Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Workshop pages

Are workshop pages being phased out from the arbitration process, or are they being selectively excluded from certain ArbCom cases for specific reasons? I ask because I've noticed that a handful of recent cases (e.g. AlisonW and the currently ongoing Industrial agriculture) do not have workshop pages, and I don't remember any community discussion or formal notice from the committee that workshop exclusion is a procedural decision subject to ArbCom discretion. If somebody monitoring this page would mind providing a link to any relevant discussion on this topic, I'd really appreciate it. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Timetable and case structure. The link at the start of the section points to the motion that resulted in that section. There were a series of motions that were discussed about being more flexible with the case structure. isaacl (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Isaac. 🙂 Kurtis ^(talk) 23:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

When the committee first started talking about changing this to at least sometimes not have them, I found out that there never was a requirement for them to begin with. Some arb invented the idea out of thin air way back when and it just kind of became a standard thing that was expected, with no actual mandate, so that's why there was no need for a formal change to WP:ARBPOL.

They were originally added as a space for the arbs themselves to draft the proposed decision, but the arbitration wiki took over that function thirteen or fourteen years ago and workshops became instead a place for literally anyone to draft their preffered version of a proposed decision.

I personally find that they cause more problems than they solve in cases that focus on only one or two editors, in particular admin conduct cases. They tend to turn into one user after another proposing basically the same fairly obvious outcomes. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Understanding arbitration

At the ongoing WT:ACN discussion related to Beeblebrox RevelationDirect wrote When I was before ANI and ArbComm for the first time this year, I found Wikipediocracy to be very useful resource to give me context at a confusing time. And not anything specific to my situation; old discussions helped me get a better sense of the patterns whereas I had trouble parsing through the prior cases I read on Wikipedia. This sounds like a failing with the information available here, which is something we should correct - someone should not have to go elsewhere to understand the arbitration process. RD: Were you aware of Wikipedia:Guide to arbitration? If not, the first thing we should do is make that easier to find - do you remember where you were looking/what search terms you were using? Would it have answered your questions? If you did find that, what was it lacking that would have helped you? Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the Guide to Arbitration is great if you are, in the abstract, looking to understand Arbitration. It's much less useful when you are a party to an actual case and are wondering "what am I supposed to do now?". Guerillero's question to candidates about his guide. That reminded me of my own desire to improve the guide. I began some work on the arb's wiki and after some discussion, the current vision is 7 guides designed to help you know, at any given moment, what is going on and the idea is that a party could focus on just the guide they need at that moment rather than trying to understand everything. I've completed my very rough draft of Guide 1. Ultimately I'd love for these guides to be as close to 1000 words (or less) as possible because 5 minutes of reading time for a person at 200 wpm feels reasonable, but the first draft is currently at nearly 1800 words. I'd be very interested to hear what questions RD had as I've done some combing through some cases I drafted (and am thus most familiar with where questions were asked) but more is definitely better. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not RD, but but my answer to most of those questions would be "no". The problem isn't understanding the arbitration process itself, but rather the history and motivations of the individuals involved in such processes. WPO is, among other things, where people go to air grievances and post comments that would get them strung up by their heels for casting aspersions if they said them onwiki. It's true that many of these grievances seem to be sour grapes from editors who were correctly sanctioned or otherwise censured for disruption, but enough of them have merit that I think it's worth reading. It's also true that there's plenty of name-calling and mudslinging, but there's also useful meta-commentary and criticism of the kind that often isn't seen here because people are afraid to be critical of "power users" and long-established institutions in places where they are likely to be quickly dog-piled and shouted down. Barring some dramatic (and in my opinion unlikely) changes in community norms I can't see that functionality being effectively imported onto Wikipedia.

It is very much a mixed bag, and separating the wheat from the chaff can be arduous and at times even demoralizing. I've heard it called "ANI without participation from the accused" which I don't disagree with and I've seen some pretty appalling stuff over there including outing and harassment, but we also have WPO and its regulars to thank for uncovering Qworty's machinations, among other things. I do have quite a few problems with how it's run—namely, I think the admins over there are often far too willing to look the other way when harassment and trash-talking happens over there—but I also think it has its uses, which is why I browse it and occasionally comment. — SamX [talk · contribs] 01:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I had a lot of questions during ArbComm and the guide answered the factual process ones. It didn't answer other questions that required analyzing ArbComm members mindset though:

1. When is a dispute ripe enough to merit an ArbComm case? Specifically, if an ANI is open but focused on the content dispute instead of the behavior, is that enough?
2. Why are there e-mails to ArbComm when there's not private evidence?
3. To what extent do ArbComm members decide based on evidence in the case?
4. To what extent do ArbComm members decided based on individual past history with editors?
5. Is it unusual to reopen the evidence phase after it is closed?
6. What is the practical purpose of the Workshop phase for an involved party?

