Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Beeblebrox

Beeblebrox

After much contemplation I have decided to run one more time for the committee. It's been an interesting two years, certainly in November 2019 none of us expected the profound changes that have happened around the world. I feel like the committee is also in a time of change, for the better, and would like to keep trying to move it in that direction with the incredible group of colleagues it has been my pleasure to serve with.

I've made some mistakes the past two years, and been rightly called out on them. I have always maintained that none of us is perfect, it's what we do in response to our mistakes being pointed that matters. I have done my best to listen and learn from those in the community who have objected to my words or actions.

I have a low tolerance for disruption of the project, but I also endeavor to remember, and to remind others, that we are dealing with real people here, whether we are patrolling their very first edit or deciding whether to ban them or not, we have to remember that.

As a long-term functionary and current arbitrator I am already signed off on all relevant documents required for arbitrators. I have some non-editing doppelgänger accounts that redirect to my user page, but I do not have any alternate accounts and never have.

• lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves
  )

2. Standards of Evidence: What standards of proof should the arbitration committee use when deciding to enact a sanction on an individual, and should these standards vary depending on the type of sanction being considered?

   You've linked to Burden of proof (law) which concerns legal standards. I rather think Burden of proof (philosophy) is more on point when it comes to arbcom. We do not have, and should not have, specifically defined standards. Assuming we are referring to full cases here, what we do have is one or more individuals coming forward asking the committee to solve some intractable problem. We ask them first to prove that the community is truly unable to resolve it and therefore a case is warranted, and then, if a case is accepted, to identify specifically from where the problem stems. Given that the committee examines behavioral issues only, this almost always entails evidence that one or more specific users are the ultimate source of the ongoing issues. What I personally expect to see is multiple examples where there is clear agreement that a behavior is not acceptable, and yet it continues regardless. The standard by which we judge this are lower for administrators, as the community is at this time not able to remove administrative status and it therefore must be handled by the committee, but I would still expect to see the same type of pattern. Persistence, in almost all cases, is a key component. This is critical difference between what the committee does and a court proceeding. We generally will not even hear a case on a "first offense" unless it entails extremely egregious behavior by a holder of advanced permissions.

4. Standards for Evidence: When the arbitration committee is presented with off-wiki evidence (such as discord logs, screenshots of emails, or text messages), what is the mechanism that you believe the arbitration committee should implement to verify that the evidence presented is truthful, and how does your vision compare and contrast with current ArbCom processes in place?

   In this area it is very dependent on what the source is. In some cases accounts are confirmed to their on-wiki usernames, or the user may have some indication on their userpage what name they use on other forums. Screenshots of any kind are much more difficult to examine as the committee usually have no way of verifying with any degree of certainty who sent them. Even if the committee is forwarded the full email with headers intact, it often cannot verify who actually sent it as it simply does not have access to users email addresses, and image manipulation software and unlimited, free, throwaway email accounts are a thing. (In fact, this past year we had an appellant who was sending the committee "evidence" that they were being harassed off-wiki that we became convinced they were simply emailing to themselves.) This is where being on a committee comes in. The committee is by no means a monolith, often one member will catch something that has escaped everyone else, or will simply interpret something in a way that failed to occur to others. When the committee cannot overcome it's doubts about the provenance of a piece of evidence, it cannot be considered to be evidence.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your responses. —

2. The WMF approved its Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) policy. What is your feedback on the UCoC?

   As a statement of principles, it's fine. I do have concerns about who is expected to enforce it, and how.

4. You have served as part of the ArbCom. Which ArbCom case has affected you personally as a Wikipedian?

   A natural affect of the committee being more selective about what cases it will hear is that often only the really difficult, unpleasant ones make the cut. Hard decisions must be made, sometime users you know to be otherwise fine people and good Wikipedians end up being sanctioned. That's no fun for anyone involved, but dealing with such things is one of the most important functions of the committee. Cases are the most visible thing the committee does, but I have also found that a lot of the behind-the-scenes stuff can be really challenging. We've had to look into some rather dark allegations these past two years, some of which involved people's real-world circumstances and identities. And we've had to live with the fact that in some of these cases, we simply aren't able to come to a solid conclusion. It's frustrating, but so long as we allow anonymous editing it's just part of how it all works.

