So, we have a policy on requests (see below), we're currently looking at issues of recusal and suchlike. We're currently arbitrating the cases of Wik and Irismeister, and discussing whether to accept the cases of Heph and Anthony DiP for arbitration. Plus the normal informal discussion of stuff that matters.
That's all.
----
The arbitration committee accepts requests for arbitration from anyone; however, in most cases, the arbitration committee will only hear cases referred to them by the Mediation Committee or directly from Jimmy Wales. The arbitration committee will decide whether to accept cases based on its Jurisdiction, as described previously.
The arbitrators will accept a case if four arbitrators have voted to hear it. The arbitrators will reject a case if one week has passed AND four arbitrators have voted not to hear it. Individual arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested.
(Rationale: we believe most cases will be self-evident anyway, we don't believe coming to a consensus over our reasons is a good use of our time)
-Martin
Timwi asked:
How large is the AC currently?
Currently 10 members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee
-- sannse
At 22:50 26/02/2004 +0000, you wrote:
Martin Harper wrote:
The arbitrators will accept a case if four arbitrators have voted to hear it.
How large is the AC currently?
There were 11, but one ([[User:Uninvited Company]]) left today (see [[Talk:Arbitration Committee]]). Of the remaining ten, one (The Cunctator) appears to be virtually inactive, both as editor and arbitrator.
Lee (Camembert)
Camembert wrote:
There were 11, but one ([[User:Uninvited Company]]) left today (see [[Talk:Arbitration Committee]]). Of the remaining ten, one (The Cunctator) appears to be virtually inactive, both as editor and arbitrator.
Is the arbitration committee going to make up their numbers by finding a replacement for Uninvited Company?
If so, can I suggest (in an annoyingly PC way) that the new member is a woman. As far as I know there are no women on the arbitration committee and I see no harm in balancing this a little.
Regards
sannse
sannse wrote:
Is the arbitration committee going to make up their numbers by finding a replacement for Uninvited Company?
If so, can I suggest (in an annoyingly PC way) that the new member is a woman. As far as I know there are no women on the arbitration committee and I see no harm in balancing this a little.
Perhaps it shows my political leanings, but I don't really like that approach. Certainly we should have all opinions represented, and if certain opinions are only represented by women, then we should have women represented. But we should represent all opinions, not based on simple categorizations like gender, race, etc.---you can't assume that someone has certain personality or characteristics because they're female, or male, or hispanic, or whatnot (certainly most people I know offline don't follow the stereotypes, and many fit 'opposite' roles better). As far as wikipedia goes, things like inclusionist vs. deletionist, pro- vs. anti-banning, etc., are all more relevant distinctions by at least an order of magnitude.
So if there's a woman on the arbitration committee (or multiple women), it should be because of who they are, not just because we wanted to throw a token woman on there. Which, fortunately, is how Wikipedia normally works---I often can't tell if someone is male or female until it gets mentioned long after I've interacted with them for a while, and there's some surprises (for whatever reason, I thought that evercat was female, and that anthere was male).
And, FWIW, we allowed *everyone* on a committee who wanted to be on one. So at the moment the reason there are no women is because no women volunteered. If someone wants to volunteer, male or female, we could use an extra member to keep the numbers at the right level, so talk to Mr. Wales asap. =]
-Mark
Mark wrote:
Perhaps it shows my political leanings, but I don't really like that approach. Certainly we should have all opinions represented, and if certain opinions are only represented by women, then we should have women represented. But we should represent all opinions, not based on simple categorizations like gender, race, etc.---you can't assume that someone has certain personality or characteristics because they're female, or male, or hispanic, or whatnot (certainly most people I know offline don't follow the stereotypes, and many fit 'opposite' roles better). As far as wikipedia goes, things like inclusionist vs. deletionist, pro- vs. anti-banning, etc., are all more relevant distinctions by at least an order of magnitude.
So if there's a woman on the arbitration committee (or multiple women), it should be because of who they are, not just because we wanted to throw a token woman on there. Which, fortunately, is how Wikipedia normally works---I often can't tell if someone is male or female until it gets mentioned long after I've interacted with them for a while, and there's some surprises (for whatever reason, I thought that evercat was female, and that anthere was male).
Generally I agree. I don't want to see a token woman either (or a token anyone else). But I think Wikipedia has suffered in the past from an invisibility of women, it's only recently that I've noticed more women around, and I think the (possible) lack of female input in the arbitration committee is a shame. But that said, it's not something I'm going to bang on about.
