Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
I think we are making progress here. If we grant that a registration system isn't the *right* measure to deal with the typical trouble-maker, we can instead focus on what *is* the right measure?
From my position on the relative sidelines (I've never had direct dealings with ArbCom nor do I follow its activities much beyond what gets discussed on this list), the problem(s) are not with the technology or the policies, but are solely with ArbCom, and I see five possibilities as to what they are:
1) ArbCom is toothless to deal rapidly with clear abuses.
I don't think this is the case. If it is, it needs to be fixed quickly.
2) ArbCom thinks it's toothless to deal rapidly with clear abuses.
If this is the case, I think *YOU* (Jimbo) can and should fix it by making it clear to them they're not.
3) ArbCom is afraid of backlash for dealing rapidly with clear abuses.
I feel like this may be the most likely problem. I also think it could be worked through simply by biting the bullet and coming down hard and fast on a few exceptional problem cases, making Wikipedians get used to the fact that "due process" doesn't mean "any process that makes it harder to ban someone". (I think this is an artifact of a time when Wikipedia was much smaller you held sole power to ban and did everything you could to avoid it. A benevolent dictator presiding over a medium-sized project is markedly different from a pseudo-democratic body presiding over one of the largest "open source" projects in the world with one of the lowest barriers to entry. I don't think enough people have grasped that.)
4) ArbCom is woefully understaffed.
I think staffing levels are a factor regardless of the truth of any of these other points. From the sound of things, the recent elections have helped. Depending on how the next few weeks and months go, I think serious consideration should be given to expanding ArbCom further.
5) ArbCom is "lazy".
For one reason or another, some arbitrators apparently aren't active. I'd rather not see anyone forcibly removed, but I'd certainly urge any inactive arbitrators to resign so that others with more time may take their place.
In relation to the last two possibilities, I've had a thought. Some people are clearly afraid of making a long-term commitment to ArbCom, but might not be adverse to short-term stints. I'm thinking perhaps a monthly list of volunteers that ArbCom could select from to form temporary committees to review a particular case and recommend action with ArbCom making the final call. How well this would work in practice I can't say.