Questions from Joe Roe

2. You say that you feel like the committee is also in a time of change, for the better, and would like to keep trying to move it in that direction. What is that direction and why is the committee changing?

   It's a gradual change, to be sure, that started before my latest term. I have felt a different sort of "vibe" than when I was previously on the committee in 2014, and the way the committee does many things now is a very long way from how they were done a decade or more ago. The newer iterations of the committee have been very thoughtful about the limits of what arbcom can and should do, have been able to disagree without becoming nasty about it, and have been more transparent, as much as they can be. The committee got a lot of new blood last year as well, many of whom ran on instituting reforms, which they have worked hard to try and make a reality. I also feel there is greater willingness than in years past to hold users of advanced permissions accountable for their actions. (I certainly don't mean to disparage the fine group I worked with in 2014, to my mind this is more a reflection of the committee evolving as an institution.)

Question from Little olive oil

Questions from Ritchie333

2. You've spent quite a bit of time posting at
   Discord as a communication platform, and I'm sure you remember some problems we had with IRC communication
   . So, I have to ask the question - what do you think the Arbitration Committee should do when consider off-wiki platforms? Should they take a "hands off" approach, is Arbitrators getting involved in off-wiki discussions acceptable, within discretion, ill-advised, or something else?

   Wikipedia has rules in place, such as

   WP:NOTFORUM

   restricting the types of discussions that can be had here. I don't necessarily disagree with those rules, this is an encyclopedia, everything else comes second. However, it was pretty much always inevitable that there would be off-wiki discussion forums, and I think that's fine. These forums do of course vary in their scope and purpose. Some are for users to ask for help with things, others are focused on criticism and analysis, and some are somewhere in between. And there are those that are simply attack sites, where it is sacrilege to speak any sort of positive word about Wikipedia or anyone who edits there. None of these forums operate under the same rules as Wikipedia, indeed, that is generally their purpose. This is where i think some folks suffer from misconceptions. Personally, the only forum I participate in is Wikipediocracy. It is a criticism site. Many people seem to misinterpret that as an attack site. Now, I certainly am not going to defend everything that goes on there, there are regularly posts that advance truly boneheaded conspiracy theories. There are people there who insist everything arbcom does is a sinister cover-up of someone-or-others wrongdoing. That being said, there are also, quite often, perfectly valid, well researched criticisms of Wikipedia editors or content. That is what I am there for. I have personally been moved to act on problematic content due to it being pointed out there, and several serious editorial issues have also been uncovered there, at least one of which concluded with an ArbCom ruling. In other words, sometimes the criticism leads to very real improvements here on-wiki. That being said, in the last two years of social isolation,working from home, etc, I have realized that to a certain extent it replaced actual socializing for me, and the community made it very clear that some of what I was discussing there was not material they wanted a sitting arbitrator to be discussing off-wiki. I have taken that criticism on board and endeavored to keep it in mind when posting there in the time since.(I have also endeavored, as a personal matter, to spend less time making comments on any sort of forum or social media platform.) However, others commented that an arb should not post there, ever, for any reason, because there are "bad people" there. I reject that criticism entirely as just wrongheaded, but also because arbs who have been on the committee far longer than I have have commented there for many years without any such prohibition even being proposed, let alone gaining a consensus. Moving on to how the committee should regard users participating in various off-wiki forums, it depends on the forum, the level of vetting it uses, and the actual content posted. Rules are looser in these forums, but if it can credibly be claimed that a user is engaging in certain behaviors in these forums, i.e. hate speech, sexual harassment, doxxing, threats of violence, etc, we should certainly consider that highly problematic and take appropriate action.

2. If one were to compare the structures of Arbcom cases and ANI threads (apples and oranges to some), what would be your opinion on the piling on and participation of users who are clearly not involved and their eventual influence on the deliberations of the Committee, i.e. should the Committee be examining directly uninvolved participants' comments for veracity, relevance and substance and taking those comments into consideration?

