Actually, we are having some serious trouble. I'm thoroughly burned out. Additionally we have deadlocks on a couple of cases.
In fact, the situation is so bad, that I think we should consider alternatives to our current procedures. Is there some other way we could resolved the issues which come to arbitration, perhaps by committees of administrators?
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Sam Blacketer [mailto:sam.blacketer@googlemail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 05:49 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom
On 10/14/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
What's with the slowness?
That's rather uncharitable. Investigating dubious editing can take a long time and the ArbCom inevitably get the most complicated and intractable cases. It may not always be possible to predict when one has the time to give to this unpaid and voluntary work.
Several Arbitrators are in academia where September and October is a very demanding time. More understanding should be shown.
On 14/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Actually, we are having some serious trouble. I'm thoroughly burned out. Additionally we >have deadlocks on a couple of cases.
In fact, the situation is so bad, that I think we should consider alternatives to our current >procedures. Is there some other way we could resolved the issues which come to arbitration, >perhaps by committees of administrators?
In theory yes. Although this would not allow arbcom to duck the hyper political cases a fair number of the current cases could be delt with by a genuinely random selection (give each admin a number and see what a random number generator kicks out) of active admins. And yes arbcom does have the power to delegate in this way if it choses to do so.
In fact, the situation is so bad, that I think we should consider alternatives to our current procedures. Is there some other way we could resolved the issues which come to arbitration, perhaps by committees of administrators?
That could work, however I suggest any such committees work by advising ArbCom, rather than making determinations themselves. Trust in ArbCom is low enough, trust in admins is much lower - I'm not sure the community would respect the decisions of admins.
The other option is to have ArbCom function as a "court of appeal" (which, I guess, makes admins magistrates). I would expect most cases to be appealed, however ArbCom could reject cases far more often than they do now if they've already been reviewed by admins.
Another idea I've seen suggested before is to significantly expand ArbCom and then select (at random) a group of arbiters for each case. This reduces the workload of individual arbiters, makes inactivity less of an issue (since inactive arbiters wouldn't be selected for cases), and gives the option of appealing to the whole of ArbCom in particularly controversial cases.
On 14/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, the situation is so bad, that I think we should consider alternatives to our current procedures. Is there some other way we could resolved the issues which come to arbitration, perhaps by committees of administrators?
That could work, however I suggest any such committees work by advising ArbCom, rather than making determinations themselves. Trust in ArbCom is low enough, trust in admins is much lower - I'm not sure the community would respect the decisions of admins.
The other option is to have ArbCom function as a "court of appeal" (which, I guess, makes admins magistrates). I would expect most cases to be appealed, however ArbCom could reject cases far more often than they do now if they've already been reviewed by admins.
Another idea I've seen suggested before is to significantly expand ArbCom and then select (at random) a group of arbiters for each case. This reduces the workload of individual arbiters, makes inactivity less of an issue (since inactive arbiters wouldn't be selected for cases), and gives the option of appealing to the whole of ArbCom in particularly controversial cases.
PS Forgot to add: This would make adminship a bigger deal. I have no problem with that, but there are many over at RFA that probably will.
I've made a fresh proposal intended to get around the stalemate of previous arguments over "BADSITES" and other proposals.
It is limited to self-published websites, i.e. blogs and forums. The idea is that people who engage in harassment of Wikipedia editors should not be used as reliable sources for articles because they have a conflict of interest with the project. They are attempting to force editors to change their behavior in an improper manner, and may be presumed to have an interest in changing Wikipedia's contents improperly as well. This proposal is inspired partly by the prohibition on allowing participation by people who are suing Wikipedia, which is also due to a conflict of interest problem. Similar text should be added to the WP:EL
This proposal would not affect the ''New Yorker'' and similar legitimate sources. It does not include an exemption for 3RR. It does not address linking outside of articles.
The proposal is currently being discussed at [[Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment#Harassment sites are unreliable]] as part of that proposed policy. I should note that that discussion is dominated by a few editors, and more input would be helpful.
