User:Littleolive oil/Sandbox

Thoughts on Dispute resolution processes including Arbitration

• Background

AE, Arbitration, and sometimes AN and AN/I when dealing with behaviour operate on an implied guilty until innocence can be proved paradigm. A paradigm that looks at guilt is probably also going to be looking to punish guilt and that's exactly what happens on Wikipedia almost all of the time. Wikipedia is punitive despite the language used in some cases by some admins and some arbs.

• The Process

In an AE, arbitration, AN, AN/I depends on evidence that someone has behaved badly and proof of that requires diffs - supposed instances of that poor behaviour. However diffs do not include context which increases the possibility for misunderstanding what actually went on in any given situation. I was told very early in my Wikipedia days to keep evidence simple because arbs are often short on time and don't like to read. Since then my experience is that many editors don't like to read but will scan at most. Newer editors don't know this, and its very common to see these editors lay our long explanations.

• Togetherness

We have to be honest and note that like minded editors stick together, show up in disputes together and often vote together possibly because they are together in the first place because they think alike. In an AE a single editor who can sometimes be relatively inexperienced can be faced with a group of editors who are both experienced and like minded. Comments from multiple editors testifying against a single editor can pile up and overwhelm both the judge and the judged; in some cases the judge already has a leaning towards a point of view that coincides with the group.

All of this combined with the way in which the human mind works as it makes decisions and judges means the single editor doesn't have a chance.

A few years ago I was sanctioned for a copy edit error and a cmt made by another editor. I was understandably upset went to the admin's page to ask what the sanction was really for and then received another set of reasons much of which was not true and the rest was not even sanctionable, for example, that an editor decides to work out BLP issues on the article page rather that go to the BLP notice board does not mean the editor is lying about the BLP concern; it just means they chose to work it out on a talk page. When I attempted to ask for a AE clarification the same admin wrote something else again; even an arb said I had discussed something I hadn't. Until recently I assumed the admin was dishonest and was acting as part of a group. This was a heart breaking situation for me and along with several other situations/sanctions drained whatever desire I had left, to edit. However, I began to realize that I was not alone in how I was treated, and that there were patterns in the AEs, arbitrations and AN/Is some which seemed to be created deliberately probably to remove people. Yet, as in the case of the admin who handed me a six month sanction, I had a hard time believing that anyone could be that under handed and yet was respected by other editors; some I respected myself.

Then I read the book, The Undoing Project [1] by Michael Lewis which I believe should be compulsory reading for anyone making decisions on Wikipedia. It solidified ideas that had been floating around in my mind as impressions. What I began to realize is that the human mind even the most intelligent is a tricky mass of cells and does not act and react as we might think; that the conditions in which a decision is made, that the more recent the memory, that the narrative or scenario the mind perceives all influence the decision. In my case I didn't need an admin to tell me I had done nothing wrong; I had become frustrated for sure but I knew very well what was going on as did the other neutral party on the page The circumstances surrounding my sanction where not what had been layed out but I also realized that I had acquired a very specific reputation, a narrative about who I was that went back years, and I began to realize that those judging this case would act in accordance with that narrative and very likely believed it and would, given the way our minds work, according to the two scientists Lewis describe in his book, fit the evidence to the narrative. This lets me of the hook with the admin in my AE case; I had to believe he was acting honestly although not accurately to what had actually led up to my sanction. Or I'm naive. I prefer to believe the best of that situation

I realize there are editors who find themselves in very hot water here in part out of ignorance on the how the place runs, in part because they are alone, and in part because they do transgress some standards before they realize what the consequences are. We also have editors who at the worst deliberately create false narratives while others are truly guardians of the encyclopedia who see other editors as real dangers. Its all here in its full glory. Simply put; if we understand how the human being and her/his brain acts and reacts we could possibly save some good editors rather than punish them.

• Which brings me back to AEs, arbitrations, AN/I and a possible way make these forums more fair.

Multiple editors pouring in, remarks, some without context some deliberately meant to damage is overwhelming for most people editors and decision makers both. I believe we should be trying to save editors to help them get back on track. We lose experts on topic areas we can't afford to lose. There are articles and topics only experts can edit or even understand.

• A simple approach

I would set up AEs, as an example, this way... Probably more to add to this bit....

