On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:16:55 UTC, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I question your suitability for the role of arbitrator based on your condescention towards those who want the wikipedia policies enforced.
You told me to work to have the policy changed; I tell you to work to have me removed. Jimbo appointed me; convince him to remove me. As an alternative, if a simple majority of my fellow arbiters ask me to step down, I will.
The only argument you have given against enforcing such rules is that your time is too precious.
I haven't even given that argument, and I don't intend to give any arguments. I simply refuse to be compelled to arbitrate the way you think I should. ...
I assume that the arbitration process, like any other that I can think of, will allow some choice to the arbitrees in the selection of arbitrators. This raises an interesting question: the built-in advantage of people who have participated in Wikipedia for a while over the newcomer. The former are likely to know something of the arbitrators, and can protect their interests by making better-informed judgments.
It would be only fair, though I suppose it would be impractical, to create profiles of the arbitrators. Then a newbie would know what positions the various people have taken on the subject of arbitration, and would not make the mistake of accepting someone who simply refuses to enforce some published policy of Wikipedia because he doesn't feel like it and nobody can make him. Just fpr example.
If we do allow litigants to select among arbitrators that would indeed give those who are knowledgeable and experienced an advantage (like in real life) where one party choses one arbitrator the other choses one, then the two chosen choose the third. In labor disputes the union choses someone friendly to them, likewise management, then the two chosen look for someone they can both work with.
Fred
From: "Dan Drake" dd@dandrake.com Reply-To: dd@dandrake.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:46:34 +0000 (UTC) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration progress report #2
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:16:55 UTC, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I question your suitability for the role of arbitrator based on your condescention towards those who want the wikipedia policies enforced.
You told me to work to have the policy changed; I tell you to work to have me removed. Jimbo appointed me; convince him to remove me. As an alternative, if a simple majority of my fellow arbiters ask me to step down, I will.
The only argument you have given against enforcing such rules is that your time is too precious.
I haven't even given that argument, and I don't intend to give any arguments. I simply refuse to be compelled to arbitrate the way you think I should. ...
I assume that the arbitration process, like any other that I can think of, will allow some choice to the arbitrees in the selection of arbitrators. This raises an interesting question: the built-in advantage of people who have participated in Wikipedia for a while over the newcomer. The former are likely to know something of the arbitrators, and can protect their interests by making better-informed judgments.
It would be only fair, though I suppose it would be impractical, to create profiles of the arbitrators. Then a newbie would know what positions the various people have taken on the subject of arbitration, and would not make the mistake of accepting someone who simply refuses to enforce some published policy of Wikipedia because he doesn't feel like it and nobody can make him. Just fpr example.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
If we do allow litigants to select among arbitrators that would indeed give those who are knowledgeable and experienced an advantage (like in real life) where one party choses one arbitrator the other choses one, then the two chosen choose the third. In labor disputes the union choses someone friendly to them, likewise management, then the two chosen look for someone they can both work with.
I don't really like this idea. It puts too much politics into it based on the selection of who's voting on your case, and those who know how to game the system are more likely to come out ahead. It also adds yet another beaurocratic step to the process. I'd prefer instead a simple vote of all members of the committee for all cases. I very much hope there will not be a lot of cases, so I don't see this as being a problem workload-wise. If there are a lot of cases, then we need to figure out how to rework the system so that there aren't--the vast majority of issues should, in my opinion, be decided by consensus on talk pages or, if necessary, through mediation.
Having some sort of grandiose process I'm afraid will actually encourage the overuse of the committee, as it makes it seem like it's normal to refer matters to be decided through this process. I think instead the arbitration committee should be a "decision-making committee of last resort", to which only relatively extraordinary matters are referred. And so we could have a relatively minimalistic process: the committee just votes, and thereby makes a decision (including possibly making the decision "the committee declines to make a ruling on this matter").
-Mark
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:22:43 UTC, Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com wrote:
Having some sort of grandiose process I'm afraid will actually encourage the overuse of the committee, as it makes it seem like it's normal to refer matters to be decided through this process. I think instead the arbitration committee should be a "decision-making committee of last resort", to which only relatively extraordinary matters are referred. And so we could have a relatively minimalistic process: the committee just votes, and thereby makes a decision (including possibly making the decision "the committee declines to make a ruling on this matter").
This is probably a good idea; really, I'm not arguing for an elaborate procedure, but reacting to what seems to be becoming one. But why call it arbitration? "Committee of last resort" is a fine, descriptive name.
Even the arbitration clauses in the agreements for brokerage and credit-card accounts (unconscionable because they are imposed by force and not in a genuine agreement, but that's another issue) give the aggrieved some power of selecting among the industry's pre-selected arbitrators to hear their case. As an organization that's charged with preserving Wilipedia's values (a good thing), "judges" would be a good term; but Committee of Last Resort, if a little verbose, would be best of all.
Delirium wrote:
I'd prefer instead a simple vote of all members of the committee for all cases. I very much hope there will not be a lot of cases, so I don't see this as being a problem workload-wise.
This is what I had envisioned as well.
If there are a lot of cases, then we need to figure out how to rework the system so that there aren't--the vast majority of issues should, in my opinion, be decided by consensus on talk pages or, if necessary, through mediation.
Yes, absolutely.
Just as a side note -- I'm deliberately staying out of this discussion, so when I say "this is what I had envisioned as well" I'm just giving background information, not dictating to the committee as to how it should function.
If no consensus by committee members develops soon enough as to what it will do, I can step in and say "O.k., let's have a vote of the committee on the options that have been proposed" and then we'll go with that.
But hopefully a vote won't be necessary, if proposals are craft that try to take into account various points of view. I think that the simple approach is best right now.
--Jimbo