Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Effect of arbitration processes on editor retention

Introduction

Background

As part of its strategic priorities, the Wikimedia Foundation has been increasingly concerned with ensuring a healthy level of editor retention, including both the recruitment and acclimation of newer editors and the continued activity of veteran ones.

As recently reported in The Signpost, many editors—and particularly many highly experienced editors—indicate that the complexity of rules and processes and the inadequacy of mechanisms to deal with problem editors are factors leading to decreased editor activity. Because the arbitration process impacts both of these areas of concern, improving it to reduce negative impact on the retention of participating editors is an important step towards meeting the strategic goals of the editor retention effort.

Request for comments

Editors are invited to suggest improvements to the arbitration process, with the goal of eliminating or reducing elements that negatively affect editor retention. Kirill ^[talk] 20:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Instructions

Editors who wish to suggest an improvement should create a new sub-section for their suggestion at the bottom of the page, using the following boilerplate:

===Suggestion from <User X>===

====Editors who agree with <User X>'s suggestion====
#

====Discussion about <User X>'s suggestion====

If you wish to suggest multiple unrelated improvements, please create a separate sub-section for each to more easily allow independent discussion of each suggestion.

Suggestions

Suggestion from Sven Manguard

(broken into three points, for ease of commenting)

1. Arbitration isn't the problem, not really. This is because by the time anything reaches ArbCom, it is already helplessly fucked up. ArbCom only gets things once everything else has failed, and that means it is going to have the most contentious issues, the most disruptive users, and the most heated flame wars on the project.

2. The best thing that ArbCom can do, in my opinion, is to champion effective dispute resolution earlier in the process. I'm not sure how that would work; individual arbs could spend time at the DR forums, but if things break down there, that might force recusals later on.

3. As for changes to the Arbitration process, the only one I really have is that Arbs and clerks need to keep the case talk pages under much tighter control. Too often the parties and their advocates are allowed to clash unchecked on the evidence, workshop, and proposed decision talk pages. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to talk to one another, but I am saying that if ever there was a place for an absolute zero tolerance policy on personal attacks, it would be those pages. Shut down the fights early, using blocks and interaction bans if needed, because those flame threads cause needless escalation, and the anger carries over far after the cases are closed.

Sven Manguard Wha? 22:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

1. Especially point 2. Disputes can end up at arbitration due to a lack of volunteers lower down the chain. If skilled volunteers (like arbs) help at places like DRN, then it's more likely to be resolved and not require arbitration, and that's a good thing, isn't it? Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 23:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Only point 2. But that applies to the community at large. Note if cases were heard by 3 or 5 arbs, as I suggest, then a couple of extra recusals might not create problems, though there is still that possibility. Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC).
   
3. Agree. It's not the whole picture, but agree. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Especially agree with point 1. And add that the time to reach that point anyway makes certain if nothing else that a dispute is bitter. Many people just want some decision, any decision so their time isn't taken up and they can deal with other things. Dmcq (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this suggestion

• I am not sure about point #1. The regime of discretionary sanctions by Arbcom might negatively affect the overall atmosphere and reduce participation in many subject areas. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think having arbitrators more involved with earlier dispute resolution processes causes more problems than it solves, due the "recuse" problem (and the tendency of a good chunk of problem editors to claim that any administrator who's interacted with them is "too involved" to be un-biased). A variant of the idea that might work is the AN/I proposal from a few weeks back to more rapidly close threads that should be shunted to other dispute resolution processes. That isn't an ArbCom matter, though, so it's beyond the scope of this RFC. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  The recusal problem is indeed a factor here; indeed, many arbitrators make a point of not participating in other dispute resolution processes in order to avoid it. I'm not sure if there's a good way of resolving it without either accepting a higher percentage of recusals or exempting certain types of participation from the expected reasons for recusal.

  Another possible way to get the Committee more involved in the earlier stages of dispute resolution might be to allow disputes to be brought to arbitration earlier—without necessarily requiring that they go through RFCs, meditation, and so forth prior to the request—and having the Committee direct the dispute to a particular dispute resolution forum if doing so seems likely to help or accept it directly otherwise. We've occasionally done this with mediation (albeit very irregularly) and RFC (but mostly by way of rejecting a request for lack of prior dispute resolution rather than actually directing it there); a more regular mechanism (such as, for example, having the dispute automatically return to arbitration if the other mechanism doesn't work) might be more useful than the current ad-hoc approach. Kirill ^[talk] 03:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that is true - but the problem is that I am not convinced that the remedies that ArbCom applies are solving the problem, or just taking out someone who is a symptom of a problem, and whether the applied remedies do not have further effect - In other words: the situation is still helplessly fucked up, and editors are walking away because of the enacted remedies. Regarding point 3 - keeping the civility in line would be good, though that is something that is very selectively enacted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely disagree with point 1. Editors constantly take matters to ARbCom rather than try and make a sensible resolution. Were Arbcom to reject consistently those cases that have not had serious attempts at resolution, point 1 would bear a closer resemblance to reality. Nonetheless the fact that admins choose ArbCom rather than indef blocking in cases where DR has been tried suggests that things are not always totally screwed up even then. Rich Farmbrough, 18:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC).
  

Suggestion from My very best wishes

I feel that we had a much better and lively editing atmosphere a few years ago. Why? Actually, the answer is clear. This is not because of revert wars and editorial disputes, however unpleasant they were (when people do it, one of them eventually get tired and switch to doing something else). This is because of administrative sanctions: at least one contributor with whom I positively collaborated was indefinitely banned; a couple of others stopped participating after encounters with administrators, and a lot more, including myself were sanctioned, which did not help anyone of us (or others!) to contribute. I can agree that sanctions were fair, but they did not help anyone. That's the moment of truth... So, at the very least, I think there are two important questions for discussion.

• How about a more conservative use of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions? It can be reasonably argued that such system frequently creates fear for users and unduly burden for administrators. Let's reserve AE only for a very narrow set of issues. Just to clarify, I am not telling that anyone was wrongly sanctioned on AE or that he/she should not be commenting out there. No, just the opposite. People should always use the official system as long as such system exists. But I have serious doubts that the system of discretionary sanctions helps to increase the participation in the project. Of course the conventional wisdom is to remove troublemakers from the area and therefore allow participation of others. However, this frequently leads to banning or discouraging active participants who contribute positively (at least in some areas), and they are not easily replaced by others. At the very least, the discretionary sanctions should be issued more conservatively, reviewed after a year, and removed whenever possible.

• When you issue any editing restriction (1RR, ban, or topic ban), I think this should be done either for a shorter period of time (6 months - this is more than enough to think about the problems) or indefinitely. The idea of issuing conditional indefinite restrictions ("let's see if he/she can improve after a year") also creates unduly burden, unless such restriction was issued for an obvious SPA account. I assume that indefinite sanctions are almost never issued for the first offense.

My very best wishes (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

1. I agree strongly with the introduction (I see it happening around) - though unsure about the solutions offered here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this suggestion

• I'm wary of the second suggestion (reducing sanctions to 6 months, from 1 year). For the disputes in the areas I've edited in, "topic ban for 1 year" usually means "you'll have a 1 year respite before the same problems happen again". A 6 month standard means we'd likely see repeat offenses twice as frequently for cases like that. A shorter standard first-time sanction could work, but only as long as subsequent sanctions were for much longer, had "may not appeal for X months/1 year" riders more often, and kept a tally for the number of times appeals had been made (I've seen situations where indefinite topic bans were appealed every few months at AN/I; this gets old very fast). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If the same problem happens after 6 months, the user should be issued indefinite topic ban (no appeals), just like if it happens after 1 year.My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish it consistently happened after one year. One case that affected WP:PHYS a while back involved two or three passes through (with appeals on top of that). If that's the exception, I'll rejoice, but this case involved a relatively reasonable editor. My impression is that most arbcom cases (especially ones involving politics) are much worse. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• The main problem I see with reducing our reliance on discretionary sanctions is simply one of manpower; the Committee doesn't really have enough bandwidth to handle every request directly. (This is, in fact, one of the main reasons why these sanctions have been so popular.) Expanding the size of the Committee has traditionally been unpopular (and perhaps impractical, given the dearth of viable candidates even at our current size); perhaps reducing the complexity of the proceedings might be an alternative? In particular, would it perhaps be viable to have two different types of arbitration proceedings: the current full cases, and some sort of smaller and faster proceeding for the "follow-on" requests that are currently handled by discretionary sanctions? Kirill ^[talk] 03:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I am trying to make the opposite point that we need less Arbcom and less sanctions. Users who obviously make more harm than good (usually SPA) can be quickly handled on ANI. And those who do good work but have problems should just be left alone, unless there is a large group of editors who insist on opening a case, or there is indeed a huge disruption. The less arbitration the better. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I wonder about the wisdom of building a catalogue of special sanctions too. Special cases are generally a bad thing. I have wondered if there is value in having amnesties for folk blocked many years ago, just to reduce the record-keeping, or whether we should have a Jubilee and wipe out all our gazetteers of infamy. I have been a little removed from creating sanctions, as I prefer to being people into the fold rather than block and ban, so I am not as familiar with these matters as others. Rich Farmbrough, 18:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC).
  