And, FWIW, we allowed *everyone* on a committee who wanted to be on one. So at the moment the reason there are no women is because no women volunteered. If someone wants to volunteer, male or female, we could use an extra member to keep the numbers at the right level, so talk to Mr. Wales asap. =]
At least two women, Angela and I, /were/ available for the arbitration committee. Both of us expressed a preference for mediation but an availability for arbitration. Jimbo went with our preference and that's fine, but since Alex pointed out the apparently all male arbitration committee I've thought that this is an issue that should be addressed if possible. If UC is firm on leaving the committee this seems a good opportunity. Any woman out there want a job? No pay, lots of hassle, but the potential for an occasional warm fuzzy feeling inside.
--sannse
Sounds like you're nominating yourself, welcome aboard if thats what you want.
Fred
From: "sannse" sannse@delphiforums.com Reply-To: sannse sannse@delphiforums.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:07:30 -0000 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Feminist agenda (was Arbitration progress report #6)
At least two women, Angela and I, /were/ available for the arbitration committee. Both of us expressed a preference for mediation but an availability for arbitration. Jimbo went with our preference and that's fine, but since Alex pointed out the apparently all male arbitration committee I've thought that this is an issue that should be addressed if possible. If UC is firm on leaving the committee this seems a good opportunity. Any woman out there want a job? No pay, lots of hassle, but the potential for an occasional warm fuzzy feeling inside.
--sannse
sannse a écrit:
Mark wrote:
Perhaps it shows my political leanings, but I don't really like that approach. Certainly we should have all opinions represented, and if certain opinions are only represented by women, then we should have women represented. But we should represent all opinions, not based on simple categorizations like gender, race, etc.---you can't assume that someone has certain personality or characteristics because they're female, or male, or hispanic, or whatnot (certainly most people I know offline don't follow the stereotypes, and many fit 'opposite' roles better). As far as wikipedia goes, things like inclusionist vs. deletionist, pro- vs. anti-banning, etc., are all more relevant distinctions by at least an order of magnitude.
I wonder if it might not be interesting to check the % of males versus females more leaning on each of these sides : deletionist/inclusionist, pro versus anti-ban etc...
So if there's a woman on the arbitration committee (or multiple women), it should be because of who they are, not just because we wanted to throw a token woman on there. Which, fortunately, is how Wikipedia normally works---I often can't tell if someone is male or female until it gets mentioned long after I've interacted with them for a while, and there's some surprises (for whatever reason, I thought that evercat was female, and that anthere was male).
It is curious because I usually think my behavior is really more on the feminine side than masculine one, but well. This lack of clarily is precisely why I started http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiwomen.
Generally I agree. I don't want to see a token woman either (or a token anyone else). But I think Wikipedia has suffered in the past from an invisibility of women, it's only recently that I've noticed more women around, and I think the (possible) lack of female input in the arbitration committee is a shame. But that said, it's not something I'm going to bang on about.
And, FWIW, we allowed *everyone* on a committee who wanted to be on one. So at the moment the reason there are no women is because no women volunteered. If someone wants to volunteer, male or female, we could use an extra member to keep the numbers at the right level, so talk to Mr. Wales asap. =]
At least two women, Angela and I, /were/ available for the arbitration committee. Both of us expressed a preference for mediation but an availability for arbitration. Jimbo went with our preference and that's fine, but since Alex pointed out the apparently all male arbitration committee I've thought that this is an issue that should be addressed if possible. If UC is firm on leaving the committee this seems a good opportunity. Any woman out there want a job? No pay, lots of hassle, but the potential for an occasional warm fuzzy feeling inside.
--sannse
warm fuzzy feeling ? My ... sannse, where did you find that ? :-)
Anthere a écrit:
Any woman out there want a job? No pay, lots of hassle, but the potential for an occasional warm fuzzy feeling inside.
--sannse
warm fuzzy feeling ? My ... sannse, where did you find that ? :-)
I said /potential/
There's potential for me to win the lottery and become a millionaire too...
--sannse
sannse wrote:
At least two women, Angela and I, /were/ available for the arbitration committee. Both of us expressed a preference for mediation but an availability for arbitration. Jimbo went with our preference and that's fine, but since Alex pointed out the apparently all male arbitration committee I've thought that this is an issue that should be addressed if possible.
I agree with all of this. I just went with each volunteer's preference, and that's the way it ended up. I didn't even notice, which probably proves that I'm very enlightened or very backwards. :-)
But I do think that a sense of balance is important, balance of a number of different kinds, and that this is worthwhile to do if we can.
--Jimbo