From: Tim Starling
<t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:58:59 +1100
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Broken dispute resolution mechanisms (was Reithy is a
problem)
I think Jay's assessment of our dispute resolution process is quite
accurate. I spoke about how I thought the AC should proceed when it
first started, but I was ignored. I'll repeat my basic points now.
Firstly, there is no need to require a standard of evidence analogous to
a criminal court. We're not sending someone to jail, we're attempting to
exclude them from our community. I suggested, and still recommend, a
standard of evidence analogous to a civil court -- that is, a balance of
probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Actually we are requiring that they conform to our policies upon pain of
being excluded if they don't. As most evidence involves edits by
identifiable users, the evidence is plain, the question is what to make of
it; so it is not standards of proof which are involved but questions of
policy.
Secondly, the AC should take a leadership role. The AC was appointed by
Jimbo, and now has a number of democratically elected members. It has
something approaching a mandate. It should make summary judgements in a
single sitting, and not be afraid of controversy. It should do what it
thinks is best for the community and make up the rules as it goes along,
within the bounds of community norms.
As now constituted, it would be difficult to get us together, prepared (this
is important--you have to have looked at the edits before you sit down) for
such a procedure. We have acted quickly in a few instances, but in general
most arbitrators move relatively slowly. Being elected and not being afraid
of controversy is a contradiction. I think we try to do what is best for the
community and when there is no explicit rule try to find a way to resolve a
dispute within expressed community norms.
Thirdly, sentences should be much, much harsher. Ban them for life and
get it over with. Banning only slows them down anyway, most of them will
come back under a different name. But at least the community will be
able to unite behind the AC ruling.
This was tried at first by one arbitrator but was overruled by the majority.
Unless the bulk of the arbitrators differ markedly from the users there is
little support for lifetime banning.
The best way to deal with trolls is to unite the community against them,
then put up with them until they grow out of it. It only took Michael 18
months. Even adult trolls like 142 eventually get bored and go do
something else, but you've got to expect it to take a year or two.
If only trolling was an criminal offence by international treaty...
It proved impossible to ban obvious trolls who advertised it by
incorporating troll into their usernames. It was insisted that they should
be "judged by their edits" not their username. With respect to uniting the
community, when we were smaller that happened, now there are a number of
troublesome users that I only become aware of when a request shows up in
requests for arbitration.
May I suggest that when a serious matter arises that any user disturbed by
it engage in the dispute resolution procedure. Our failures to act in cases
which are not before us are to be expected. We do not initiate cases.
Fred
-- Tim Starling
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l