Will Beback
On 14/10/2007, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
It is limited to self-published websites, i.e. blogs and forums. The idea is that people who engage in harassment of Wikipedia editors should not be used as reliable sources for articles because they have a conflict of interest with the project. They are attempting to force editors to change their behavior in an improper manner, and may be presumed to have an interest in changing Wikipedia's contents improperly as well. This proposal is inspired partly by the prohibition on allowing participation by people who are suing Wikipedia, which is also due to a conflict of interest problem. Similar text should be added to the WP:EL
This would still see michaelmoore.com removed from [[Michael Moore]], so fails the giggle test.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
This would still see michaelmoore.com removed from [[Michael Moore]], so fails the giggle test.
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles full of content, not full of external links. I'd argue that the article on Michael Moore does not require a link to his website, nor does any article require having any external link. External links are a convenience to readers, but aren't part of the goal of the encyclopedia. W.
On 10/14/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
This would still see michaelmoore.com removed from [[Michael Moore]], so fails the giggle test.
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles full of content, not full of external links. I'd argue that the article on Michael Moore does not require a link to his website, nor does any article require having any external link. External links are a convenience to readers, but aren't part of the goal of the encyclopedia. W.
What's the point of discussing the website on Wikipedia if it doesn't include something as fundamental to the article as its web address? It's like discussing a book in an article, but not mentioning the book's title anywhere, or maybe publisher. When we make rules that have to be interpreted in silly ways, it leads to problems, imo, and saying that we can discuss someone in Wikipedia, but not give their web address on our web based encyclopedia is going to look silly in the long run.
Useful, well-written, and accurate articles are a goal of the encyclopedia, I hope, and this includes information such as web addresses.
KP
K P wrote:
On 10/14/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
This would still see michaelmoore.com removed from [[Michael Moore]], so fails the giggle test.
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles full of content, not full of external links. I'd argue that the article on Michael Moore does not require a link to his website, nor does any article require having any external link. External links are a convenience to readers, but aren't part of the goal of the encyclopedia.
What's the point of discussing the website on Wikipedia if it doesn't include something as fundamental to the article as its web address? It's like discussing a book in an article, but not mentioning the book's title anywhere, or maybe publisher.
I'd second that. "The sum of all human knowledge -- unless it's about somebody who doesn't like us," is just not the inspiring mission statement I'm looking for.
Saying that Wikipedia's purpose is "to create articles full of content" is like saying the purpose of a book is to be full of words. Although true, it misses the point. What we're doing is creating articles useful to readers who want to learn about particular topics. If I want to learn about Michael Moore, I'm going to want to read his web site. Ergo, Wikipedia should tell me where it is.
Stopping readers from hearing from the subject in the subject's own words might serve some editor, but as far as I can see, it doesn't serve the reader at all.
William
Will Beback wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
This would still see michaelmoore.com removed from [[Michael Moore]], so fails the giggle test.
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles full of content, not full of external links. I'd argue that the article on Michael Moore does not require a link to his website, nor does any article require having any external link. External links are a convenience to readers, but aren't part of the goal of the encyclopedia.
It seems that you are mixing purpose and practice. What you say is certainly correct about purpose, but you forget about the prevailing sourcing mania and that some people don't even like sources that are not conveniently available on line. If the subject of an article maintains a website it would be absurd not to link to it. No, we do not "require" it, but it does make the article a lot better.
Ec
Will Beback wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
This would still see michaelmoore.com removed from [[Michael Moore]], so fails the giggle test.
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles full of content, not full of external links. I'd argue that the article on Michael Moore does not require a link to his website, nor does any article require having any external link. External links are a convenience to readers, but aren't part of the goal of the encyclopedia.
Sure they are. The technical matter of a link is merely a convenience to our users, true, but the mention in the article body that Michael Moore runs a popular website is encyclopedic content. And furthermore posts on the website of a popular person are reliable sources for that person's view, and frequently used as such in academic writing (articles on michaelmoore.com are cited in hundreds of journal articles and academic-press books). Having a separate self-referential standard for sources is bizarre: we should generally not have policies about sources that special-case them based on what they say about Wikipedia.
