*People are elected to the committee for two years, and not allowed to
stand again for another five. No more tranches.
*Arbs are not given access to CU or oversight. This will weed out people
who nominate themselves to gain access to the tools. It will decrease the
amount of work the committee can do; should increase their work rate on
cases; and will decrease the "them and us" mentality.
*Arbs must excuse themselves if asked, including from trying to influence
cases behind the scenes, unless the request for recusal is clearly silly.
*Most Arb discussion must take place in public. The mailing list should be
used only in exceptional cases involving privacy. But most privacy issues
should be left to functionaries. The mailing list should have a functionary
as clerk to ensure that it isn't misused.
*Functionaries would not be chosen by ArbCom.
*Abolish the workshops. They're used to continue the dispute or harassment.
*We should maintain a small list of experienced editors who are willing to
do jury duty. Anyone brought before the committee can request a jury
"trial". Jurors would be chosen randomly. Any juror involved with a party
should say no, and the next editor on the list would be picked. The parties
would then have the right to object to a certain number.
*Cases must be resolved within a much shorter time frame, or closed as
*The Foundation should be asked to pay for an expert in dispute resolution
to offer regular classes on Skype for any Wikipedian who wants to sign up.
The above wouldn't solve everything, but I think it would help.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 October 2015 at 16:27, Sarah (SV) <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel, I happen to think that any Arb who is
asked to excuse themselves
from a case should do so, within reason.
I tend to agree with you on this, Sarah.
But in particular I think women who see certain Arbs as sexist should be
able to require recusal. Otherwise the case is hobbled before it begins.
Ditto for anyone with concerns about racism or homophobia.
I'm a little less certain about this one: if there are five parties to a
case, and everyone decides to brand three different arbitrators as
sexist/racist/homophobic etc, you're down to .... nobody.
I would like to see a jury system replace the committee, with small
groups chosen to resolve particular issues. The committee has not worked
for a long time. It isn't the fault of any individual or group. It's a
combination of the way Arbs are nominated and elected, and the way they end
up cloistered away from the community. It creates a "thin blue line"
mentality. I would like to see a grassroots approach, at least as an
That was what RFCs and mediation committees did, although I grant that
their "decisions" were not binding. They fell apart - RFCs because
genuinely uninvolved Wikipedians stopped participating. The Mediation
committee fell apart because there were so few people who were any good at
dispute resolution actually mediating them, and also because mediation
required the "participation agreement" of long lists of supposed parties.
(I was once listed as a "party" for a mediation on an article where I made
one edit to remove poop vandalism.)
There's no evidence at all that jury systems are any more fair or accurate
or impartial or unbiased than any other dispute resolution systems. (A
quick look at the number of convicted prisoners who have subsequently been
exonerated proves my point.) Add to that the simple fact that "volunteer"
pools of jurors are, simply by dint of numbers, going to be made up of the
same types of people who are already arbitrators/functionaries/admins (or
potentially people who were rejected for those responsibilities because
they were unsuitable), and that compelling participation of people who have
deliberately NOT wanted to participate in such activities is more likely to
result in those individuals leaving the project entirely rather than making
great decisions (other than the obvious "this is stupid, ban them all so I
can get back to my categorization"). In fact, I suspect that a jury system
made up of conscripted jurors would actually result in much harsher
sanctions all around. There are some who argue that would not be a bad
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please