• Disagree with this. I already think people bend over backwards letting people get on with WP:CRUSH and foul language and baiting and other civility issues. I see some of this as being caused by an inability to deal with content disputes effectively but even so I have little sympathy for people who have sanctions against them for incivility and disruption. Dmcq (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from My very best wishes (take two)

The reduced participation was caused to significant degree by excessive use of administrative sanctions.

There are good and bad sanctions. Good sanctions are those applied to users who do more harm than good to the project. This could be for different reasons: vandalism, repeated copyright violations, lack of competence, nationalist/racist trolling (e.g. User:M.V.E.i.), blatant propaganda (User:Jacob Peters), etc. Those are usually accounts of SPA type. In all such cases one should issue indefinite site bans, and the sooner the better.

Bad sanctions are excessive sanctions applied to users who do significantly more good than harm to the project. Those are usually users or vested type who contribute positively to content with many thousand edits. They also can exhibit problematic behavior, for example difficulty with communication/some incivility (e.g. User:HanzoHattori), sockpuppetry (e.g. User:Altenmann), improper canvassing (EEML case), civil POV-pushing, edit warring, etc. In all such cases, one should issue only relatively mild first sanctions in the interests of the project: topic ban or 1RR restriction for a few months (no longer than 6 months) or desysopping of administrators. If they did not get it, only then the initial official sanctions by AE, ANI or Arbcom should be gradually made longer up to indefinite (blocks by individual administrators and discussions on AE or ANI which resulted in no sanctions should not count). In addition, the sanctions with regard to productive contributors should never be made by individual administrators, even in the areas of discretionary sanctions. Unfortunately, this is frequently not the case: a productive contributor can be issued a very long editing restriction or indefinitely banned after their first ANI/Arbcom case which resulted in sanctions, as had happened in the cases of HanzoHattori, Altenmann, EEML and many others.

Our practices and polices should be changed to reflect this. My very best wishes (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this suggestion

1. I'm not sure if I agree with your comment about vested contributors. They exist, there's no doubt about that, but we should be wary of giving a free pass to someone solely because they write a lot of content. Things like editor retention (which this RFC centres around) are affected by bad interactions with other users. If a long-time user cracks it at someone else and that person leaves the project, then that's not OK. Of course, context is key here, but I don't think changing the written practices and policies should be updated to reflect this information. In practice, a SPA will get less leeway than a longtime user, but this doesn't need to be documented in my opinion - it'd make things more prone to wikilawyering. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 11:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have only one practical suggestion: giving only mild sanctions (no more than 6 moth ban/restriction) to people who contributed a lot to the project after their first official violation (not counting blocks by individual administrators or discussions that resulted in no official sanctions). A frequent argument during ANI discussions: "Hey, he has already five blocks and was debated three times somewhere (see the results of search). This is time to indef". Yes, it maybe time to indef if we are talking about an SPI. No, if we are talking about an established contributor with a lot of contributions. Give him 3-6 months of topic ban for the first time to think about it. No more. Same should apply to Arbcom decisions I believe. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Higly experienced editors are the very people who Ought To Know Better. If anything, we should be quicker to stop them, as we know that their flouting of the policies (e.g., in socking) is willful. It's probable that they'd be much easier to stop (a public warning ought to be good enough in most cases), but they have even less excuse for misbehavior than the average person. Also, being prolific means their potential for harm is much greater. If I were to cuss at someone in every 100th edit, I'd make eight or ten people per month think that Wikipedia was a rude, unfriendly place. My very best wishes (talk · contribs), at the same rate of misbehavior, would have irritated half as many users last month. You should therefore be twice as quick to respond to profanity from me as you would to MVBW, and far quicker to me than to someone who does this once a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think a significant part of our retention problems came from this They Ought To Know Better and I Do Not Care What You Did For The Project attitude when it comes to administrative sanctions. Sorry to disagree. Experienced editors are the very people who Ought To Know Better?. No, they do not know better. If I knew better, I would not do a lot of things that I did in the past. I have seen many experienced contributors who behaved rather stupid. Being prolific means their potential for harm is much greater?. No, this is just the opposite. There are many prolific contributors who did no harm to anyone and peacefully edited all the time. Why? That's because they edited human anatomy. Those who edited Chechen war subjects are already banned or stopped editing because they could not handle when others come to revert their edits for no obvious reason. If anything, people who really focus on creation of content do not care about anything else. People who anger others are normally those commenting on contributors, not on the content. My very best wishes (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from Christopher Thomas

Two main items for this:

1) Keep Arbitration processes largely unchanged.

It's one of the few dispute-handling processes in Wikipedia that actually seems to work well for its intended function. While the evidence pages get dramariffic, the drama seems to be well-contained there (an ArbCom case's conclusion generally reduces the amount of drama related to the issue elsewhere on the wiki).

2) Increase the number of arbitrators (and clerks) to handle the load, and start bringing disputes to ArbCom sooner.

Quite a lot of problem-issues and problem-users spend years in DR, hit AN/I numerous times, cause large amounts of grief to large numbers of editors, and otherwise sap the productivity and will-to-live of tangentially-involved editors who would otherwise be productive. For most of these situations, it's pretty clear that the dispute is likely to end up at ArbCom eventually. Encourage bringing it there earlier, instead of jumping through as many hoops first. The wiki will be better for it.

--Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

Agree. The long term abusive people know how to misuse rather than violate policies. Currently the only place with a scope to review this is arbcom.North8000 (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this suggestion

• Regarding point 2, having been involved with the ArbCom elections for the past two years now, first as a coordinator and last year as a guide writer, it is my qualified opinion that we would have a very hard time finding more people to fill the roles. Look at the support numbers from past elections, you'll see what I mean. As for bringing more things to ArbCom sooner, I don't know if they could handle that even with an increase in personnel. I'd rather give DR some bigger teeth. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that (per above, arbitration is one of the few processes that actually seems to be working well). Regarding giving DR teeth, the problem is that you'd need enforcement via people who were as trusted by the community, and nearly as authoritative, as ArbCom. If expanding ArbCom isn't feasible, I'm not sure finding people to give binding rulings/enforcements on disputes earlier in DR is feasible either (judging by the number of disputes of admin actions at AN/I, an admin flag alone likely isn't enough).

I'd be overjoyed if it happened, though. Any suggestions for how to accomplish it? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This thread may interest you. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 03:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Yes, I can see the logic. There is no way for administrators to resolve any dispute unless people can resolve their disputes themselves. What remains? Shooting the horses by Arbcom and other administrators, and the sooner the better? No, simply do not shoot the horses. My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, quite a few disputes do get resolved - eventually - due to various steps in DR. My problem is with the ones that don't, and which take up a very large amount of time and effort from other editors. IMO, "shooting the horse" at this point - sanctioning, topic-banning, or wiki-banning people who have demonstrated that they either cannot or will not operate in a manner consistent with the project's goals - is fully justified. It already happens now; I want it to happen earlier, before as many editors burn out or as much time is wasted. This doesn't mean sanctioning more people - it means taking less time to sanction ones who would eventually wind up at arbcom under the existing system. As it is, chronic offenders and topics with chronic controversy stew for years collecting stamps from the WP:DR list before an arbcom case is finally filed. I do not see the benefit to having that many go-arounds and second chances, at the expense of the rest of the community. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree - shooting the horses is indeed resulting in further damage (or simply ongoing damage), while it does not resolve the actual issue that caused it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this is due to us editing in different areas, but in physics, is most definitely helps. How did having constant edit warring and pov-pushing related to Plasma cosmology help Wikipedia? How did stopping that, via the pseudoscience arbitration case's sanctions, hurt Wikipedia? How did having interminable screeds from David Tombe about relativity and constant arguing at WT:PHYS and elsewhere from other editors about the definition of the speed of light and related units help the project? How did stopping that, via the speed of light arbitration case's sanctions, hurt Wikipedia? Back when I used to follow the Requests for Arbitration queue, the vast majority of cases were of this type: one or a handful of users causing disruption on a wide scale, severely hampering the functioning of some area of the project. Not sanctioning them is what causes ongoing harm.

