-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dalton [mailto:thomas.dalton@gmail.com]
If we allowed admins to be a little more BOLD in their admin actions, then ArbCom (and a possible lower court) could simply become a review of individual admins. _______________________________________________
The ArbCom would only address disputes between administrators. Never disputes between users or between users and administrators.
Fred
On 14/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dalton [mailto:thomas.dalton@gmail.com]
If we allowed admins to be a little more BOLD in their admin actions, then ArbCom (and a possible lower court) could simply become a review of individual admins. _______________________________________________
The ArbCom would only address disputes between administrators. Never disputes between users or between users and administrators.
That could work. Allow admins to handle disputes involving users, and ArbCom just handles disputes between admins. If a user has a problem with an admin, but can't get any other admin to support them, chances are ArbCom would reject the case anyway.
We already have a great many user complaints that admins are essentially invulnerable. This would greatly increase such dissatisfaction. We have whatever respect we do have, because any user can after all make a direct complaint. Making it impossible would increase the existing feeling of class antagonism.
On 10/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dalton [mailto:thomas.dalton@gmail.com]
If we allowed admins to be a little more BOLD in their admin actions, then ArbCom (and a possible lower court) could simply become a review of individual admins. _______________________________________________
The ArbCom would only address disputes between administrators. Never disputes between users or between users and administrators.
That could work. Allow admins to handle disputes involving users, and ArbCom just handles disputes between admins. If a user has a problem with an admin, but can't get any other admin to support them, chances are ArbCom would reject the case anyway.
On 15/10/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
We already have a great many user complaints that admins are essentially invulnerable. This would greatly increase such dissatisfaction. We have whatever respect we do have, because any user can after all make a direct complaint. Making it impossible would increase the existing feeling of class antagonism.
You're absolutely right. The thing we have to decide is if it's worth it. We have to so something to fix ArbCom, and chances are, we're going to make somebody unhappy in the process. We need to balance how well ArbCom (or its replacement) works with how happy people are with it - we'll never fully achieve both.
On 10/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/10/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
We already have a great many user complaints that admins are essentially invulnerable. This would greatly increase such dissatisfaction. We have whatever respect we do have, because any user can after all make a direct complaint. Making it impossible would increase the existing feeling of class antagonism.
You're absolutely right. The thing we have to decide is if it's worth it. We have to so something to fix ArbCom, and chances are, we're going to make somebody unhappy in the process. We need to balance how well ArbCom (or its replacement) works with how happy people are with it - we'll never fully achieve both.
I don't know that happiness matters. My favorite teacher drives me insane--hardly makes me happy at all until I get through one of his damn classes and realize I learned far more than I ever thought possible. I respect him. I don't know him at all, so I can't say whether I like him or not--but he's a superb teacher, and I also trust him to know how to teach me.
Isn't that more important that ArbCom earns or has the respect of the community? Than that they make the community happy? The latter seems to be the way to set them up for no community support. If their job is defined well, and they do it well, and they're able to do it well because the requirements for doing so are not so onerous, then they will, imo, wind up with the community's support for taking upon themselves a thankless job. But happiness? How could they provide that?
KP
I don't know that happiness matters. My favorite teacher drives me insane--hardly makes me happy at all until I get through one of his damn classes and realize I learned far more than I ever thought possible. I respect him. I don't know him at all, so I can't say whether I like him or not--but he's a superb teacher, and I also trust him to know how to teach me.
Isn't that more important that ArbCom earns or has the respect of the community? Than that they make the community happy? The latter seems to be the way to set them up for no community support. If their job is defined well, and they do it well, and they're able to do it well because the requirements for doing so are not so onerous, then they will, imo, wind up with the community's support for taking upon themselves a thankless job. But happiness? How could they provide that?
Not everyone is mature enough to respect someone they don't like. The worry is not so much that people would be unhappy with ArbCom, but that that unhappiness would cause them not to respect ArbCom. Without respect, the committee is pretty much pointless.
Suggestion: an abbreviated process if limited remedies are sought, such as topic bans, or article or revert probation, and the full process only when banning or desysop is to be considered.