   Both forums, by their very nature, are a place to solicit outside perspectives, but both also suffer from pile-ons of less-than-helpful participation. At ANI we often see discussions become extremely bloated, with users wandering into thread after thread to post their rambling first impressions of whatever dispute is "hot" that day. At ArbCom this issue is most visible at case requests, it is not at all unusual to see statements continue to pile up even after it is obvious that the case will be accepted or declined. Both venues at times suffer from bad signal-to-noise ratios, making it harder for admins or arbs to be thorough yet fair. ArbCom cases have some mechanisms in place to mitigate this, in particular word limits. While outside opinions, i.e "to an outsider it looks like you are arguing about something that is truly not important" can be useful, I do also think that some users fall into the trap of thinking that their particular insight is needed in virtually every situation. ArbCom cases do have looser rules for the named parties, and the committee is usually more liberal about granting exemptions to those rules to the named parties, as they are presumed to have more intimate knowledge of the dispute. When it comes to actual case evidence, the goal is that all of it be subject to the kind of scrutiny you mention. Many if not most cases see submissions of evidence that the committee ultimately decides is simply not relevant, either due to being off-topic, or not actually showing any wrongdoing by anyone.

2. If an accused declines to actively participate in the Arbcom case against them (Cf. RexxS) and/or retires from the project (or if an admin voluntary cedes their tools) during it, in your opinion would this be a clear admission of guilt and one that permits the Committee to pronounce by default the most severe sanction(s) available within its powers?

   Not at all. We are all volunteers here, nobody can make anybody participate in anything if they don't want to do so. Having an ArbCom case focused on one's own behavior is not a good time, and it's easy to understand why some would rather just not be involved with it. It's not an admission of guilt, even if they do give up the tools voluntarily. It could easily mean that they simply don't find it worth their trouble anymore.

Than you for your answer to Q1,

2. It is claimed by some that little or no participation by an accused generally results in a more severe sentence. In the RexxS case, the members' opinions on an accused's right to silence varied from one extreme to the other. Consensus was however, like your answer above, that participation is neither an obligation, nor should it be taken into consideration for the severity of the sentence. Whether or not Arbcom functions according to Case law, or makes up its own rules on a case-by-case basis, in the interests of consistency would it make sense to get some kind of ruling established in policy?

   We already have a bit of guidance at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Expectation of participation in proceedings, where it says named parties are "expected to participate," and I do think it is generally in their best interest to do so. While not participating isn't an admission of guilt, it is a failure to present any defense. ArbCom is not an investigative body, the committee follows the evidence presented. If there is no counter-evidence, or even counter-argument, there is no onus on the committee to imagine what it might be or to look for it on its own. Perhaps we could make that point a bit more obvious in the procedures.

Question from NightHeron

2. Off-wiki discussion of other editors' conduct: In connection with your answer to Ritchie333's question, how would you handle a situation where an editor or group of editors wants to discuss with you off-wiki (by email or social media) allegations of misconduct or policy violations by editors with whom they've had a contentious content dispute? Suppose that they've had no success bringing similar allegations to ANI or other on-wiki forums, where the accused editors must be notified.

   I'm certainly not going to "take a case" on an off-wiki forum. I have sometimes seen credible allegations made on such forums, but they need to be actually handled on-wiki. The committee does of course regularly receive such emails, as do individual arbs. If the reason for the email contact is that there is sensitive information involved, it's ok to proceed with the matter, although the next step is usually to contact the subject to ask about their perspective. If there is not sensitive information involved, they are generally told to file on wiki. If that isn't working out for them, that is usually an indication that their complaint is without merit.

Question from Gerda Arendt

2. You accepted the RexxS case. I would have listened to SarahSV (aka SlimVirgin). In a similar situation, would you perhaps change your mind?

   As I said in my nomination statement, I do think it is important to remind ourselves that behind every username is a real person. However, that also includes those on the other end of inappropriate behavior from an administrator. That is what that case was about, and as I said at the time, arbs need to be willing to take these cases because the committee is the only body on-wiki able to remove an admin. I think you can see from the arb comments that we didn't really want to do this, but felt we had to. Admin conduct cases are as unpleasant as they are necessary. I think we all hoped that the end result was that RexxS would just go back to being the awesome non-admin Wikipedian he had been for many years before ever running at RFA. In the end I think the case serves as a sad reminder that one can be a really great contributor to this project without ever being an administrator. Like yourself, I hope RexxS comes back one day, I hope he can see that this was not a wholesale rejection of all the great work he's done for the project and the movement.