I'd also be interested in hearing your rationale for topic-related cases causing net damage to Wikipedia. Things like the Scientology case and the Israel/Palestine case (and "discretionary sanctions" in general) are aimed at giving uninvolved administrators the enforcement tools they need in order to effectively shut down disruption in areas where it's chronic. What would you do to stop that, if not impose sanctions? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but as an example: I do see that the enforcement of NFCC (to name one) is something that is now largely down the drain, and I believe that is partially due (and maybe to a large part due) to an ArbCom motion taking out one of the editors who is knowledgeable and who was very active in that. NFCC is a problem, certain images should not be used in the way they are, or certain images should not be overused in the way they are. It was a problem before, but I don't think that restricting an editor who was enforcing a policy (even if that editor did that really so wrong) gave the right message. The point is, that certain parts of NFCC should be enforced, but because of what happened there, it results in a near impossibility - if you enforce it a bit too strong, you will be removed from the area, so your position is weakened. The direct problem has been solved, but the base problem has not been solved, actually, I am afraid that many of the people who were active in enforcing NFCC are now not doing that anymore (I tried for a bit .. but after being yelled at (it worked with the one editor who got restricted, so maybe it works again) I walked out of it (so, actually it did work)).

And there are more cases which you can see in such a light. I am not saying that all decisions of ArbCom are wrong, but some have, probably unintended, consequences. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I could draw a similar example from the last case of Rich Farmbrough. Rich is the second editor who gets restricted for doing mass edits which have upset a part of the community (and yes, he made mistakes - editors do make mistakes). Before that case, a third editor already ran into the same problem with their bot. Restricting Rich there did not solve the base problem: the other bot is still under discussion, and part of thát bots improvements will not be able to run anymore. What, it is being discussed to take over (some of) the work that Rich did, the work that got him restricted. I don't think that ArbCom there solved the problem either, however, it created many others. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. It could work, but then we need to have a different ArbCom system. What we need is a system in which the actual content disputes (that are usually at the heart of a dispute) can be looked into in more detail, and not just behavioral issues that some editors have. I'll write up a proposal along these lines below. Count Iblis (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. We don't need more people in control with bad procedures, we need better procedures that require less people and work quicker and make everybody happier because they aren't stuck in things which are irrelevant to building the encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggest reading The Mythical Man-Month and reconsidering that suggestion at 2). It simply doesn't work that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've owned a copy of that book for many years. Brooks' Law applies when you apply more people to try to speed up one task. That is not what I'm suggesting here. What point 2 would try to do is get through a long queue of many small tasks - individual arbcom cases - faster. Double the size of the arb pool but keep the number of arbitrators per case the same, and that can be done.

Individual cases would take the same length of time and have the same number of arbitrators as at present. You'd need to process more cases, for a while, because (as a fake-numbers example) going from "disputes hit arbitration after about three years in DR" to "disputes hit arbitration after one year in DR" requires quickly processing the two-year section of the queue you're trying to eliminate. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from isaacl

1. Designate a scope for an accepted case.

   To ensure that the presented evidence is focused on the intended area of dispute to be resolved, when the arbitration committee accepts a case, it should include a brief statement delineating the scope being reviewed. There may be cases where it would be better to leave the scope open-ended, or subject to revision based on the presented evidence. Nonetheless, a statement clarifying this either way would assist in avoiding extraneous evidence being produced, thereby saving editors' time.

2. Solicit co-ordinators to represent each major point of view in a dispute, who would put forth the evidence in a case.

   Discussions involving multiple editors are often difficult to follow due to the proliferation of discussion threads, and repetition of points which may drown out newly-raised views. In order to simplify following the case, I suggest that at the onset, co-ordinators be solicited to collect evidence and feedback from all interested parties. The co-ordinators would edit the case pages with the collected information. This will reduce the number of threads that interested parties need to follow, and limit repeated statements. Accordingly, editors would not have to spend as much time following a given case, freeing up more time to contribute to Wikipedia in other ways.

isaacl (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

1. Roughly agree with this, though probably it needs more .. way more (need to think about it). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
2. This is a sound basic idea. The issue that would sink this is lack of clarity of the process ideals. For example my case was brought as a prosecution rather than an arbitration. Therefore I needed (although I did not use it) freedom to show the motivation of other parties. Rich Farmbrough, 17:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC).
   

Discussion about this suggestion

• The idea of coordinators seems interesting; one of the common problems I've seen in cases over the years is that editors who (for a variety of perfectly good reasons) have no prior experience with arbitration don't really understand what we're looking for in an evidence presentation, and wind up submitting evidence that doesn't really help their case, and having someone with prior arbitration experience organize their presentation would likely help both the parties and the arbitrators. In your view, would the coordinators be selected from among the parties to the case (in other words, multiple editors involved in a case would choose one of their number as a spokesperson) or from outside the parties (in other words, editors could have uninvolved advocates to represent them in the proceeding)? Kirill ^[talk] 03:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I was thinking that both options could be done: Ideally, if enough people could be found to staff it, there would be a pool of volunteer co-ordinators, and the parties could choose to work with one of them, thereby off-loading the grunt work of assembling the parties' points of argument together. Alternatively, they could choose any willing Wikipedia editor to co-ordinate their views.
  • Regarding effective evidence presentation, perhaps a few well-presented cases can be offered as examples to follow? isaacl (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• So coordinators would sort of be process clerks for the commenters (as opposed to clerks for the arbs)? Sounds interesting, as long as they "help" and not "manipulate/suppress" - jc37 11:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As the commentary from the interested parties would be collected on a Wikipedia project page, the accuracy of the assembled evidence and analysis would be readily verifiable. In the case where the parties pick their own co-ordinator, they would presumably select someone they trust to accurately represent their views. isaacl (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from North8000

Arb process works pretty well. What's really needed for both editor retention and article quality is to make about 6 policy tune-ups so that they aren't so often used contrary to their purposes. The most frustrating/depressing thing for anybody anywhere who cares is to work where the bad guys win/rule via their cleverness at misusing policies. This is also why all Wikipedia articles on contentious topics are utter failures. But this isn't the place to fix that.

A suggestion is to expand the successful arb process to where it could straighten out destructive/nasty behaviors that escape ANI etc. due to wikilawyering cleverness. A good way to to this but still deal with only vetted situations is to take over RFC/U's (the toothless process) where the complaint has been substantiated. North8000 (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

1. I agree: arb com is one of the few effective processes we have, and the requirement for RfC/U before arb com almost always increases dissension. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
2. The second part more than the first. I'm proposing the second point as a stand alone below. RfC/U is pretty much just "let's set up a paper trail to deal with this later". - jc37 11:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
3. As proposer. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
4. RFC/U causes as many problems as it solves in its current form. It has no teeth and inadequate participation from uninvolved administrators, making it often more chaotic and ineffective than AN/I. It needs enforced structure with potential consequences. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from Nobody Ent

It's a leap to go from complexity of Wikipedia as a whole affecting retention to infer that complexity of ArbCom has significant impact on editor retention. Very few editors end up at ArbCom and they end up there because the rest of Wikipedia has inconsistent incoherent policies. Clear repeated policy violators will be blocked or banned before they get to ArbCom; likewise editors clearly following policies will never be brought here. The trouble is sometimes no one is quite sure whether they're following policy or not.