The filing party files, but no other editor files. Then the admin or arbs question the person who is filed against, directly. Their job is to understand what went on and to ask specific questions that can guide them and zero in on the problems, the discrepancies, the potential to help rather than punish. We should be talking to people directly. Right now, especially newer editors do not know what they should say or do, what approach will be looked at more easily than another. When I was last sanctioned I wanted to rebut the second set of reasons the admin gave for sanctioning me but I was afraid I'd be further sanctioned for that rebuttal as in tendentious editing claim. In the end, I was so confused by the whole mess I did nothing somehow believing no arb would support the copy edit error sanction. I was wrong to not have rebutted every single step and would have welcomed a chance to explain. I would suggest we assume innocence until mistakes have been established as fact, that we get our information from the so-called guilty party directly not from the pile-on of editors who might have an agenda however innocent they are of their own biased point of view. I would suggest that admins and arbs not accept emails during a case that might influence them establish some kind of narrative, to keep the process transparent. And yes, this means arbs and admins have to be involved beyond a vote, have to lay out clearly why there is a sanction or why a sanction cannot be lifted. They probably have no idea how it feels to be judged with zero information given from some judgement makers as to why the judgement went that way it did. I have felt and my reading has supported this that when faced with a decision most people will chose a safe decision over one that is not as clearly safe. For example, in an AE clarification where an editor is asking for a sanction to be lifted the safest position is to say no. Its less safe to refuse to remove the sanction and give the sanctioned editor another chance.

After this first step the arb or admin leading the case could open up another section for other editors to add information from their view points and experiences.

• And AE would look something like this:

1.) Statement filed by editor B towards editor A

2.) Admin 1 talks to editor A asks what happened, how does he see the situation. Admin 1 talks about where he sees the problems which could lead to sanctionable behaviours allowing editor A to respond directly to the these allegations.

3.)Admin 1 may open two new sections one for other editors to respond to the case and another for other admins or arbs to respond in some detail to the case.

4.) Judgement given which clearly lays out the problems or lack of. Any admin or arb may add information here but a support or decline vote is not enough. There must be supporting information given from each arb or admin who votes.

• None of this is meant to be critical to anyone but is meant to begin looking at our processes to potentially revamp them.

PS: I don't believe...

This is an encyclopedia first. No its not. Its a collaborative project which has as a mission - the goal of creating an encyclopedia. Without the editors there would be nothing here. So we need to treat people as if they are valuable not as if they get in our way. This may require a different mind set than we have now and greater understanding of how we and our minds actually work.

Comments by DrChrissy

First, I could not agree more with your point that guilt, rather than innocence, is assumed on these noticeboards, particularly when appeals are made. This is completely against the British system of justice, and I believe the US. This presumption of guilt seriously needs addressing, or, editors need to be told how to "prove" their innocence. This was the point of my suggesting questions be placed on templates.

Second, length of statements/appeals. I understand the point you are making. As a scientist, I have been trained to be concise. I fear, way too concise for noticeboards on here. At my recent appeal, I felt the best strategy was to keep my statement as brief as possible and let the ARBS ask the questions they wanted answering. Those questions were never asked, and my topic ban was not lifted. Wrong strategy, obviously. These noticeboards should be a learning experience, however, I learned almost nothing from my recent experience. It feels a bit like being a school-boy being sent to detention for being "naughty", but without being told what I did that was "naughty".

Third, Diffs should be provided on ALL noticeboards, otherwise it is not evidence. In my opinion, posts on a noticeboard accusing an editor of something without diffs should be redacted.

Fourth, something you have not mentioned. At Arbcom, I believe that the ARBS should vote without knowing how the other ARBS have voted. Yes, of course they should have discussions beforehand, but the actual votes should perhaps be sent to a clerk who produces these only when all votes have been collected. There is a great tendency in humans to show conformity, and this would eliminate that, allowing us to get independent, unbiased votes from each ARB. It would be good to see this applied to other noticeboards, but I fear the numbers of participants would make this impracticable.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think these are good points. My concern with diffs has been that unless there are many they don't necessarily paint an accurate picture. In my own AE one admin posted diffs that were not about me, but nobody saw that or maybe even cared. Questions with diffs can give the decision makers context.

I know the job the arbs and decision-making admins do can be taxing and I am not criticizing them; its the system that is flawed.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC))

I've long thought also that any personal remarks or labeling whether positive or negative made in an arbitration, AE, AE clarification be removed immediately by a clerk with the stipulation that the removed content can be rewritten by the editor sans personal remarks. Part of the problems we have is that DR on behaviour become personal pile ons.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC))

I too have tried not to criticise the ARBS in person, but more on the process and how human ARBS have to deal with that process. But, like you, I have had statements/decisions made by an ARB where they have clearly not looked at that case with sufficient detail. I agree also about a clerk redacting personal remarks. Redact the entire posting - if an editor had to reword their contribution I think this would prevent many drive-by negative comments. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)