Question from TheresNoTime

2. In your opinion, what is the Arbitration Committee's core purpose?

   I would say the main purpose is to resolve intractable disputes when other avenues have not succeeded in doing so, in the form of full cases. However, there are secondary roles that are largely invisible. One is dealing with unblock requests from users who have no other avenue of appeal (this is huge part of what the committee does these days but it's 98% invisible on-wiki). Another is ... I don't want to say managing the functionaries, that doesn't sound quite right, the teams generally manage themselves pretty well, but once in a while the committee does need to step in and advise a team member that their actions are out of step with expected standards and practices. And, although I myself have said many times that the committee is not an investigative body, that applies to on-wiki cases, sometimes, like the recent block of an RFA candidate, the committee does investigate matters that can only be decided based on private evidence such as checkuser data.

Questions from Sdrqaz

2. When accepting
   cases regarding administrative conduct, an oft-used qualifier is that opening a case does not mean sanctions are inevitable. However, historically, that has not been the case
   . What are your thoughts on the Committee's approach to desysop cases?

   I'm going to preface my answer by saying that I am for sure one of the more "hawkish" arbs when it comes to admin misconduct. It's something I take very seriously, and I've filed two such cases myself as a non-arb, and presented in evidence in one or two others. To answer your question: Taking a case means the filing party and others presenting evidence have made a compelling case that a problem exists. So, while it is not a foregone conclusion, there are only so many things the committee can do about administrative misconduct. Whenever it comes up, it is my sincere hope that somewhere during the course of the case there will be some sudden moment of profound realization, where the admin in question seems to truly understand why their conduct has wound up being the subject of an arbcom case. Sadly, I have yet to actually see it happen. So, while desysop is not a foregone conclusion, it is undeniably the most statistically likely outcome. As I have stated on several occasions, I do not feel that limited bans or other lesser sanctions are usually appropriate in admin conduct cases. Admins are supposed to be trusted members of the community, if they require an ArbCom-level sanction to get them to behave, they have lost my trust in their ability to be an admin at all. I know the committee made some unpopular decisions in this area in during my term, but those decisions were made in the best interest of the project as a whole. It is always hoped that admins who find their tools removed will stay on and maybe go back to whatever they did here before becoming admins, but sadly, that is often not the case, which is unfortunate because I've actually seen comments from several former admins that they actually found it liberating to be a "regular user" again.

4. Of the decisions taken this year by the Committee, which one did you disagree with the most? Please note that may include choices not to take actions and simple inaction where you felt the Committee should have done so.

   This is probably not the most satisfying answer, but we had an off-wiki discussion about issuing a formal warning to particular user who seemed unwilling to let a certain matter drop even after we asked them nicely to do so. I was strongly in favor of an on-wiki warning that was visible to one and all, but instead they got a "please stop doing that" email from the committee, which they basically ignored. Since nothing was ever said on-wiki I can't really elaborate on it.

2. Should ArbCom-appointed checkusers be allowed to unilaterally tag a user as a likely sockpuppet of another user, point to the (perhaps years-old) sockpuppet investigation of the alleged sockpuppeteer, and then block the accused new user based on only behavioral evidence (i.e. with non-confirming technical evidence), without first conducting a community examination of the alleged behavioral connection and gaining a community consensus to block? Indeed, per this example, "Undid revision 1055911694 by xxxxx leave this for User:yyyy" the impression given by that edit summary is that the decision is only to be made by the accusing checkuser admin – who has yet to open a formal discussion on the matter. Are you OK with that?

   It is fairly routine for admins to block socks without first getting a consensus as to whose sock they may be,and making it a hard requirement for them to do so would likely lead to massive logjams at SPI. There was an error made here in identifying the puppeteer, but I'd note the blocking admin marked the account as suspected of being operated by that user, not confirmed, and was perfectly willing to reconsider that assertion when asked about it. It is an unfortunate reality that we almost never really know for an absolute certainty who is operating a particular sock,and mistakes happen, in particular on busy ISP networks. As to the edit you highlight, reverting the tag with the now-verified puppeteer, no, I don't agree with that. It is now well established and widely known whose sock this actually was, and there was nothing wrong with the edit that correctly identified that, and no reason to assume the original blocking admin has some sort of special authority to decline to mark it as such.

