I think one thing leads to another here. Incivility leads to loss of editors of all genders. ArbCom has too narrow of a function and too little time to deal with every case of incivility. We have a lack of effective governance to be able to bring about a solution to all of these issues.
The conversation kindof jumped around a bit, but we have hit on some very serious issues. Operationally, everything works, as far as management, we are effectively leaderless and without any clear way to govern - the consensus process being so easily thrown off course it's become useless for any large-scale contentious issue. It's not that we are unable to make decisions, it's that we are unable to make controversial ones. We have a judiciary of sorts for our community, but the design as a court of last resort, coupled with the lack of any other authority with sufficient clout to deal with more established contributors, effectively cripple us, because every other process except ejection ("community ban") by community consensus is toothless, and consensus to eject a vested contributor doesn't happen short of them going suddenly and completely berserk and staying that way for an extended period of time.
Admins can deal effectively enough with harmful behavior from "outsiders", but the effectiveness disappears in all but open-and-shut policy violations where it concerns another admin or an established contributor.
So, that leaves us with several problems:
We need an effective way to sanction any member of the community that is disruptive or incivil. We need ArbCom to become more of an appellate than the sole "court" of English Wikipedia, because they can't scale to that, and because they are specifically tasked with the worst problems, not with the "death by a thousand cuts" of borderline disruption. A start would be some form of binding dispute resolution that doesn't require ArbCom involvement, but it has to be binding, and it has to be able to consistently result in sanctions if the dispute resolution process fails - without the case having to go before ArbCom first.
As far as fixing dispute resolution, I suggest that a first measure, we restore and revamp the mediation system and make it binding. The way this would work, mediators would begin to be elected or appointed to reach a suitable number of mediators for the expected caseload. Mediators would be assigned to cases requesting mediation, under the condition that prior dispute resolution steps must have been attempted - or that only one of the parties were willing to participate in dispute resolution. Once a case was reviewed and accepted, it would enter a binding mediation. Editors participating in binding mediations would reach a solution mutually agreeable to the parties and found reasonable (by the standards of policy and practical enforceability) by the mediators, or the failure to do so would be submitted to arbcom along with the prior chain of dispute resolution activity and could potentially form further evidence of tenditiousness and incivility. Agreements reached from mediation would be binding on the parties, in that the standard remedies of "any uninvolved administrator" being able to enforce an agreement would apply, and such agreements would stand until renegotiated or appealed to ArbCom. Finally, mediators would be given access to an expedited ArbCom process (essentially, the ability to ask ArbCom for an injunction in a case that has not yet been presented to them) for obtaining injunctions in order to stop a disputed activity while negotiations take place - injunctions of this nature would expire after reaching an agreement through mediation, or after reaching a decision through arbitration.
-Stephanie
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I guess I kind of forgot what we were talking about when Marc brought up an authority. The original subject was nastiness, but that too is possibly unrelated to the question of why more women don't edit.
Yes, it is the community that determines the editing environment, not rules or enforcement. They are just useful when someone violates community norm and then wants to argue about it. Community norms that we all support are what works.
Fred
If you want a different editing environment, using a body like arbcom will get you nowhere fast. You can't create a friendly environment by kneecapping people who are uncivil - done like that it will either look like arbitrary justice of people we don't like - or in the interest of transparency of process you'll be reduced to counting sweary words. The problem with NPA is that anyone with a good grasp of the English language knows how to deliver an infuriating put-down, or frustrate by playing dumb-insolence, without personally attacking anyone. On the other hand, we end up blocking someone for calling a troll "a troll".
What you need is something else. I'm not Jimbo's biggest fan, and I'm never greatly taken by his idealistic "Jimbofluff" approach, but when you actually had a leader (who at that time was perceived to have influence) those who wanted to have influence with him, would strive not to disappoint the leader. That ethos rubs off. Jimmy was very good at saying to people he valued, "I'm disappointed with how you handled this" - and it stung.
The problem with arbcom is that it although people may seek to avoid behavior which might lead to sanctions, there's little positive reinforcement. Unless one is angling to be elected (or still needs to pass RfA) then having, and expressing contempt, for all and sundry doesn't have consequences. I speak from experience here. I've battled for BLP issues for years, to do that I've had to fight for unpopular positions, and I've needed to know arbcom will support me.- That I am often overly-combatative, short tempered, and unnecessarily uncivil, ends up being beside the point -as arbcom would look very petty were they to pass a critical resolution in the midst of dealing with important issues. A leader(ship) would find it easier to say "thank you, you're right, we should do this, but please could you tone it down a bit".
If you want a atmosphere change it needs led, and not driven by threats. It is also the case that much of the incivility of regulars is due to long-term frustration caused by the fact that getting any small change on en.Wikipedia means battle and endless debates with hundreds of people. The problem is structural - change (when it comes) is driven and not lead - so you learn to fight and equally you get frustrated.
As hard as it is to change structures, it is far easier to change structures than to change people. And structures shape people.
But we've discussed structural change time and time again, and it can't happen. The bastards won't let it, so sod the lot of them.
Scott (Doc)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l