On Oct. 26 UncleBungle made the following contribution to the Jew Watch
talk page:
"I'm not going to start an edit war User:Slrubenstein."
I don't really like other people posting comments to pages in my name. Is
this something I just have to watch out for and delete, or do we have some
policy on this? Clearly it is not at the level of a banable offense -- I
am not even sure if it is enough to ask for mediation. Still, it is wrong
and I wonder if there is some community response. I appreciate any
suggestions/thoughts,
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
Tim Starling wrote:
> Rebecca wrote:
>
>> I think is an excellent idea: kudos to you both.
>>
>> The two things that I'd been keen to know first, however, are - would
>> this involve a reduction in the number of arbitrators, as in Michael's
>> proposal,
>
> No. The number of arbitrators could well be increased. Michael wanted
> to reduce the number of arbitrators to reduce the number of people
> required for a decision, our proposal is to reduce that number more
> directly, while retaining a low workload on each arbitrator and
> keeping a wide variety of views on the committee.
There remains a problem, which is that if you take more arbitrators and
divide them into smaller panels, but have panel decisions subject to
review by the full committee, then the full committee will be too large
to work effectively as a body. If twelve is too many now, what if we
have thirty?
I think there are good ideas in all of the proposals that have been
advanced, and we can put something workable together. I would suggest
that the current Arbitration Committee continue in existence, but shrink
to nine members, and primarily handle reviews of decisions by
three-person panels. The panels would be drawn from a larger pool with
no fixed number of positions. This pool we might call magistrates.
A panel would consist of three people as proposed - any combination of
magistrates and arbitrators could form the panel. The panel would have
the same authority as the Arbitration Committee has now. It could place
users on revert parole or personal attack parole, issue standing orders,
and also impose bans.
Panels can be formed on an ad hoc basis and deliberate wherever
appropriate and convenient for the magistrates. We can have a page for
submitting cases and another where the magistrates document rulings, so
the admins know which users are under some type of ban or probation.
This would allow smaller panels to reach relatively quick decisions. It
would allow magistrates to self-select their workload to some extent,
and those that can't or don't want to constantly be involved don't have
to be. Meanwhile, the Arbitration Committee would remain a more
deliberate process, although I also agree with elian's suggestion that
arbitration could use more explicit deadlines. Something like one or two
weeks for participants to present their evidence, then an additional
week or two for deliberations, with some flexibility according to the
nature of the case.
There remains the question of how to choose a substantial pool of
magistrates. Should we work this in as part of the arbitration election,
and if so, will we get enough people? Should we have Jimbo or the Board
make appointments, or take volunteers subject to an approval process in
a way similar to adminship? When this kind of idea has been discussed in
the past, it has often been in the context of having _all admins_ be
what I'm calling "magistrates". But I think that approach will get
nowhere because too many people are uncomfortable with giving certain
existing admins that kind of power.
--Michael Snow
Speaking with the benefit of only a few months'
experience in the Fellowship of the Oft-Maligned, I'd
like to share my probably idiosyncratic perspective on
all this.
Arbitration needs fixing, and I like many of the ideas
in the proposals. I agree with Michael that 12
arbitrators is too many (particularly when many choose
not to participate) -- I like the proposal (from both
mav and Michael, I think) that small committees (of,
say, three) of arbitrators should hear cases. I think
it would be a much easier task to corral two other
people's attention and focus it on a case, rather than
the huge slate we currently have. I doubt very much
that the AC's decisions would be substantially
different than they are now. If we allow small panels
to do this, I would suggest the right of appeal to the
whole AC, however (checks and balances are good, I
think). If, say, 4 of the 6 arbitrators who didn't
hear the case wish to revisit it, it would be done. I
think this would be a rarely taken option (I would
have to be quite convinced of trouble to revisit
another arbitration panel's case), but in the case of
a truly unmerited result, I think it offers the
community reasonable recourse. I hope something like
this proposal is eventually adopted.