Questions from A7V2

2. As a hypothetical, suppose two otherwise very positive content editors are simply unable to get along (with the associated disruptions to discussions, etc), and arbcom ultimately imposes a mutual IBAN on them. One of the editors subsequently finds the restriction too restrictive and stops editing. Was the sanction a net positive for Wikipedia?

   The thing ArbCom must always consider first is the best interest of the project. 99% of all Wikipedia editors are able to contribute without any sort of restrictions on them, if a user gets to the point where a formal sanction is needed to stop them from disrupting the project, that's their own fault. The hope, always, is that when it comes to that point the user or users in question will realize that they've gone too far and will just respect the ban and move on with their lives. If they find not being able to interact with one person, that they clearly don't like anyway, to be too much to bear, that's on them.

4. In general, should editor retention be a factor when deciding on sanctions? Should the type of editor (in a broad sense) and type of contributions they make matter in this regard?

   This may not be the answer you were expecting, but the short answer is no. By the time an issue reaches the level of a full arbcom case, the involved parties already know they are causing a problem, and the community has already tried to get them to stop it. I believe previous committees erred in trying to craft elaborate "bespoke" sanctions tailored toward specific users, and am glad these have fallen out of favor with more recent iterations of the committee. The committee's job is to end disruption, not to coddle those causing it. This is not to say that the committee should not also always consider sanctions of differing severity. Sometimes all that is needed is for the disputants to know there are

   discretionary sanctions

   and any admin can block them if they continue disruptive behavior, other times topic bans may be a way to get rid of the disruption while retaining an otherwise decent contributor. Full site bans are a last resort, for those who don't respond to lesser sanctions.

Thankyou for your answers. Note that I did not expect anything really... I tried to keep my questions, especially Q2, fairly vague so as to give you (and the other candidates) scope to answer the way you like. A7V2 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kolya Butternut

2. An SPI on Daner's Creek was opened this year in connection to an arb announcement, Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen. Regarding one of the potential socks, you stated "This account was active for three hours ten months ago. That being the case I fail to see any point to an investigation of any kind." Do you think it's important to investigate old sockpuppets so that others may recognize the patterns of new sockpuppets of actively socking users?

   I don't know how many times various people need to tell you to back off from this issue.

Question from Epiphyllumlover

2. There is an active and routine off-wiki freelancing market where Wikipedia editors from non-English speaking countries sell RfC votes and talk page comments to paying editors on enwiki. I have watched this corrupt discussions on enwiki, but would feel guilty reporting it, since I know that the editors actually making the comments really need the money. In addition, I feel that editors from the non-English speaking countries have the potential to contribute more to Wikipedia-- but fall into selling votes because it is both lucrative and requires little understanding of wiki code. It would be a shame to drive them away, given the great potential which would be lost. Would you support a WMF-funded bounty program modeled after the Nordic model approach to prostitution, where the editors from non-English speaking countries could receive a financial bounty for turning in their employers to ArbCom for discipline, while at the same time also be offered access to an exclusive Wiki syntax training program so they can build skills to pursue greater things?

   This is all news to me. I don't think I could support a program structured the way you describe. I'm not s huge supporter of paying people to just be basically decent human beings, and ArbCom already carries a heavy workload. If this is as widespread as you describe, some sort of coordinated response is certainly in order.

Question from Dream Focus

2. So at Wikipediocracy [1] you write about an article you nominated for deletion and stated: In a tie-in with the ARS thread, they got wind of it and block voted. I think an arbcom position requires someone to actually look at the evidence and not just state nonsense in an emotional rant. You were the only one who wanted to delete the article. One said redirect and two said keep before being it was put on the ARS's Rescue list. Lightburst rewrites it, then votes Keep. 4 more keep votes appearing, none of them regular ARS members other than myself, and I didn't vote until after it was rewritten to be a legitimate article. I posted two days before voting mentioning the only source I could find, and it not much to it. After the article was properly rescued, rewritten to be a proper article that is, and three days after it was put on the Rescue list to ask for help, Dronebogus then me said it should be kept. The day after that another person said keep, and a day after that another editor showed up and said it should be kept. No one rushed and block voted. Based on this evidence I am wondering, can you do your job and not hold a grudge not just the ARS, but others you have disagreed with in the past?

   see me reply to the above question from Cwmhiraeth.

