Fred Bauder wrote:
>From: Tim Starling <t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Secondly, the
AC should take a leadership role. The AC was appointed by
Jimbo, and now has a number of democratically elected members. It has
something approaching a mandate. It should make summary judgements in a
single sitting, and not be afraid of controversy. It should do what it
thinks is best for the community and make up the rules as it goes along,
within the bounds of community norms.
As now constituted, it would be difficult to get us together, prepared (this
is important--you have to have looked at the edits before you sit down) for
such a procedure.
Form small subcommittees which are generally online at the same time,
and allow them to make decisions alone, subject to review by the full
committee.
We have acted quickly in a few instances, but in
general
most arbitrators move relatively slowly. Being elected and not being afraid
of controversy is a contradiction. I think we try to do what is best for the
community and when there is no explicit rule try to find a way to resolve a
dispute within expressed community norms.
Fair enough.
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.
My post was just my opinion, I didn't say it was realistic. I think it's
important that we talk openly about possible solutions, so that people
can continue to reassess our options as our circumstances change.
The best way to
deal with trolls is to unite the community against them,
then put up with them until they grow out of it. It only took Michael 18
months. Even adult trolls like 142 eventually get bored and go do
something else, but you've got to expect it to take a year or two.
If only trolling was an criminal offence by international treaty...
It proved impossible to ban obvious trolls who advertised it by
incorporating troll into their usernames. It was insisted that they should
be "judged by their edits" not their username. With respect to uniting the
community, when we were smaller that happened, now there are a number of
troublesome users that I only become aware of when a request shows up in
requests for arbitration.
The community was never united about anything when I started in October
2002. Maybe you're talking about mid 2001?
There are degrees of unity. There's a difference between a vocal
minority and an atmosphere of distrust. Every little bit counts. Unity
comes through leadership, it doesn't occur otherwise except by chance.
May I suggest that when a serious matter arises that
any user disturbed by
it engage in the dispute resolution procedure. Our failures to act in cases
which are not before us are to be expected. We do not initiate cases.
All I'm asking for is that every once in a while, we re-evaluate our
dogma. You say "we do not initiate cases" as if that settles the matter.
I don't know if your rule about not initiating cases is good or bad, I
just wish we'd think about it critically every once in a while.
Let me take the negative position. Why not act on cases that are not
brought before you? Is this a serious balance to your power? If the 9 of
you wanted to abuse your power and bend editorial direction to suit your
philosophy, would you have trouble finding a single non-member to bring
cases that you secretly ask to be brought? If you are aware of failures,
trolls bringing stress and anger to honest contributors and damaging the
quality of the encyclopedia, how can you sit by and do nothing in good
conscience?
-- Tim Starling