User:Barberio/sandbox

RfC for Arbitration Process Reform 2015

Following the widespread press criticism of some recent ArbCom cases, and the call for community involvement in reform of Arbitration Committee procedure, the following RfC is up for discussion. This is not the point for drafting any new policy, but working out the general shape and direction that changes to policy should be in, so please avoid getting hung up on exact phrasing. There may also need to be changes to expected practice, that do not need explicit policy requirements but strong guidelines of what the community expect from their Arbitration Committee.

Proposed Issues and Reforms Addressing Them

1) Review of mitigating factors in considering conduct

The current application of conduct policies during the Arbitration Process -

• has been highly variable in considering mitigating factors.
• has shown possible bias in considering mitigating factors, ignoring the recognised systemic biases present in wikipedia.
• has re-enforced those systemic biases in application of remedies.
• deliberately ignores off-site harrasment as a mitigating factor.

--Barberio 19:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

1.a)The Arbitration Committee are instructed to review their past cases, and to publish draft guidelines on how they will consider mitigating factors when addressing behavioural conduct. The community at large will then comment on this review, and make their own conclusions.

1. Proposing, the committee needs to have clearer understanding of how they should consider mitigating circumstances. -Barberio 15:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

1.b)The review will include addressing consideration of off-site harassment as a mitigating factor.

1. Proposing, there has been a clear chilling effect by failing to consider this. -Barberio 15:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

1.b)The review will include addressing consideration of systemic biases within the project.

1. Proposing, there has been clear criticism that the committee ignore the impact of their decisions on entrenching systemic bias as a mitigating factor. -Barberio 15:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

2) Arbitrator conduct during a case.

The entire panel of Arbitrators rarely read the full evidence submitted to them, instead decisions appear to be made based on arguments presented on the workshop talk pages and on the private mailing list. --Barberio 17:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

2.a) Arbitrators should only be active on a case when they are able to commit time to a full reading of evidence submitted and consideration of arguments presented. Arbitration by the full panel of arbitrators should not be expected or required for all cases

1. Proposing There are perhaps too many arbitrators who rote-vote because they are all expected to do so. Do we need this many cooks in the kitchen all at once, when they're probably not all paying as much attention as required. -Barberio 15:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

2.b) Arbitrators should nominate themselves to hear a case, rather than be assumed to hear it and have to recuse.

1. Proposing See above. Probably require some sort of quorum to accept a case, but then allow others to opt in based on their work-load. -Barberio 15:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

2.c) Arbitrators active on a case are expected to each give an individual acknowledgement of receipt of all submitted evidence to the provider of the evidence.

1. Proposing, while we can't make sure they read it, we can at least make sure they know it exists. -Barberio 15:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

2.d) Arbitrators are required to deliberate publicly.

1. Proposing, the mailing list is for information that must be private, not for behind the scenes arm twisting and horse trading. If you wouldn't make an argument in public, then don't make it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Functionally impossible to enforce. But I would strongly encourage that arbitrators "show their work" in how they come to decisions, and the failure to do so sufficiently should be a reason they not be given a second term. --Barberio 16:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

3) Preventing false impartiality.

The current application of the Arbitration Process encourages cases into being seen as adversarial conflicts between two sides, and attempts are then made to be impartial by giving both "sides" equal weight resulting in false impartiality. --Barberio 17:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

3.a) Arbitrators are strongly encouraged to avoid classifying disputes as "between two sides", and cautioned about adopting "false impartiality".

1. Proposing At the moment I can't see a practical way of avoiding this other than making it clear that it is not encouraged, then reviewing Arbitrator's on this standard for re-election. -Barberio 15:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

4) Conduct with regards to the Press

The Arbitration Committee acted in error in attempting to produce a Press Release that pre-judged the result of the case, and subsequently may be read as attempting to mislead journalists about the direction of a case. They were prompted to do so by the Foundation. [1] --Barberio 22:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Barberio 19:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

4.a) The Arbitration Committee should not be expected to produce Press Release or make direct comments to the Press.

1. Proposing, it was a mistake for the Foundation to ask the Arbitration Committee to make a press release, this isn't their job, and they understandably could not do it well in the middle of a case.

• • i added a diff as Jimbo has denied the claim and so it will prevent the need of anyone else doing the digging to find it should the denial continue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)