On the IRC issue, however, I disagree with the
sentiments I've seen. I have never used email to
confer with another arbitrator, and would prefer not
ever to do so. I think that the best strength of
arbitration thus far is its transparency, and I affirm
Woodrow Wilson's principle of "open covenants, openly
arrived at". I do not use IRC as a matter of course,
and I doubt my current Internet connection would allow
me to participate in an IRC conversation with any
great skill -- the lag time would be significant,
though not entirely insurmountable. More to the
point, though, I have never seen IRC as a good tool
for reaching important decisions -- it is too quick,
it favors the swift to type, and it speeds people to
rash and unwarranted conclusions. I believe that
using it for arbitration would lead to speedier
decisions, yes, but also decisions that were less
clear, less well considered, and ultimately much less
fair. I would not serve on such a committee, so if it
is the community's intention to prusue IRC as the
primary medium of arbitration, I would not stand for
reelection (not that my presence or absence will much
affect the AC, I think). I'm not using this as a
threat, by the way -- if the community wants it, I
have always been an advocate for consensus and I would
accept it as a part of Wikipedia. But I would not
want to be a part of such a body -- I envision
frustration, regrets, and ultimately a fundamental
lack of certainty that my decisions had been truly
wise.
I don't think we should be surprised at the scarcity
of candidates. Given the uncertainty of the AC's
future, I think you'll find it hard to get anyone to
commit to standing for reelection (or consider running
for an initial term). No one knows what the AC will
look like in January. I urge that we decide in the
next week to ten days about the future of arbitration,
in order that all potential candidates have time to
consider standing for the position in the full
knowledge of what that position will entail. I, for
one, will be unable to commit until we know.
Finally, I just want to note to Tim, Mav, Michael, and
all the others discussing the future of arbitration
that I respect their ideas, I appreciate and applaud
their energy, and I don't want my words to keep anyone
from continuing to consider IRC as a possibility. I
think we should probably consider all possible
avenues, and I'm very pleased that you are. I just
felt I should say something, and now I've said it.
Best wishes and happy collaboration to all,
James W. Rosenzweig
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
Rebecca wrote:
>I don't think mav's idea is a bad one, if a little negative. It's
>certainly a possibility.
>
>However, we could always just try and convince better candidates...The
>Committee to Conscript Michael Snow, anyone?
>
>-- ambi
>
>
>On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:30:16 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer
><maveric149 at yahoo.com <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
>> --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
>> > We need to be careful to not open more postions than there are reasonably
>> > well qualified candidates (of whom I count you as one). Some of the
>> > candidates in the last election seemed much more suited for the role of
>> > defendant than arbitrator.
>>
>> I agree with this completely. Therefore votes against candidates should also be
>> allowed - only the top candidates with a net positive vote will be elected (5
>> options would be given, from strongly approve to strongly disapprove). If that
>> means that some seats remain empty, then so be it.
>
I like mav's idea, but I would take it just a little bit further. Based
on the experience of the past year, I think having twelve positions on
the Arbitration Committee is more than we need, period. I would like to
elaborate on my previous proposal, which I recognize would have put most
of the positions up to be filled in this election (and this before I
even heard the sad news of Martin Harper's impending resignation). I'm
not completely surprised to have heard quite a bit of concern over
whether that many qualified candidates exist, although personally I had
hopes that opening more positions would encourage more candidates to
come forward instead of deferring to those first out of the gate.
To deal with this, I propose that we take advantage of this election to
restructure the Arbitration Committee and shrink its numbers to nine
positions. I don't think a group as large as twelve is necessary, and
there are considerable advantages to be gained from shrinkage, namely:
*Deliberations among arbitrators can reach "quorum" more quickly, which
would generally speed things up a bit and address one of the biggest
complaints about the process. (The number of votes required to accept or
reject cases should be reduced proportionally, to three.)
*As 9, unlike 12, is an odd number, the potential for deadlock is
avoided - though I anticipate that the arbitrators would work to avoid
issuing 5-4 rulings.
*Smaller numbers encourage participants to feel greater personal
responsibility for successful outcomes.
