This issue was raised on the pages for the 2008 election of the Arbitrators Committee, and while I haven't been involved in that discussion I think its important to get a wide array of eyeballs on this particular question: Should the term of election for the Arbitration Committee be reduced to two years, from three, with annual elections?
I think a one year term, and certainly anything shorter than that, risks destroying institutional memory and over-politicizing the arbitration process. Three years was obviously devised to insulate the Committee members from the intermittent changes in the will and makeup of the community, and also to ensure that the committee had a long institutional memory with regards to ongoing issues and past decisions.
What I think is clear to most people is that a position on the Committee is a difficult and trying role. They are the last resort for disputes that have become bitter enough or severe enough that other community-based processes are unable to provide a solution. Every decision further embitters some, and some decisions leave absolutely everyone cold. The point is that being an arbitrator is a tough job, and it is mostly unacknowledged and unrewarded. We have all seen arbitrators become bitter about the process and its cases, we've all seen activity die off in formerly heavily involved arbitrators. Arbitrators have resigned early in dismay (including again, just today), and others who manage to complete a term essentially disappear from Wikipedia.
On the ArbCom RfC and the election page, three current arbitrators and one former arbitrator have expressed support for reducing the term of election for arbitrators to 2 years. In a separate section on the RfC, 25 editors (including a number of admins) also endorsed the idea of removing the third year from the term.
Its unclear who would need to take the lead in making this change, so I hope that Jimmy particularly is willing to weigh in on this question.
thank you,
Nathan
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
This issue was raised on the pages for the 2008 election of the Arbitrators Committee, and while I haven't been involved in that discussion I think its important to get a wide array of eyeballs on this particular question: Should the term of election for the Arbitration Committee be reduced to two years, from three, with annual elections?
(Snip)
Nathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I had thoughts about this. The issue is less the actual length of term. It's more, that those appointed (as it stands) can be pretty much nothing ''except'' arbitrators. Every wiki hour switches to disputes, bad acting, flames, decisions, and that eventually wears people out. It's not the duration per se, 3 years is fine. its that it's 3 years doing nothing but arbcom work.
There are two remedies for that.
Firstly, the tasks the committee does, need to be delegated or passed to more people. Today's re-affirmation of the June announcement about enlarging the Checkuser team, is a step on the way. Other things might follow.
Secondly, users who become arbitrators should be encouraged to sit on the next 3 months cases, then take a months break from the front line, do some editing or wiki-gnoming, mentor or coach someone, work on a favorite project, or get away from it a while, before coming back to 3 more months cases (not "by the calendar, but as they feel right). Keeping people on a treadmill 24/7 till its too much, is a bad idea.
Those 2 measures would probably solve much of it.
FT2
Regarding FT2's point - some sort if division of labor to reduce the burden on the Arbitration Committee has been discussed many times, on various forums, but that sort of solution is one that only requires the involvement of the committee itself. I submit that the opportunity for that type of change has always been there, but the committee for whatever reason has chosen not to make it. It is similar, in my mind, to the fact that the committee has not devised a method for replacing absent, inactive or resigned arbitrators prior to an election - despite Jimmy's request to do so. At the risk of being criticized for making a comparison to the US Supreme Court - that court takes annual and periodic recesses, and hears cases and issues decisions in phases, which is something the committee could consider.
Reposting my original statement because the formatting is so ugly I wouldn't have read it through if I hadn't written it myself.
[--begin repost--]
This issue was raised on the pages for the 2008 election of the Arbitrators Committee, and while I haven't been involved in that discussion I think its important to get a wide array of eyeballs on this particular question: Should the term of election for the Arbitration Committee be reduced to two years, from three, with annual elections?
I think a one year term, and certainly anything shorter than that, risks destroying institutional memory and over-politicizing the arbitration process. Three years was obviously devised to insulate the Committee members from the intermittent changes in the will and makeup of the community, and also to ensure that the committee had a long institutional memory with regards to ongoing issues and past decisions.
What I think is clear to most people is that a position on the Committee is a difficult and trying role. They are the last resort for disputes that have become bitter enough or severe enough that other community-based processes are unable to provide a solution. Every decision further embitters some, and some decisions leave absolutely everyone cold. The point is that being an arbitrator is a tough job, and it is mostly unacknowledged and unrewarded. We have all seen arbitrators become bitter about the process and its cases, we've all seen activity die off in formerly heavily involved arbitrators. Arbitrators have resigned early in dismay (including again, just today), and others who manage to complete a term essentially disappear from Wikipedia.
On the ArbCom RfC and the election page, three current arbitrators and one former arbitrator have expressed support for reducing the term of election for arbitrators to 2 years. In a separate section on the RfC, 25 editors (including a number of admins) also endorsed the idea of removing the third year from the term.
Its unclear who would need to take the lead in making this change, so I hope that Jimmy particularly is willing to weigh in on this question.
thank you,
Nathan
[--end repost--]