So you are saying everything is perfectly fine the way arbcom operates?
I am merely expecting what arbcom exist for from arbcom. The final step of dispute resolution must be resolving disputes. Arbcom should be the final step.
Who said anything about ruling on content? Provided there are no pressing legal issues like WP:BLP or WP:COPYRIGHT violatons, any user who mass removes material w/o consensus inherently is hurting the encyclopedia. Any arbcom ruling over the behaviour of such users has noting to do with content. Arbcom was unable come up with anything enforceable on E&C1. E&C1 served to no purpose.
I am a causal user. I do not have any reason to even glance at the workshop. It is the duty of arbitrators to look at all aspects of the case to make the best judgement calls.
Arbitrators need to objectively read the workshop and pull out anything they feel is worth a vote. Why else is the workshop there? If it has no purpose, abolish it.
Imagine arbitrators actually talking to people. Since trolls may abuse it we must punish everybody as if they were trolls.
- White Cat
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Appeals are the problem. Appeals supposed to deal with sharp edges that
form
after the case. Issues that should be solved during the case (as they
were
after all presented there) are not resolved in the cases and so much
time is
wasted on appeals.
Maybe some people are expecting too much from Arbcom.
This shift did not start after the arbitration case, it happened during
the
case after the passing of the temporary induction that halted all
activity
on television related articles. Don't believe me? How do you explain
what
happened to multiple Dungeons & Dragons articles? It isn't even a video
game
mind you; a board game. The disruption is back to television related articles as well as the temporary injunction went kaput since the
closure of
E&C2.
People are tired with dealing with such a thing. I know I am. If arbcom
will
go out of their way failing to address my concerns anyways why should I waste time with appeals? E&C2 was supposed to be an appeal case. In
other
words less than a month after the conclusion of the first case there
were
enough issues to warrant a second one. I think there currently are
enough
issues to start a third case just a week or two after the closure of the first case.
So what, then, should be the scope of Arbcom's authority. They should not be ruling on content. They should not be writing policy. Most cases should have had evidence reviewed and rulings made long before the matter became a case with Arbcom. They would then review the case when asked to determine if there had been any errors in the earlier decision.
Private communication is fine. But when "Comment by Arbitrators" section
on
/Workshop is never used by arbitrators we have a problem. Why should
people
even post anything at all in workshops anymore? In the above case only
thing
arbitrators posted was about the temporary injunction (I haven't reread
the
entire /workshop document so correct me if I am wrong) and even then
only a
few of them showed up. Same goes for talk pages of the case.
There must be some reason why you haven't read the entire document. One can only presume that Arbcom members have similar reasons.Scrolling only through the TOC was onerous enough.
Good proposals from other people on workshop should be voted on on
/proposed
decisions even if they were discussed privately - say in the arbcom
mailing
list. Thats what I would do. *People should be told why their proposal
was
rejected.* This is very important. Otherwise you feel being ignored. You continue to believe you may be right with your proposal but because no
one
seemingly payed any attention to it they simply did not know about it.
Or
much worse they intentionally chose to ignore it because of <put random conspiracy theory here>.
"Good proposals" itself is a subjective judgement. My guess is that everyone who makes a proposal believes that it is good. Voting on every proposal is absurd. In giving the proposers the benefit of the doubt it is more likely that each has some elements of value, and a straight up or down vote is likely to oversimplify. A single synthesis makes more sense. The pay rate of the arbitrators is not calibrated to giving detailed attention to every proposed solution. Does not having the time to give detailed consideration to every proposal count as random conspiracy? Being ignored is a fact of life that one has to learn to live with. I can't begin to outline the number of times my excellent ideas have been ignored; proceeding in a spirit of forgiveness keeps my feet on the ground.
Arbcom tends to ignore inconvenient questions weather they are asked
such
questions on the arbitration case, on their talk page or anywhere else.
This
is probably to avoid saying anything that may cause problems. They
perhaps
do this to protect the encyclopedia which is what they are hurting with their method of protecting it. They are in this protective veil.
Fair enough.
They should be more open in discussing their rationale without worrying about their or arbcoms reputation. People may actually agree with their rationale should they hear about it.
Arbitrators should probably be available on IRC. There should be
unofficial
office hours per arbitrator where people can talk with the arbitrator without fearing sanctions and remedies.
It's hard to imagine anything worse for them to do. We don't need for the Arbcom to be trolled into individually compromising expressions of views. The maxim "Don't feed the trolls," There is nothing in the job description asking them to swim in piranha infested waters. Their rationale should accompany their decision.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l