*In addition to the six positions soon to be up for election, this would
allow us to relieve Camembert, Delirium, and Nohat of their
responsibilities without anyone needing to be concerned over who might
replace them. Camembert and Delirium have both already indicated an
inclination to resign, and Nohat has shown relatively little interest in
arbitration matters.
Because 9 is still divisible by 3, we can retain Jimbo's initial concept
of having the arbitrators serve staggered 3-year terms. This would mean
that instead of elections for four arbitrators to serve 3-year terms,
and two more to fill unexpired terms for 2 years, we would elect three
people to 3-year terms and three more to 2-year terms. The three
remaining arbitrators appointed by Jimbo would be up for re-election at
the end of 2005.
Due to the difference in term length, I would suggest that the newly
elected arbitrators be given the choice after the election of which term
they will fill, in order of most votes received. (I suspect that some
might well _prefer_ the shorter term.) In addition, because three years
is a long time in the life of a project that is only barely that old
itself, I think we need a mechanism to readily replace arbitrators, so
they feel more free to resign if life changes or burnout make them
unable to participate effectively. In these situations, I propose that
the Wikimedia Board of Trustees make interim appointments so the
position can be filled until the next annual election cycle.
(The flattery is nice, ambi, but I'd rather first wait and hope lots of
other good candidates come forward too. As I've said before, I encourage
the arbitrators whose terms are expiring to run for re-election. I would
add that I encourage anyone who ran last time to run again - or at least
those who, to quote Fred again, aren't "more suited for the role of
defendant than arbitrator.")
--Michael Snow
>The first and most important measure to improve the speed of the AC is
>to reduce the necessary quorum to three members. Decisions are made by
a
>simple majority. Any member of the arbitration committee may request a
>review of such decisions by the full committee.
<snip>
>Under this proposal, the size of the arbitration committee can expand
to
>meet the ever-increasing demands placed on them. Preliminary judgements
>leading to blocking pending a full review should be possible within
>minutes of a request.
That's very sensible. The slowness of the AC is it's main failing at the
moment. If we can speed it up to the speed with which Jimbo used to take
decisions, pretty much all the current problems will be solved. ~~~~
>From: "James D. Forrester" <james(a)jdforrester.org>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: "'English Wikipedia'" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Broken dispute resolution mechanisms (was
>Reithyis a problem)
>Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:07:29 -0000
> > > > Thirdly, sentences should be much, much harsher. Ban them for life
> > > > and get it over with. Banning only slows them down anyway, most of
> > > > them will come back under a different name. But at least the
> > > > community will be able to unite behind the AC ruling.
> > >
> > > This was tried at first by one arbitrator but was overruled by the
> > > majority. Unless the bulk of the arbitrators differ markedly from
> > > the users there is little support for lifetime banning.
> >
> > Proof that the process is broken. We all know what a troll is.
>
>We do? Wow. Then why needs there be any dispute resolution process at all,
>if it is always so very clear-cut for "all" of us?
>
>Blanket statements of black-and-white judgement are almost always wrong,
>and
>certainly normally laughable.
Hmm. Yes, the statement was too strong, but sometimes it's pretty obvious.
There are always contrarians, of course, and naturally the troll never
considers themself to be a troll.
Jay.
uninvited(a)nerstrand.net wrote:
>There is no reason why the AC cannot assign a single arbiter to review a
>particular case and deal with it. Draw straws, take turns, ask for
>volunteers -- it doesn't matter. Most cases are clear. In tough cases
>involving established contributors it may make sense to involve the
>other arbiters, informally or formally.
>
There is a very good reason why the Arbitration Committee cannot
randomly or otherwise assign a single arbiter for each case. It is that
quite a few of the current arbitrators are not at all active
participants in the process. Assigning cases to arbitrators who don't
deal with the case is sending them to even more of a black hole than the
current system.
As Fred Bauder put it: "It is not what you propose or what you vote for
that holds things up but failure to either propose or vote." I have
posted a summary about the level of participation (or lack thereof) in
arbitration cases at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee
Based on this, I believe that five of the current arbitrators need to be
replaced.