On 10/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know that happiness matters. My favorite teacher drives me insane--hardly makes me happy at all until I get through one of his damn classes and realize I learned far more than I ever thought possible. I respect him. I don't know him at all, so I can't say whether I like him or not--but he's a superb teacher, and I also trust him to know how to teach me.
Isn't that more important that ArbCom earns or has the respect of the community? Than that they make the community happy? The latter seems to be the way to set them up for no community support. If their job is defined well, and they do it well, and they're able to do it well because the requirements for doing so are not so onerous, then they will, imo, wind up with the community's support for taking upon themselves a thankless job. But happiness? How could they provide that?
Not everyone is mature enough to respect someone they don't like. The worry is not so much that people would be unhappy with ArbCom, but that that unhappiness would cause them not to respect ArbCom. Without respect, the committee is pretty much pointless.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/15/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Suggestion: an abbreviated process if limited remedies are sought, such as topic bans, or article or revert probation, and the full process only when banning or desysop is to be considered.
Hmm. How you would you feel if you ended up on the short end of a abbreviated process?
Thatcher
On 10/15/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Suggestion: an abbreviated process if limited remedies are sought, such as topic bans, or article or revert probation, and the full process only when banning or desysop is to be considered.
One doesn't always know going in what the evidence will be, and what remedies are likely to pop out.
People's behavior during the arbitration can cause remedies to be proposed or adopted which didn't seem likely beforehand.
That said... if you're flexible about kicking to the full process if it crosses that threshold (and to some degree starting over) then that could work.
On 15/10/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Suggestion: an abbreviated process if limited remedies are sought, such as topic bans, or article or revert probation, and the full process only when banning or desysop is to be considered.
That would require the person bringing the case to be the one to decide on the potential remedies (with arbitrators just voting yea or nay). Since remedies are meant to benefit the project, rather than the person bringing the case (ie. they aren't suing for damages, it's more like a criminal prosecution), it doesn't make sense for that person to decide the limit on the remedies.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 15/10/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Suggestion: an abbreviated process if limited remedies are sought, such as topic bans, or article or revert probation, and the full process only when banning or desysop is to be considered.
That would require the person bringing the case to be the one to decide on the potential remedies (with arbitrators just voting yea or nay). Since remedies are meant to benefit the project, rather than the person bringing the case (ie. they aren't suing for damages, it's more like a criminal prosecution), it doesn't make sense for that person to decide the limit on the remedies.
I don't think that has to be a problem.
If the person bringing the case, who is presumably the most upset about the problem, thinks that limited remedies are enough, then it seems like a reasonable bet a lot of the time.
For the times it isn't, then the person or people adjudicating the case should have the option of sending it to the full ArbCom. And we could allow anybody to petition the full ArbCom to take over the case.
William
I don't think that has to be a problem.
If the person bringing the case, who is presumably the most upset about the problem, thinks that limited remedies are enough, then it seems like a reasonable bet a lot of the time.
For the times it isn't, then the person or people adjudicating the case should have the option of sending it to the full ArbCom. And we could allow anybody to petition the full ArbCom to take over the case.
You may be right, but will many people take that option?
Part of the problem is that admins often act in situations where they are seen as interested parties. This is not suprising since they often choose to focus on the problems in the areas on their watchlist.
If part of the solution to resolving more disuptes is to encourage admins to be more bold, then it would be good to have a formal process for recruiting truly uninvolved admins to make those decisions. For example, grab an admin working on political history for disputes over pop culture, etc. Perhaps a "disputes for admin intervention" page to describe the issue and request an uninvolved admin investigation and ruling.
-Robert Rohde
On 10/15/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
We already have a great many user complaints that admins are essentially invulnerable. This would greatly increase such dissatisfaction. We have whatever respect we do have, because any user can after all make a direct complaint. Making it impossible would increase the existing feeling of class antagonism.
On 10/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dalton [mailto:thomas.dalton@gmail.com]
If we allowed admins to be a little more BOLD in their admin actions, then ArbCom (and a possible lower court) could simply become a review of individual admins. _______________________________________________
The ArbCom would only address disputes between administrators. Never
disputes between users or between users and administrators.
That could work. Allow admins to handle disputes involving users, and ArbCom just handles disputes between admins. If a user has a problem with an admin, but can't get any other admin to support them, chances are ArbCom would reject the case anyway.
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l