 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
The following essay represents my personal thoughts about Arbitration, Arbitrators, Arbitrator Clerks, non-parties to a case, proportional response to attacks, the usefulness of workshop pages, and the state of dispute resolution. In no way is it a claim for endorsement unless affirmatively endorsed by other editors. In no way does this essay represent the viewpoint of any project/task force/action that I take part of on wikipedia. As writer of this essay I invoke the user space right to exclusive editorship. If you wish to refute the essay you may write your own. If you wish to propose changes please make them on the talk page
"Mos Eisley Spaceport. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."
— Obi-Wan Kenobi, to Luke Skywalker, Star Wars: A New Hope
The Arbitration Committee is the the next to last step in the conduct dispute resolution hierarchy. As such the conduct of disputants is, at best, highly disruptive. As such due to the way the Arbitration process comences, the way Arbitrators and Arbitrator clerks act, how non-parties to a case are allowed to throw rocks at anything they please, the disproportionate way that defenses to attacks are seen as further attacks, the zero sum input on case workshop pages, and the current state of dispute resolution I call the entire Arbitration process a hive of scum and villany.
Arbitration process edit
To have an arbitration case open, the advocate for the case must present a compelling reason for why the voted and appointed members of the committee should hear the cause for concern. Per the current process there are 2 ways for a case to be opened: A simple majority of unrecused arbitrators to agree that a case is needed or a 'net four' ruling where there is 4 more arbitrators that agree a case should be had than those that decline it. For this reason there is already a significant onus on the advocate for the case to present all evidence to demonstrate in great detail why a case is needed. I have personally observed requests for cases be turned down on trivial technical matters ("Not had a RFC/U", "Arbitration does not hear content disputes", "Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution"). If a case gets declined by Arbitration it is effectively saying "We don't see enough in this cause to go through the process of a case" and effectively terminates the Dispute resolution chain. For this reason, when an advocate makes their case, every last scrap of evidence must be put on the table at the very beginning to convince the Arbiters that having a case is very much justified.
Arbiter clerk actions edit
Incorprating the commentary in the previous section, It should be noted that in the past 5 cases the committee has taken on, there has been a very minimal amount of involvement of Arbiters or Clerks in the Evidence and Workshop portions of the case. Queries on the phase talk pages (Evidence talk, Workshop talk, Proposed decision talk) are met with either silence or extremely opaque responses. This makes it more a closed deliberative body rather than a colaberative process to resolve the dispute. When emails to the clerk for the case or drafting arbiter to the case go unanswered, when emails to the committee go unanswered (even to the point of a "We acknoledge receipt of your message") go unanswered it demonstrates that Arbitration itself is a walled garden that no outsider gain access to. I recall the days when arbitrators would individually or through the drafting arbiter would respond to proposals made in the workshop, when requests for cautioning uninvolved parties would be acted upon in a reasonable timeframe and not left dangling after the closure of a case.