On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:13 PM,
stevertigo<stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself
doesn't participate much in
openly
discussing its cases. Strange isn't it?
If you catch us in a good mood, maybe. :-)
Hm. If Arbcom mood is the impeding issue, then anything the community can do
to mitigate Arbcom caseload is naturally the first solution. Beyond that,
issues related to how Arbcom members deal with stress, have to change their
editing patterns, have to reconceptualize how they interact with people,
etc. may require some kind of closed support group. I would not object even
proposals for Wikimedia to hire cousellors for our Arbcom members from each
of our various language wikis.
[I'm currently one of those arbitrators, if that's a bit cryptic for some.]
Identifying yourself as an Arbcom member might be appropriate. Something
like "User:Carcharoth (Arbcom, Jan. 2009 - Dec. 2010, inactive)" would work.
More seriously, if you find the right venue and present a good case
that something needs discussion or clarification, even
after a case is
closed, you stand a good chance of getting a reasonable level of
responses eventually.
Hm. By "right venue" do you mean arbcom-l or some IRC? Wouldn't a
"dispute
resolution" mailing list work well for this purpose?
> The main problem, as those who are current
> arbitrators and those who were former arbitrators, should be able to
> attest, is time and the amount of stuff to deal with. Some of it is
> pure overload, other bits are time-management (some of us deal with
> simple or interesting stuff first, before tackling the difficult stuff
> - it's human nature really).
Hm. Issues that we can deal with on res-l, and perhaps we can even find
solutions for them. I have ideas for mitigating caseload, as I'm sure do you
and others. The main issue in that aspect is just dealing with them. A
closed list is not the place for brainstorming.
One of the things that has been suggested, is reviews of cases after
the dust has settled. Not returning to the old
discussions, but seeing
how effective the remedies have been, and looking at the enforcement
of cases, and whether the articles involved (if the case involved
articles) have improved at all.
Good points, though "returning to the old discussions" implies that there
actually were "discussions," and that by being "old" they were also
not
currently relevant. There are certain very old things that remain relevant,
despite what anyone says about their age. I'm sure this applies in the
context of Arbcom case arguments as well.
Another aspect of review would be
> whether any of the policy-related stuff suggested by ArbCom principles
> would gain community consensus to be incorporated into polices.
Technically, the principles should be
interpreting existing policies,
but sometimes ArbCom does strongly suggest that
change is needed in a
certain area.
That's like finding that a house is on fire, and at the same time telling
the fire department that putting it out is optional, and subject to only
whims - whims that might mathematically resemble common housecat herding
patterns.
Whether that happens or not, as Fred points out, depends
on the resulting community discussions.
Isn't voting still evil?
Just like IAR is still a "pillar" of "principle?"
> In some cases, though, those
> community discussions don't actually take place, and six-month reviews
> could point this out.
Six months is a long time. We should try living in the real world, instead
of a shell.
-Stevertigo