Editors who agree with this suggestion

1. Agree on two points, explained below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
2. +1 and I would add that ' editors clearly following policies will never be brought here ' will all too often be accidentally indeffed instead. Penyulap ☏ 18:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Agree, though I think changing the threshold for bringing cases to arbcom could have an indirect effect (per my own proposal). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this suggestion

It would appear we lose the majority of good editors without ArbCom being a factor at all. There is a great weakness in our current dispute resolution system, in particular, manpower. Too often, disputes aren't addressed because of this shortage of available help from experienced editors to assist, and yes, the guidelines and rules are so plentiful that the two sides of the issue can point to guidelines that support their position, yet both sides be wrong. Or right. As to the manpower shortage, too many content disputes get pushed into places like AN/I, and only after the dispute has escalated to a point that the participants are completely frustrated by the lack of clarity. This is a terrible way to deal with disputes, and is very discouraging to editors as it gives them the impression that the only recourse in a dispute is to get someone blocked. Or to just give up and leave Wikipedia. If we could encourage more experienced editors to take an early role in dispute resolution, ArbCom would have a lighter load, and we would reduce the risk of losing more talent. This may require taking a look at dispute resolution as a whole. We have plenty of places to go for resolution (maybe too many), yet too few willing to help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. However I think ArbCom is a factor, because it is part of the bogeyman that is Wikipedia. The perception is that if you put your head above the parapet you get it chopped off - and this applies all the way up the line. This is contrary to the intended spirit of Wikipedia, and is a major reason for people leaving - they feel that they are not being listened too, they are being stigmatized with templates, and if they attempt to "fight back" they are drowned in an alphabet soup of WP:FOOs, "taken to" noticeboards where the process and culture is alien to them, and have the threat of a hierarchy of sanctions, backed up by ArbCom (which dishes out sanctions, rather than arbitrating). Rich Farmbrough, 18:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

• I think that Nobody Ent forget about the system of discretionary sanctions introduced by Arbcom. This system directly and very significantly affects retention of editors. Here are lists of editors affected by discretionary sanctions in only one of the areas [1] [2]. Most of them do not edit in wikipedia any longer. Others (like myself) do not want to edit in this area precisely because of these sanctions. Do you know how many people are currently active in this area? Very few. This is not US politics. My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Factual disagreement. The most destructive editors are the ones who have learned how to do it via mis-using of policies rather than violating them. Those who violate them are already weeded out by the other processes (ANI etc.) North8000 (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from Rich Farmbough

Improve focus: the party bringing the dispute has to clearly state the dispute. While other matters may or may not be introduced to show motivation, for exanple, the scope should not be broadened. So I would see a checklist.

1. Is the dispute clearly delineated.
2. Is the dispute ongoing.
3. Has the party bringing the dispute attempted to resolve the issue cordially
4. Has the party bringing the dispute used 3rd opinion
5. Has the party bringing the dispute used all other DR options available
6. Has the party bringing the dispute used mediation

If any of these should be answered "No" the case should be rejected.

Editors who agree with this suggestion

Agree. In addition, "the party bringing the dispute" should never be Arbcom itself or someone who is not involved in the dispute but tells: "look, these two guys can not resolve their dispute, so let's "help" by sanctioning one of them or the both". Why? Because these two guys would probably prefer to resolve their differences, rather than go to arbitration. Starting an unnecessary arbitration is a very bad idea, even if Arbcom finally decides to open the case.My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Mediation is skipped all the time in accepted cases. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about Rich Farmbrough's suggestion

• Note: Some of the above is supposed to be the case now, but patently isn't. Rich Farmbrough, 18:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC).
  

I don't know how relevant 3O is, given that 3O is focused on content and ArbCom is focused on non-content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from Count Iblis

We need to have an ArbCom system which is able to study those issues that the editors in the dispute find the most relevant. In many cases these are content issues that neither Admins nor Arbitrators can directly address as they obviously need to be uninvolved. Also, the system has to be open minded about arguments by editors that sticking strictly to certain rules does not lead to a good outcome in some particular case.

What matters is how the editing proceeds, not per se if some rule X is violated by editor Y. If violating rule X is really a problem, that would become apparant also if you forget about rule X, study the problems and then come to the conclusion that someting along the lines of rule X should be necessary in precisely this case. Then because rule X already exist, it confirms the necessity of sticking to that rule. But if invoking rule X (perhaps in some narrow interpretation) is unreasonable and it is actually fuelling the problem, that will be mentioned in the final ruling.

The best way to implement such a system, would be for ArbCom to delegate accepted cases to a jury of experienced editors who remain anonymous. They then have the freedom to look at the problems in all its relevant aspects without any restrictions to keep away from specific content issues. The jury can interview the involved editors, they can read the sources on which edits that are under dispute are based, they can consult with external experts to get a better understanding of the topic area.

This will then give then a feeling of what the relevant issues in the topic area according to the sources are, and if these issues are fairly reflected in the articles with proper weight. Then that implies if some complaints of editors have merit or not. If the articles ar ok. that may be due to an uphill struggle by some editors, and their complaints about that will then be found to have merit. The jury will then compile a report and send that to ArbCom, who will make binding rulings.

Count Iblis (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

1. Yes, I think we should create a few editorial boards to rule on content in difficult areas instead of creating discretionary sanctions. If people have an especially difficult question, they might be able to come and ask which version is better. End of story. Yes, I know that editorial boards are a much lesser evil than disputes to nausea and sanctions. But unfortunately, this idea is extremely unpopular around here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Strongly agree. Hard to follow but brilliant. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Agree a jury system could help. Something like an RfC but only where some randomly picked people from a roster could decide and there would be a time limit on their decision so they knew they wouldn't be away from their families for weeks as it were. They needn't be admins. I'd say they could impose a one or two year freeze on the decision. Dmcq (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this suggestion

In response to Mvbw's comment above, my concern is that any appointed or elected board would have difficulty evaluating disputed content. The people who are very familiar with a given subject are likely already taking part in the dispute; people who aren't, would have difficulty making a reliable, informed decision about that subject. This is also why I'm glad ArbCom doesn't handle content (I trust them to decide behaviour cases fairly, but I certainly wouldn't want them issuing decrees about what the tachyon article should cover or what the proper name of the tau particle is).

We already have a process that makes content decisions in contested areas: RFCs. For controversial topics, these tend to get wide participation, and be closed by a trio of uninvolved administrators rather than any single one. The most recent example I can name is the Muhammad images RFC, which produced about as sane a result as IMO was possible given the degree of controversy over the issue.

I'd be overjoyed if a board existed that I could trust to produce rational decisions about content issues, but given the involvement of expert editors in the debates, I suspect that article RFCs are about as good a process as we're likely to get. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This (the suggestion) is an interesting concept, but over the years the community has been at odds with the notion of a "content committee". I think something is needed, but I'm not quite sure if this is what we're looking for. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 11:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from ChrisGualtieri

I'll try to be brief here. It is a lower level problem, with some limited arbitration concerns.

• Editor retention is driven by our policy and editing policies as much as our action even prior to arbitration. A grossly impersonal system of warnings, notices, templates and tags combined with loose interpretations of rules in dealing out retribution, punishment or even warning comes at all levels of Wikipedia's editors, not just administrators. Every STiki, Huggle or Twinkle warning is impersonal and imposing with official appearance, making even good-faith attempts to edit content possibly off-putting for new or established editors.

• Policies are the most effective deterrent to editor retention; squabbles over wording, content and interpretation affect all levels of editors. Arbitration gets to the matter after something has already been going on, help for a wide range of civility and content concerns often fall flat until an administrator is roped into the matter. Administrators who issue blocks could drive good-hearted editors away, but it is far more likely for other editors to badger and pester each other to the point that they quit out of frustration. Most cases are not actionable by administrators in an effective way, a 'go your separate ways' type of dispute revolution should be able to be imposed by all editors. A complex matter to raise here, but in effect a 'splitting up' of problem editors until the flames of anger subside.

• ArbCom is likened to the Supreme Court in more then just a few small ways, cases are cited, arguments are referred to and matters of conduct for the community are derived from exceptional cases. The stress load of ArbCom and the entire community could be lessened by pulling ArbCom's cases and matters to the individual level so that previous rulings do not dictate actions of all Wikipedians or allow defenses to be crafted on any level by citing ArbCom. Official stance aside, it seems this unspoken feeling exists, a crafted boogeyman of sorts to note another editors comment.