Question from Hijiri88

2. What is your stance on two-way IBANs that are imposed because of one-way harassment? In the past, ArbCom has rejected one-way IBAN proposals in favour of two-way IBANs on purely technical grounds (that they are subject to being gamed, that they "don't work", etc.), but if such a one-way IBAN is implemented and it doesn't stem disruption (for example, if the hounded party is simultaneously placed under a TBAN that is not placed on the hounding party), and instead only leaves the harassed party subject to repeated remarks of "User X is subject to an IBAN with User Y -- he wouldn't be banned if he hadn't done something wrong" and unable to explain the context, would you be open to repealing it? (I am assuming that BANEX applies to these questions.)

   A two-way iban is not an appropriate response to one user harassing another, so I would be open to the idea of repealing it or modifying it to be one-way.

Question from Nosebagbear

2. I frequently handle regular indef appeals, of which a significant fraction is non-technical "Duck" sock blocks. In many of these cases, the blocking admin hasn't and won't share what is often a non-direct set of behavioural evidence to the accused/blocked. When I review it, most are clear-socks, but a few are judgement calls. In either case, impossible standards are being demanded in the appeal - prove a negative, without knowing the exact (complex) material which they need to rebut. This leads to several related queries: 1) is this lack of public sharing of info (to avoid aiding future socking) policy-backed? 2) is it morally justifiable? 3) How are non-expert users supposed to make a viable appeal under these circumstances? 4) Does this method not encourage outright lying, as it pushes people towards having to concede the socking, even if they didn't?

   This is for sure one of trickiest areas of administrating this project. As I mentioned in response to another question above, the truth is that we almost never know for an absolute certainty who is operating an account. I am firm believer in being as transparent as possible, but there are times when actions are taken that cannot be explained in detail. For example, if a banned user has a "tell" that they don't seem to be aware of, pointing it out to them is just going to make them better at socking. Exactly where to draw these lines is a matter of individual judgement, so it follows that sometimes the line is drawn in the wrong place. I can't say there's a specific policy, but I do think

   WP:OPAQUE

   reflect the thought behind it. A largely invisible aspect of what the committee does is reviewing appeals of checkuser blocks, so I've certainly seen what you describe. Being told there is technical evidence that you are a sock without being told exactly what that evidence is would certainly be confusing to an innocent user, who likely has no idea what CU even is. I do think that sometimes some checkusers rely too heavily on the technical evidence and don't give behavioral evidence proper weight. It is entirely possible for an innocent new user to have no idea that they live next door to a notorious troll. I have also seen what looks like compelling behavioral evidence be more or less refuted by CU data, where two users exhibit very simlar behavior but are on different continents. I guess what I'm getting at is that there's no single right way to handle all sock cases.

Question from Atsme

2. What is your position now that we've had some rather involved discussions about
   DS amendments
   and irreversible unilateral actions in the name of AE, all of which was put on the back burner in 2021?

   The two arbs acting as drafters and taking point on this came to the committee as reformers, and I believe the correctly identified an area in serious need of reform. The way DS is structured is so arcane that it can very confusing for those who try to contribute in areas subject to sanctions. That's not good, and I am hopeful that when this moves forward it will result in some very real changes to various aspects of DS, including enforcement. The process is taking a long time, but most hard things do.

Thank you for signing up for another tour of duty. And thank you for giving me hope for change. Atsme 💬 📧 02:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Robert McClenon

2. Some of the most troublesome disputes in Wikipedia are protracted content disputes that are complicated by conduct issues, such as
   Dispute Resolution Noticeboard
   is normally for relatively simple disputes that will take two or three weeks to resolve. Do you have any ideas for how to try to resolve protracted content-conduct disputes to minimize their division of the community before arbitration is sought?

   To the first part: A good portion of ArbCom cases are content-conduct disputes. The committee should accept such cases on the same basis as other types of cases, when it is clear that the community has tried to handle the issue, yet it persists. While the committee cannot rule directly on the content aspects of such cases, remedies such as discretionary sanctions are designed to quell both aspects. As to the second part: I think the community is actually doing better than it has in the past at resolving things without the need for a full case. Some past iterations of the committee heard dozens of cases each year. That seems unimaginable now, and that's a good thing. Most disputes do not actually need a committee and a full month of deliberations to resolve.`