Jim Cecropia wrote:
>In my memory ArbCom was the very last resort in an open commuunity. Now it seems to be a first resort for some.
>
>Not good, however well-intentioned.
>
>
I think this observation is perceptive. Note that the problem is not
with the Arbitration Committee itself, it's the community's use of the
arbitration process. I'm disappointed that a number of cases in the past
week or two have been brought with little or no indication that other
methods of dispute resolution have been given any serious effort, or
that such efforts are in the long-distant past. I would also be
disappointed with the Arbitration Committee for accepting such cases,
but they have rejected some, and in other cases I recognize that the
arbitrators feel obligated to respond to the community, and when
community sentiment is strongly for arbitration this is difficult to resist.
The other dispute resolution methods (requests for comment, surveys,
mediation) are not simply formalities to check off on the inexorable
path to arbitration. Treating them as such is not acting in good faith.
Yes, it's nice that arbitration is now working much more quickly than
before. This doesn't mean that you get to speed through the rest of the
process on an expedited track. Writing a great encyclopedia takes time.
The attendant discussion and resolving of disagreements takes time too.
With arbitration working more efficiently, no doubt some people feel
that the other processes are now comparatively inefficient. Please work
to change this. The mediation process still desperately needs more
mediators to handle the load. Requests for comment for article disputes
would work better if everyone seeking comment also took the time to add
their input to someone else's request. The RfC page could also stand to
be pruned more often and stale listings removed.
Finally, I would note that the admin noticeboard is a nice idea and
often a useful tool, but it is not part of the dispute resolution
process. It exists for people to consider whether admins should take
action to deal with problems, but its focus and tone are better suited
for halting disputes (temporarily) than resolving them. Going directly
from the noticeboard to arbitration is, in almost all cases,
short-circuiting the process.
--Michael Snow