• Boards sound good procedurally, but they don't work that well. The inability to resolve situations on a real-time or near real-time scale doesn't help either. More often then not, the problem will be stale before its end and the dispute is embarrassing to those involved. If it would be a board it should function like 'Requests for page protection' where others can briefly state their concern and a non-blocking action can be taken to rectify and if failures continue move towards blocking. Again... not the subject of this discussion, but at the risk of going off topic, it should be very lenient and not a blackmark on any editor.

Stigma and neglect hurt existing editors, our arbitration concerns are for the more established editors (1000+ edits), but we lose most of our editors at the policy and procedure 'warnings' handed out in bulk by regular editors. Sure ArbCom sits atop the pile of actions, but if something goes to ArbCom we generally realize editor retention is not the concern, because most individuals would not stick through the case if they didn't want to contribute to Wikipedia. Every page on Wikipedia matters to someone, they work on it for free, stepping on anyone's toes (no matter who) could push them away long before an Admin or ArbCom ever get to it. Wikipedia's complex system of rules, procedures and arbitration exist for the greater good, but they are not as compatible with our ideals as one would expect. It is the role of the individuals who hold more power then ArbCom when it comes to editor retention and through the processes which dispute resolutions follow. They exhaust the parties and retention by trial of fire would be exceedingly low, the Wikipedia learning curve is steep and unfriendly and often enforced by the unforgiving. It is the community as a whole, rather then ArbCom, which bears the problem with editor retention.

To surmise: Invoke low-level binding dispute resolution (For two editors to avoid each other for a week), dispel the negative appearance of ArbCom in its role and refresh our responses so that the newest and most unfamiliar Wikipedia editors can be assisted rather then warned or punished for their infractions. Let's not make a walled garden. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

• I agree that having interaction-bans applied much earlier in the dispute resolution process would help with quite a few situations. The difficulty is how to handle situations where both editors are involved in a content dispute thread on an article page. Forcing one or the other away from that endorses the remaining one's content view, and forcing both away might not be better. It also amounts to a de-facto topic-ban, which is serious business. Allowing both to participate, on the other hand, removes the teeth from the interaction ban. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Interesting idea. Sometimes, in a dispute, intervention from an administrator is not necessary - just guidance from a calm, level-headed individual, but this is not always effective. Dispute resolution sometimes needs teeth. Maybe giving experienced DR volunteers the ability to issue short topic or interaction bans could help, I dunno. But it's a slippery slope. What makes someone experienced? What period of time is considered short enough? All these are factors which need to be considered, and I don't have the answer for this I'm afraid. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 11:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  1. Agree. It's not the whole picture, but agree. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• This is great description of our current situation. Yes, looking at the big picture, the retention can be fixed only by community at large. The bottom line for Arbcom is to be more friendly as a positive example for everyone else. Yes, absolutely. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not absolutely comprehensive in terms of the reasons for WP's difficulty in retaining new editors, but right on the target as far as it goes. Plastic templated warnings and bullying, newbie-biting behavior is indeed a big part of it. ArbCom is an immeasurably small part of the problem, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this suggestion

• The point about the tools is a good one (I've had similar concerns), plus the added issues of "fait accompli". We always used to say that being bold is fine since any problematic edit can be reverted, but people edit with such prolificness that in practice it's actually rather difficult to undo the problems. And not having a way to block gadget/tool use is really starting to become problematic as well. - jc37 11:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from Dmcq

I think a major improvement in the atmosphere could be brought around by having a better way of dealing with content disputes. It is pretty clear there are problems with arbitrating on content disputes so it would be better if the requirement was mostly removed. The problems dealing with these problems lead to ratty behaviour with people provoking civility disputes so as to get some sort of decision. My preferred solution would be to to have RfCs which had a freezing effect for about three months which could be used when an edit felt things were going nowhere and was just generating heat rather than light. When such an RfC is passed the decision would be fixed till the end of the term. Saying it should be changed can be counteracted by pointed to the RfC rather than any arguments of substance. Persistence in asking for or trying to change the decision could be treated as disruptive behaviour.

This would allow for a breather in intractable disputes and allow people to get on with their lives elsewhere in Wikipedia until the term ends. Some editors would be frustrated that they can't get their edit in but things don't have to happen immediately. Overall I think except for the warrior caste we'd be much happier and more productive. Dmcq (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

1. Definitely agree here. I've actually proposed this before, see Wikipedia:Binding content discussions. Might be worth blowing off the dust and giving it another go? Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 11:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
2. This ties in with my concern that RFC/U also has no teeth. The results of both can too easily be ignored. ArbCom isn't the problem. The problem is that all too often, ArbCom is the only solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Agree in principle despite some flaws in the details. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Agree. And not addressing content issues does indeed provide fuel for bad behavior. Count Iblis (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this suggestion

Delaying the problem doesn't fix it. North8000 (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends what you think the problem is. If you think the problem is to decide definitively whether Ireland should refer to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland, then no it doesn't solve that. Perhaps listing the kinds of problem that can and should be solved by arbitration and those where they really shouldn't try might help. I believe the main entries in the first group are civility and disruption, and the main entry in the second group is content. A bit of mediation can often help, but sometimes it just doesn't and anyway it isn't arbitration. Dmcq (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Good thoughts. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from jc37 (RfC/U)

RfC/U has pretty much been reduced to a paper trail creating exercise in preparation for some higher tier of the DR process.

And I might point out that creating an rfC takes almost as much work as creating an RfArb, and is almost always typically drama filled by its very nature.

This much work (and stress) should at least possibly have more of a resolution than: "the user says they will try to do better in the future" (especially when that's an easy lie to tell).

No, I don't want lynch mobs to have the ominpotent power over individual editors, but we need to do something to fix this process. - jc37 11:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

1. Me - jc37 11:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
2. 100% Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Yes. Pesky (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this suggestion

RFC/U needs teeth. Period. It is farcical how ineffective it is. You reduce ArbCom cases by bolstering RFC/U by providing oversight by either one Arb or one admin from a pool of preselected, rotating admins. It needs to be a "lower court" in some ways, with consequences, simple formality, and the ability to be appealed in AN, similar to how we do DRV. What I see is that it often emboldens editors who are problems, instead of fixing problems. They can smirk, play nice for a few weeks, knowing nothing will come of the process, yet the process is needed to provide this paper trail. RFC/U should be retooled and used where AN/x is improper, the case is more complicated, and the problem isn't a single event but a pattern of overall concern. There should be a limit to the sanctions passed, clearly defined, but it needs "clerks" with teeth, who can choose to get involved (pass sanctions to anyone involved) or choose to not get involved (community handled event, no action required). As it currently stands for dealing with problem users, we have AN/I and we have ArbCom, and nothing effective in between. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from jc37 (semi-automated tools)

We need a way for semi-automated editing tool usage to be revokable. If bot owners were doing what I constantly see these tool users doing, they and their bots would likely be blocked. And as these tools provide a way for not only great disruption, but also essentially fait accompli, this is clearly a major problem. - jc37 11:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

1. Me - jc37 11:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Agree. They are used too much. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Agree. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Agree.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Yes. Pesky (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this suggestion

The need for this is demonstrated at least weekly at AN/I. Having the ability to disable automation of another editor would be an effective tool to deal with problem users before a situation escalated to the point that a block becomes the only remedy. Editor A:-)Brunuś is but one recent example. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with the proposal completely. Some of these tools are fairly powerful, and sometimes I feel like we're putting machine guns in the hands of toddlers. A well-intentioned but clueless "vandal fighter" can rollback changes and template the reverted editor in a single click, and this is before they even know what a template is. I've recently been interacting with a new user who's been reverting good-faith constructive edits, tagging them as vandalism, and then using Twinkle to place level-4 warning templates on the editors' talk pages. His intentions are good, but he's making a mess and probably driving away would-be editors.

I'd suggest having some sort of approval process for editors to get tools. There's currently a process like this for AWB and rollback rights. Why not do the same for Twinkle and STiki? Require users to acknowledge that they've read and agree to some policy before they get the tools, and then if they violate that, take them away. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need to require approval before getting them, but I'm certainly for making it easier to remove them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Add WP:Hotcat to that list.

