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
Michael Snow wrote:
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
Agreed. This was NEVER my intention when I setup the admin noticeboard. I'm beginning to regret that I've concentrated the power of a majority of admins and made them a might too powerful.
I say this because lately I've been acting the same way. Time for me to pull back from admin tasks I feel.
TBSDY