While I didn't post these on Wikipediocracy, discussions of old cases touched on these but maybe some essays could be written on Wikipedia instead. Candid analysis of ArbComm performance probably needs to stay on Wikipediocracy though.

And to be clear, I'm not coming from a place of grievance at all here, I was the filing party and I am completely satisfied (although saddened) by the unanimous outcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Just read through both these guides; thank you for posting them! Guerillero's comes closer to the practical "what do I do" guidance I would have been looking for from a participant perspective. Both sections on the Workshop page still seems like inside baseball to me though, but maybe that phase is meant to help the arbitrators more than participants.

I appreciate both of your efforts to make the process clearer, no matter what anyone at Wikipediocracy says about you! RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am at the very beginning of my efforts and so this is helpful. I will say that the tone an individual can do (ala Guerillero) is different than the tone of something "official". But knowing what worked and didn't is helpful. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect I have now done my first draft of guide 2. I am curious to hear if you feel like I've addressed question 1. I, of course, also welcome feedback from others. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that does provide a lot of clarity for question 1. Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect can you explain what you mean by Why are there e-mails to ArbComm when there's not private evidence?. I have a guess given what case you were involved with but want to make sure I understand. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Sure, during the only case I was in, all of my communication to discuss things like word counts and evidence or process questions were on the case talk pages but there were multiple references there of another involved party sending e-mails to the committee. The official guide mentions here that e-mail is used for private evidence so I assumed that such evidence was being submitted.  I found out later that those e-mails were just the same type of mundane procedural requests I was making on the case talk pages. (You have the actual e-mails while I only have public posts discussing them, so obviously your view will be more complete here.)

It would have been helpful to know that, based on the involved party’s personal preferences, e-mails can be used interchangeably with the case talk pages to communicate to the Arb Comm during a case. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I expected it to be but the details you gave really are helpful as it gives a more complete explanation than the sort of simple one I had in my head. I'm trying to figure out how to appropriately write general guidance about this as opposed to edge cases. I'm going to keep noodling on this. As for what's in the official guide now, the reason I'm spending time on this project (and will eventually ask the rest of the committee to spend some time on it) are because of the shortcomings in the current guide. Thanks again, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I can not really comment on WPO but what I know is that for arbitration, especially if the case is about a one person conduct, both sides are expected to come with diffs. Many diffs. Often so many diffs that they can not just be collected within a reasonable time (say a few days unless the party works full-time on collecting diffs), and I guess the filing party in many cases either collects the diffs for a long time off-wiki or knows some place (like certain on-wiki discussions) where the diffs can be taken from relatively quickly. The defending party can comment on the diffs but usually is not able to provide more diffs to add a proper context to the accusation. Collecting such diffs on wiki is prohibited (which I generally find a good thing). Which means in response to the original question - no, no onwiki information is going to help in this case. Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Not actually prohibited, simply expected to be used promptly at a noticeboard or ArbCom proceeding. WP:POLEMIC: Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. That said, there is little if any benefit to doing this on-wiki instead of in a private text editor. If one just wants to check the formatting and stuff, paste it into a sandbox and hit "Show preview" without saving it on-site.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:ECR amendment an specific GS pages

Hi, while WP:ECR has recently been amended to specifically restrict interactions of non-ECP users on protected talk pages, pages such as WP:GS/RUSUKR have not been amended to reflect this change. Is there a process for these pages to be updated? Please ping in reply. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

GS is a community-managed area. If you believe they should be using the same ECR as arb areas do and thus you wish to update it, WP:AN is the appropriate location to discuss. Izno (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Note community-authorized general sanctions are now discussed at the village pump for proposals, with a notice placed at the administrators' noticeboard (the change was a result of a village pump discussion). isaacl (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)