And an approval process could be something as simple as asking, and an admin pushes the button to activate gadget use. Just add a "gadget" section to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. - jc37 19:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have to ask for rollback rights but be able to get them through the use of tools like Twinkle without having to ask. I'm in favor of having to ask to use these kinds of tools AND, of course, being able to revoke them just as rollback rights can be taken away.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from Fred Bauder

The Committee should be more proactive, being more liberal about accepting cases which involve minor but egregious aggressiveness and incivility.

The Arbitration Committee should work toward taking effective action when the problem is small. My experience both as an editor and as an arbitrator is that it is very difficult to get anything done with respect to particularly nasty situations when they first start. Eventually, of course, action is taken because the behavior begins to affect many people and many articles.

The downside is that doing heavy things regarding problems when they are small is hard to explain both to other arbitrators and to the community. And, of course, sometimes the problems are small or can be mitigated without getting heavy, and making a issue of something is inappropriate.

As to leaving Wikipedia, I created a fork because of aggressive and incivil behavior by other editors, came back to Wikipedia and helped form the arbitration committee as a way of dealing with aggressive and incivil behavior by other editors and now feel that while a great deal was accomplished the system is ineffective. "Laws, like cobwebs, catch small flies, great ones break through before your eyes," Benjamin Franklin. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

1. Agree, and those are core and important points. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this suggestion

1. It's great to be more proactive if it does not mean be more heavy-handed (I hope). But this is difficult to accomplish without creating two or three arbcoms instead of one. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
   1. Well there seems to be a move afoot to do that. Baby arbcoms are being spun out, with extra staff, so that ArbCom proper has more time to ban people hear cases. Rich Farmbrough, 12:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC).
      

Suggestion from MuZemike

I don't know if Arbitration has that much of an impact on editor retention as suggested by ArbCom itself. In my perspective, Arbitration affects a comparatively small number of articles and editors, whereas the rest of the encyclopedia are free to continue along its way. On the other hand, the cases that ArbCom deal with highly controversial topics and highly controversial editors.

That being said, the editing community needs to retain the prerogative – as well as needs to remain proactive – in handling complex situations collectively on their own, without Arbitration whenever they can. I support the status quo in that ArbCom remain as the last resort in dispute resolution, to be employed when all other attempts at community-level resolution have failed. Whenever possible, collaboration and consensus-building, not leadership or its accompanying bureaucracy, need to resolve the many issues that they face.

Lastly, what many people (even me) forget is that dispute resolution is no quick fix. Highly controversial topics are going to require lots of time and legwork to make progress. Simply passing the buck to ArbCom is not going to reduce the amount of time and legwork needed. --MuZemike 18:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

1. Yep, spot on here. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 23:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
3. See comments on RFC/U. The real problems are pre-ArbCom. ArbCom just ends up with all the mess dumped on their laps. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Absolutely.  Brendon is here 06:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion #2 from North8000

ArbCom isn't the problem. The problem is that all too often, ArbCom is the only solution. The closest other mechanism for fulfilling the most common need need (RFC/U) is toothless. The first sentence was said by Dennis Brown in a discussion above, the most brilliant summary I've seen on this page.

Editors who agree with North8000's suggestion

1. As proposer North8000 (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
2. How could I not agree? ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Me, too. Pesky (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from Collect

The processes and delays at ArbCom do, indeed, make it seem like it is functioning as a "court" using "evidence" and "findings."

Therefore I suggest:

1. The initial "request for arbitration" should be restricted to succinct statements of what the editors posting suggest are the primary issues at the start (not as detailed complaints or evidence). The current two-stage "evidence gathering" frequently obscures more than it illuminates. If and only if it is clear that the issues are not based on content disputes at their root, and if and only if it appears that the questions should then be formally stated to determine if the case should be opened, should the discussion of formally opening the case occur.
2. Stage 2 (discussion) should then be where editors can succinctly state what they view to be the "facts of the case" without entering into colloquys, or in any way making any personal comments about any other editors. Each "fact" should be supported by no more than a couple of diffs, and should not be expounded on at length. Any Arbitrator should then take what he or she considers to be the most salient issues raised, and list such on a separate page, where further discussion of each issue may occur prior to the formal opening of the case. If sufficient arbitrators agree on specific issues being amenable to arbitration, such issues should be marked, and the case then limited to those exact and precise issues.
3. Now (likely at the week to 10 days mark) those issues and only those issues should be opened for general discussion (not "evidence"). Arbitrators instead of producing "principles boilerplate" (of which there is now much) or acting as a "court" assessing blame, should then produce statements of how those issues impact on Wikipedia (issues which have no actual impact on Wikipedia should be dismissed as normal noticeboards should be relied on to the greatest extent possible - anyone seeing AE at its best and worst should agree), and how Wikipedia through ArbCom should address those issues. The concept of ArbCom being the "great purveyor of bans and sanctions" has been shown to be one of the problems it has.
4. Any decision by a new ArbCom should focus on the general nature of the issues presented, more than on the individuals "involved in the case." Provide reasonable standards for admins to abide by in establishing any "sanctions", and specify that sanctions require a "reasonable level of consensus" to be valid. The deadline is clearly not "ASAP". (I would hope this would be before the three week mark)
5. "Net votes" and the like have been shown to be more a source of delay than of solution. Since this suggestion removes the "court" aspect of ArbCom, the need for voting results is reduced.

The aim in all of this is to totally reform ArbCom, and thus to improve editor retention. It will reduce the elements that affect editor retention, while allowing ArbCom to focus on greater matters than whether editor Gnarph has improperly edited on the topic of "NASCAR championship incidents" or the like. Collect (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about Collect's suggestion

Much good work/ideas in there on structure & procedure, but I tend to disagree with the underlying premise that such is the problem. North8000 (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the volume of material aggregated in each case on "evidence" which is not remotely connected to the final decision about the case, and where the principles enunciated in such evidence do not appear in any way in the result after three or four months of the case's existence (decision gestation). I suggest that substantial triage at the outset, as noted in my suggestion, would reduce the size of "Mount Doom", as I think some of the participants have likely viewed the process in terms of time and energy taken up. Cheers, Collect (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from Kumioko

My personal opinion is that Arbcom is not the disease but a symptom of it. When cases come to Arbcom its usually because its a contentious site wide issue that has gone unresolved in other venues. When dealing with editors, once the case gets here Arbcom historically has the view that the accused must be guilty and tend to favor banning the user or sanctins against them and they are presumed guilty on arrival with the attitude that if they hadn't done anything wrong they wouldn't be here. Additional problems include a general lack of consideration of discussions, the results are inconsistent and frequently poorly and vaguely written, they make unprecedented decisions about how to interpret different policies and perform a variety of other actions that make the community generally uneasy. I would say there is a general feeling of distrust amongst the community towards arbcom for many of the aforementioned reasons. Many of the cases (both editor and non editor related) that come here are very high profile and attract well known and experienced users so the conduct and decisions by the Arbcom are viewed far outside the temple of Arbcom. A poor decision or comment ripples out across the pedia and causes discussion in other venues and editor talk pages. For these reasons I feel that yes Arbcom decisions do affect editor retention because people see the decisions they make and it causes them to leave. Not in droves necessarily but it does affect it.Kumioko (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with Kumioko's suggestion

1. Though I am not sure whether there is a general feeling of distrust towards ArbCom, I do agree that ArbCom is a mere symptom of what happens in the community, and I agree that there is a ripple effect. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about Kumioko's suggestion

