct issues, and confidential information means that there have been times when we've seen sanctionable conduct and debated whether to wait for the community to "notice" or for someone to initiate proceedings (i.e. no guarantee that the community notices). Might be good idea, rather than going on opinion, to log all records of sua sponte cases and outcomes below and see what it objectively rather than subjectively shows. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Another option, when the Committee notices a problem, is to report it to the appropriate noticeboard or venue and see if the community can resolve it first. If somebody brings it back and requests a case, deal with it at that time. Arbitration ought not be instigated unless other options are attempted, including a talk page message that identifies the problem and asks for an informal resolution. I was once blind sided by at least one case that never even was raised on my talk page. That made me extremely unhappy and difficult. Treating people with respect is cheap and usually produces better results. Yes, individuals can get hot headed and forget, but the Committee is a deliberate body.

I'd be keen to see a list of sua sponte cases and see how they worked out. One thing that's missing from Arbitration is a feedback loop. Has anybody ever conducted a poll to find out how editors liked the way cases were resolved? Perhaps this "look back" can be included in the yearly elections. Most top notch customer service organizations conduct such polls. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In relation to feedback, I tried last year to identify which of our decisions generated the most discussion (see User:AGK/Arbitration timekeeping#Community post-mortems, you should sort "Word count" to be descending). However, the wiki model does not lend itself well to formal feedback structures or analyses of regimented processes like arbitration.

Concerning sua ponte cases, our records do not seem to record how cases were opened (merely when they were accepted), but I recall that the following cases were opened by committee initiative:

• Manipulation of BLPs
• Cirt and Jayen466
• EEML
• Rodhullandemu
• Race and intelligence – Review
• Aitias was re-opened some time after the RFAR on the initiative of an arbtirator

Some of these cases were opened sua ponte but as a result of clear community concerns elsewhere. There are also several additional cases that were brought by an arbitrator who had minimal prior involvement in the case but had recused in order to request arbitration. This practice is one that I find particularly subversive, and has thankfully died out.

In addition to case requests, there are many clarification/amendment requests that resulted in motions that diverged from the original purpose of the request. Sometimes this was necessary and sometimes it was a mistake (the Malleus request comes to mind).

Lastly, motions proposed by arbitrator initiative at WP:A/R/M are technically all sua ponte. Recently, most have been procedural amendments, but formerly the page had quite a different purpose:

• Motion to desysop Carnildo
• Motion on Rich Farmbrough
• Motion to ban Racepacket
• Motion to desysop Altenmann

Most of these motions arose from previous arbitration cases that one or more arbitrator thought we ought to amend as a result of events at the time. I advocate reducing "judicial activism" in my essay, and I do not mean to suggest that the sample of sua ponte proceedings above are necessarily examples of such arbitrator "over-eagerness" (though several may well be).

AGK [•] 12:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those were ones I remembered. There was also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. We generally recognised that opening cases sua sponte was something we were highly reluctant to do unless we felt no other option was feasible, so I don't see how advocating reducing "judicial activism" without some sort of bright line would be feasible, and then that undermines the faith that arbitrators might use this as a last resort, which has almost always been the case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Any further thoughts? AGK [•] 11:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Cases I remember that generated a lot of acrimony include Durova, and Matthew Hoffman (case pages were blanked and then deleted!). It would be interesting to make a list of sua sponte cases and see if they had good outcomes or bad outcomes. I consider a good outcome to be resolution of the problem, reduction of interpersonal conflict, and retention of productive editors. Jehochman ^Talk 18:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Good statement of the case

This essay (which I wasn't aware of until now) has swung me to supporting your 2018 ArbCom candidacy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Update?

This page generally seems to date to 2013, and after a decade might need revision, or maybe put at {{Historical}} tag on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)