It has been noted that we will soon have another arbitrator election. We
need to start preparing and planning for this - I think it would be best
to hold the election during the first half of December, rather than
waiting until the second half when many people will be preoccupied with
holidays and vacations. If so, we should probably publicize it very soon
so that people can consider whether to run and declare their candidacies.
Our two recently elected arbitrators seem to have taken their
responsibility to their "constituency" seriously and proven to be quite
active participants in the arbitration process. I strongly encourage
those arbitrators whose terms expire at the end of the year to stand for
re-election. In addition, I think we need to open the election to
include the positions of the five arbitrators I mentioned.
--Michael Snow
I would like to propose two related policy changes:
1. That a confirmed e-mail address be required for creation of new
accounts
2. That these e-mail addresses be visible to administrators.
Wikipedia extends several important priviledges to logged in users:
- uploading images
- moving pages
- hiding IP address
- stronger policy protections before being blocked
Each of these has been misused:
- Recently, there has been a spate of uploads of the goatse image.
- There have been several instances of page-move vandalism.
- We have growing problems with socks, which have been used for
circumventing AC bans, for vandalism, for POV-driven advocacy, and for
"good hand/band hand" editing where a throwaway account is used to
evade accountabilitiy for antisocial edits
- There are a growing number of cases where vandals create accounts,
make a few good edits, and then proceed with relative impunity since
they cannot then be blocked without an AC decision.
Requiring a confirmed e-mail address would have little effect on
legitimate contributors and would help considerably in dealing with
problem users:
a. It would complicate the construction of vandalbots that register a
username and then conduct high-speed vandalism
b. It would provide a better basis for following up on abusive users in
egregious cases where an ISP must be contacted
c. It would allow likely socks to be more rapidly identified
While there are services that provide anonymous email accounts (hotmail,
yahoo, and so on), these take time to create, providing a deterrent
effect. Also, a pattern of creating userids with anonymous email
addresses is easy to spot.
Finally, I believe that this would help us be more welcoming to new
users, since it would reduce the present atmosphere of suspicion
surrounding any account that has relatively few edits.
UninvitedCompany
>From: Rhobite <rhobite(a)gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Rhobite <rhobite(a)gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
><wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Reithy is a problem
>Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:02:40 -0500
While I don't know the details of this particular case, I think it does
raise the issue of a larger problem on Wikipedia that I've mentioned before.
For a while now schemes for "freezing" pages in various stable states have
been bandied about on this list. In my opinion one of the reasons this is
becoming an issue is because Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms are
broken, to the extent that editors who repeatedly and deliberatly violate
Wikipedia rules (e.g. regarding NPOV, personal attacks, civility, etc.)
operate with near impunity. Unless they unambiguously commit outright
vandalism, for which they can be blocked, little or nothing is done about
them. Request for Comment is a useless quagmire; partisans on each side of
the issue line up their votes, and nothing is accomplished. Requests for
mediation take weeks or months, with mixed results at best.
However, the worst issue is requests for arbitration. The arbitration
process is the only one which actually has any "teeth"; yet it is almost
completely disfunctional. Again, not commenting on the merits of the
cases, the Avala, Lance6wins, and Rex071404 cases have dragged out for 4
months or more now. The three month old Cantus vs. Guanaco case is still
in the Evidence stage! Many other cases are two or three months old, with
every indication that they are in for more months of little or no action.
"Justice delayed is justice denied."
Frankly, Wikipedia has plenty of trolls on it who would, under any
functional system, have been hard banned within a couple of weeks of their
arrival. As it is, though, Arbcom only manages to ban, what, two or three
users a year? Sysops and bureaucrats have commented to me privately that
they ignore all of these mechanisms, since they are almost completely
useless. The ultimate outcome is that good editors, not wanting to get into
fights, avoid the articles being trolled, and eventually abandon the
project. When the administrators of the project have no faith in its
processes, and when good editors are being driven away, then these processes
need to be fixed.
Jay.