• You tell that "I would say there is a general feeling of distrust amongst the community towards arbcom". Well, this can only be established by a vote of confidence. During each election, individual arbitrators have support of around 60-70%, which is not so bad. Of course we do not count people who did not vote.My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That merely shows that we trust them when we elect them. The true measure of confidence is whether we reelect people who we still trust despite their having served a stint as Arbs. The last couple of years have had most serving Arbs comfortably returned, I think only one sitting or former Arb was defeated each time. If there was a general feeling of distrust I would expect to see much more of an anti-incumbency vote. That said we have had strong votes for new brooms in the past and individual new candidates ave been known to top the polls. ϢereSpielChequers 22:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, many real life politicians have 60% support when elected, but then it drops to 30% or less. Same is here. This is the common phenomenon of failed expectations, and they always fail. The desire to see new faces is also a common psychological misconception that appears in all elections. I liked previous, more lenient Arbcoms much better and was surprised why Fred Bauder (who commented above and was an excellent arbitrator) and some of his colleagues were not reelected. Looking at a bigger picture, we have two groups of people with different rights here: "just users" and administrators. I am not talking about just any administrator, but such administrators who frequently ban and block other contributors who are not vandals or other obvious troublemakers. So, here is the problem. The ordinary users should always comment on content, not on the contributor and follow Wikipedia:Forgive and forget - very good advice. Active administrators, in contrast, do not rule on the content and discuss contributors. More important, they never forgive and forget, and that's the policy [3]. This looks like doublethink, or speaking in terms of experimental psychology, a potentially dangerous situation. Hence my comments above. My very best wishes (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Generally disagree. The main resentment I've seen is from the followers/posse's of prominent warlords who incurred sanctions, where arbcom was the only mechanism for dealing with them. The second most common complaint I've seen is for overly harsh sanctions, which may be true and happen due to unintentional groupthink. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with both comments above however you also have to consider a couple things. Only a small minority of the community cares or knows about Arbcom so the majority of people who "vote" are those who are members, admins, experienced editors or have a vested interest. Although there is certainly some resentment towards Arbcom, many of the issues I have witnessed are due to overly harsh sanctions or poorly worded/crafted ones. When they take it upon themselves to redefine how a policy should be interpretted beyond what the community generally understands or when they make a determination so vague it can be interpretted in an near infinite number of ways, that is a problem. As it stands, there are multiple discussions on multiple venues at the current moment discussing Arbcom, its activities, its decisions, its policy, etc. I have not seen this much discussion about the committee in my years on Wiki. I would also note that although its somewhat true that 60-70% isn't that bad, its not all that great either and it has been declining since Arbcom started when Arbitrators would commonly get 80-over 90% approval. Kumioko (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from an IP editor (use juries selected prior to case opening)

Requiring the panel of arbitrators, who are also very active day-to-day admins, to vote on findings and penalties leads to very frequent questions of prior involvement and conflicts of interest, actual and apparent. It results in a star chamber with all of the inherent injustice that entails. Frequently diffs shown in support of findings do not support them.

After the proposed decision is drafted, Randomly select a jury of ordinary editors, without regard to admin status, to vote on findings and penalties, and toss out any penalties which don't match the approved findings. This has been a bedrock principle of Western jurisprudence for centuries, and there is no reason that dispute resolution in Wikipedia should continue to discourage disputants and onlooking editors by flying in the face of it. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about the IP editor's suggestion

• The difficulty with this is that using juries for arbitration would give us the same thing we have now at RFC/Us: a group of like-minded users dog-piling to either support or condemn the user in question, depending on which day of the week it is and which side canvasses the most effectively. I'd rather be judged by ArbCom than by a random group of people with an axe to grind. Reducing this bias would involve a lengthy and tedious jury selection procedure... which we're pretty much doing already with our arbitration committee selection procedure. IMO any system that was faster at picking a jury would give a worse set of people evaluating the case, and any system that gave a decent set would end up functionally equivalent to what we have now. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  Draft jurors randomly, so they aren't like-minded: peers, not self selection. Jury selection could begin immediately after the case was opened: send out 24 requests to talk pages randomly selected from people who have edited more than 10 times in the past couple weeks, and select the first 12 to reply. If you get less than 12 replies after a week, send out more requests in inverse proportion to the response rate. There's plenty of time for that. Your concerns touch on the age-old governance question: Is anyone who would want to serve as an arbitrator free of conflicts and competent enough to serve as one? Juries eliminate the problem by taking the final decision out of the star chamber and empowering the community to judge its standards. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  I agree that the solution here and at RFC is for random jury members, but I don't agree with picking them after the case has opened. Pick them first, have a rolling program of jury recruitment asking people to sign up for the next slot or slots where they anticipate having the time to take on a case. If you pick them after a case has opened there is a risk of people opting for cases which they have already prejudged. ϢereSpielChequers 21:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  +1, edited suggestion with strikethrough and italics to conform to this thoughtful recommendation. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• There are several obvious problems with this idea. Arbitrators are specially chosen for their job, for their trustworthiness, experience, wisdom, and most importantly, willingness to devote large amounts of time and effort to reading and dealing with cases. Randomly selected editors would have none of those things. Even if you managed to restrict it to currently active editors, chances are very few of them would be willing to get involved in the drudgery of an ArbCom case. Look what a tiny proportion of editors participate in our decision-making processes as it is. And those who did want to be involved might lack the skills, knowledge and judgment to handle the case effectively. Oh, and finally, there's the fact that as random users who hadn't identified themselves to the Wikipedia Foundation, they would not be permitted to read sensitive material, the kind of material ArbCom handles on a regular basis in order to decide its cases. This idea is a non-starter from the word go. Robofish (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from Rich Farmbrough

• Be constructive instead of destructive.

Discussion about this suggestion

Yes, but what does it mean to be constructive in collaborative projects? I think it means mostly two things: (a) helping each other; and (b) openly discussing any problems, whatever they might be. Therefore, speaking about the retention of editors and Arbcom, I would suggest the following policy changes to encourage collaboration and communication in the project.

• 1. Never punish people for alleged "canvassing". The more people take part in discussions (e.g. AfDs or RfCs), the better. Disputes are not decided by head counts. Never use stolen private email communications as evidence.
• 2. Never punish people for "mentality". It might be fine or not to discuss motivations, but something like "battlefield mentality" should never be an official reason for sanctions. You are not thought police.
• 3. Never punish participants for peaceful discussions of wikipedia policies or content.
• 4 Try some form of amnesty ("Forgive and forget"). Do not assume that community "has little patience". This is something you decide. My very best wishes (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I get a very uneasy feeling about those. Forming invisible cliques discussing things away from other editors and swaying decisions that way is a very destructive practice, there are enough noticeboards where people can find stuff they are interested about. Mentality is a shorthand since people try and explain others actions. Never punish for peaceful discussion sounds like more justification for WP:CRUSH behaviour. We rrally do not need people who cause real damage and make the place nasty for other people, nobody has a right to be on Wikipedia. Maybe it is my attitude from my recent experiences but I just can't get myself happy about the overall package here. Dmcq (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• All my suggestions above (or any other similar suggestions by other people) are rather useless. Almost nothing will be accepted because any changes or limitations for operations by Arbcom will have to be accepted by Arbcom itself. The separation of powers exist for a good reason and very much applies here. If any ground rules to be changed, this should be done either by people from Wikimedia Foundation or by a group of users completely independent from Arbcom. My very best wishes (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There are quite a few "cliques" around here ("good" or "bad" usually depends on your side when it comes to politics and history, and I did not see any serious problems in other areas). There is nothing one can do or should do. Forming "cliques" is human nature. Fighting them is like fighting "speculation" in the USSR. Better to legalize. As about WP:CRUSH, yes I saw some people. They can be handled only by a "clique", unless they belong to another "clique". Or they should be simply left alone. Based on my personal experience, this second approach works much better because such people usually use RS and add a lot of valid content in articles, except they use only sources they like. So what? Bring other sources to make these pages more neutral. My very best wishes (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from Shooterwalker

I have little to add. But wanted to lend my weight to some points other people have raised.

1. It's worth noting that most editors who make it passed 100 edits have embraced the technicalities of the interface and our policies on sourcing and article quality. Assuming you can get to 100 edits, you are most likely to be driven away because of a bad dispute or conflict that isn't adequately resolved.
2. ArbCom is actually a reasonably effective process for dealing with user conduct issues. It's not perfect, but any suggestions to improve it should be minor.
3. Dispute resolution in a broader sense is really ineffective. If you can meet the thresholds to get to an ArbCom case, they usually do a good job settling it. But sometimes they turn a problem away (rightfully so, because ArbCom should be a last resort), and the other channels for dealing with the problem are highly problematic. So you end up drifting between ineffective processes before you return to ArbCom, and finally get heard. By that time, there may be enormous damage to the community.
4. Again, the answer isn't to deliver more disputes to ArbCom. The answer is to deal with common disputes before they get to ArbCom. Many could be resolved sooner and more effectively.
5. Common problems that eventually get to ArbCom include: editors who have gotten used to getting away with borderline disruptive conduct, editors who have crossed the line but have been excused due to otherwise good content contributions, problematic editors who have gained enough friends that it's impossible to form a consensus about their actions (without an independent body like ArbCom), and other conduct disputes that attract disputes among our administrators. If we could find a process that could deal with these problems before they became that "last resort" for ArbCom, we'd drastically improve the user experience here.
6. This is more off topic. But I'd also add that it does grow frustrating for veteran editors to argue the same fundamentals over and over with truly new editors, who don't appreciate concepts like verifiability, or what's considered a reliable source. I'm not saying that gives veteran editors a free pass to WP:BITE the new editors. But then we can't expect veteran editors to have endless patience for cleaning up absolute crap (let alone vandalism), as well as the painful discussion that comes from explaining common errors and misunderstandings. Wikipedia needs to have an honest discussion of how to create a better on-ramp for new editors, so that the challenge level of Wikipedia grows proportionally to their experience. I say that not just for the benefit of new editors, but also the experienced editors end up butting heads with the newbies when they don't get it, as well as the millions of readers who might see better content if our community had a stronger sense of our shared standards.

That's it. Shooterwalker (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

• Support except I'm very happy to welcome and help new editors. It is coping with people who have had things explained to them umpteen times and who for whatever reason can't or won't improve their interactions but learn enough to be ever more disruptive that I find saps the will to stay alive on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this suggestion

I think the most common situation that really harms retention is this. Editor A (who could be a newbie or not) makes a change that is not unreasonable [4]. Very soon an experienced editor X comes to blindly revert his edit without explanation [5] instead of making a compromise edit, as he easily can [6] (I am giving the simplest example; note the presence of nationalistic POV, "Jewish colonel in the Soviet army" in last version). Things like that really harm desire of people to contribute. In the more complicated cases, the "reverter" frequently explains his revert like this: "I am not sure that your changes represent an improvement compare to the previous version" (then editor A must provide a long explanation, but he might not have enough time and patience). Why revert if you are not sure or not really familiar with the subject, and why revert if you can easily make a compromise version? Unfortunately, I do not know how to fix it (except not writing wrong essays like WP:BRD that encourage exactly such behavior). I know that Arbcom started punishing people for edit wars more seriously, but this is not a good solution. It actually forces reasonable people (who do not want to be sanctioned) to leave political/history subjects to "tigers" who are willing to take risks and edit war. It only helps that we do not have a lot of articles currently owned by "tigers"...My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That text looks very strange and forced to me, was it trying to say Jewish is separate nationality from Russian? I really don't see this business about compromise, The aim is to build an encyclopaedia, through consensus certainly but certainly not through compromise which I see as horse trading of the "I'll let you put that in if you let me put this other bit in" kind. Dmcq (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Building consensus in such areas usually means creating compromise versions. My point is simple: many people would rather edit something else or not edit anything at all, rather than conduct disputes with nationalistic "tigers" who immediately revert your edit, instead of actually fixing the problem with text. Hence the poor retention. Obviously, I am not interested in "debate" if someone was an ethnic Jew or an ethnic Russian, when his parents were of different ethnicity and this is completely irrelevant (the example above). I would rather leave such article or maybe even the project to "tigers". Actually, this particular situation is not really a big deal, but just a simplest example. When such things repeat over and over again with many different contributors, you really do not want to edit in such subject areas.My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from Dennis Brown

• Summing up my previous points: We can reduce the "negative effect" of arbitration by strengthening the processes before arbitration, making it less needed, less overworked, thus more accountable. Providing some kind of oversight and teeth in the RfC and RfC/U processes, no different than we treat AFD for example, so that decisions made in these venues are more than steps along the way to ArbCom. This would require a review process (or just use WP:DRV) and admins who are willing to close and monitor these "lower courts" with an actual result, even if we limit the sanctions given or actions taken in these venues. It would reduce the frustration found at ArbCom due to editors spending months at lower venues with no results and no hope for a solution. The current unnecessarily delayed and pointless "justice system" causes many more editors to leave in frustration than anything that is done at ArbCom, and this reorganization would reduce losses along the entire process. As it is now, I don't see the point of ever going to RFC/U, except that ArbCom requires that you do first, demonstrating how broken and bureaucratic the system has become. As I've said, and it has been repeated, the problem isn't ArbCom itself, it is simply that ArbCom is relied upon too heavily as the only solution that actually gets results. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Editors who agree with this suggestion

1. Me. As a suggestion for the "RFCU with teeth", maybe the "3 admin closers" that's been becoming popular for the more contentious rfc closes may be an option. And yes, review would be nice. - jc37 18:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. If we can do bans in less than 48 hours at AN and ANI, indef blocks on the fly without going to ANY board, I see no reason why RFC/U should be any less empowered for more complicated cases that aren't "incidents", with 3 admins oversighting, standard review that doesn't retry the case but only insures proper procedure was followed. They can get reviewed, and if they appeal further, ArbCom can review and decide whether or not to accept the appeal for review. Not every RFC/U would require the three admins, only RFC/U where the sanctions being sought were $x or higher, whereas $x can be determined by consensus here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agree. This must be made an official policy. The admins would only determine what was consensus and enforce it if needed (the consensus still can change, as can follow from a later RfC). That would stop unproductive discussions and make RfC more popular. There is one potential problem. The consensus should be defined not by the head count, but by arguments. Therefore, it might be difficult for admins to access the consensus if they do not really understand the subject. This can be resolved by inviting users with expertise in certain areas (not necessarily admins) to participate in closing RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

RFCs are already supposed to be closed by analyzing arguments, rather than a head count. I agree that binding RFCs sound like a good idea (and in fact they've been proposed in the past), but I think it's very important to enforce a "closed by someone uninvolved" rider, and to use a triumvirate-close for anything contentious. Otherwise you'll occasionally end up with dog-pile RFCs closed by one of the dog-pilers, enforcing real sanctions without adequate review of that decision.

Still not that hard to manage: just require that binding RFCs go to WP:AN when it's time to find someone to close them, just as many RFCs already do. The difference being that for binding RFCs it would be _required_, rather than the current "it's procedurally correct for any user who wants to to close it" situation. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not many people know that one can go to WP:AN to have a binding RFC. Some other problems I saw: (a) there are too few people in many subject areas to visit RFC, this is frequently a discussion of only two contributors who happened to strongly disagree; (b) two groups always vote against each other, so that consensus to really improve anything can never be achieved, like here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about going to AN for binding RFCs now; to the best of my knowledge, no such process exists. I'm talking about the existing practice (not policy) of going to AN to ask for closers for an RFC (usually a post along the lines of, "We need someone to close this, I can't because I'm involved, be warned that it's a messy one"). I'm proposing that that become a required practice for binding RFCs (into which category I'm lumping RFCs that involve sanctions), if binding RFCs are ever implemented.

The closest thing we have now to a "binding RFC" process is content RFCs, which aren't what we seem to be talking about here. Content RFCs aren't binding because of being RFCs, they're semi-binding because they're a not-too-inaccurate way of measuring community consensus for the content issue in question. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be great to have an official closing of content RfC by admins and/or uninvolved experts and have results of the closing binding, until there is a new RfC with a different result. That is what I mean. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is already done, for all practical purposes. Anything contentious generally gets closed by an uninvolved admin (or trio of admins, for closes that are expected to raise a stink). Contested RFCs closed by someone involved generally end up at AN very quickly, and get reviewed and possibly re-closed by uninvolved admins. Anyone making edits against what the RFC concluded will usually be reverted (as "editing against consensus established in RFC X"). The best recent example of a binding content RFC that I can think of is WP:Requests for comment/Muhammad images (though there are limits to what _could_ be concluded, given that there was no consensus on some of the discussion points).

It's conduct RFCs (RFC/U pages), not content RFCs, that are toothless at present (they're great for proving that a problem exists, but sanctions can't presently be imposed based on them in most circumstances). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agree. As a parallel, what we're doing in many cases is failing to treat something adequately until it becomes necessary to amputate it. By which point, what we have is effectively a prosecution and not a method of enforceable agreement-finding. Pesky (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)