-Mark
The arbitration process is currently in a state of fairly major meltdown. COFS sat there for well over 2 months, and it took so long one remedy had to be scrapped as it became irrelevant. Allegations of apartheid is still there, still split, a collective monkey on everyone's backs. Bharatveer, an open-and-shut case if ever there was one, is just sitting there. SevenofDiamonds is split and seems to be going nowhere. Attack sites seems dead in the water. And these are just the ones I know something about. The collective picture is not a good one.
The malaise goes deeper than end-of-year weariness. People have real lives, and we cannot expect 24/7 arbitrators (nor would we really want such types). Moreover, since we have so few arbitrators (down to 7 active? How can 7 men be expected to control enwiki, no matter how dedicated?), they have to do an awful lot of work. This means they can't spend quality time on the ground fighting the daily battles the rest of us face, and so lose touch with reality (no offence to anyone intended).
There are several potential solutions, and something does have to be done, because the current situation is simply not sustainable.
I remember one idea coming from Dmcdevit, who proposed that for really obvious cases the ArbCom would simply hold a vote on the main RFAR page. How often does a chronic revert warrior get put in front of ArbCom, and you think "Revert parole for him, mate", and this is exactly what the ArbCom does - two months later? You could aid this process by requiring people to collect the majority of their evidence before requesting arbitration, as I did in my most recent case. This would significantly streamline the arbitration process without losing effectiveness and or adding bureaucracy.
Other measures? Expanding the committee to a far greater number but limiting the numbers that could participate on a particular case would be one option (or simply establish a rota). I hadn't thought of committees of administrators, who could either advise or whom the ArbCom could delegate easy cases (Artaxerex, Bharatveer) to, but it's not a bad idea. Thoughts?
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Celeb spotting – Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes https://www.celebmashup.com
I remember one idea coming from Dmcdevit, who proposed that for really obvious cases the ArbCom would simply hold a vote on the main RFAR page. How often does a chronic revert warrior get put in front of ArbCom, and you think "Revert parole for him, mate", and this is exactly what the ArbCom does - two months later? You could aid this process by requiring people to collect the majority of their evidence before requesting arbitration, as I did in my most recent case. This would significantly streamline the arbitration process without losing effectiveness and or adding bureaucracy.
That wouldn't allow the "defendant" a change to defend themselves fully.
On 10/14/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Other measures? Expanding the committee to a far greater number but limiting the numbers that could participate on a particular case would be one option (or simply establish a rota). I hadn't thought of committees of administrators, who could either advise or whom the ArbCom could delegate easy cases (Artaxerex, Bharatveer) to, but it's not a bad idea. Thoughts?
The key problem is the temporary absence of active arbitrators. The arbitrators are presumably unwilling to resign and lose their place entirely. I have an idea which is similar to the panels proposal but easier to implement and less bureaucratic. Given that arbitrators often become unavailable for a few months, before becoming free to participate again, why not have a pool of deputy Arbitrators who could temporarily fill places during the absence of the main board? The deputies could comprise former Arbitrators who still have the community's trust, and those who narrowly missed out on election but were still approved by the community.
Another idea to help smooth out arbcom cases: Separate discussion of principles and facts from discussion of remedies. It stands to reason that principles and facts must be determined before remedies can be discussed, so making this more explicit might help. Once sufficient arbiters have voted on each point for the majority to be determined, and no new points have been added for 3 days (say), the principles and facts sections are closed the case moves into the "sentencing stage" (this could be done sooner with a Motion to Close if sufficient arbiters agree). I'm not sure if this would actually speed things up at all, but it would make it clearer that progress is being made.
(Of course, if the remedies don't take a significant amount of the time, this would be pointless - I'm not sure quite sure where cases are stalling.)
On 10/13/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Actually, we are having some serious trouble. I'm thoroughly burned out. Additionally we have deadlocks on a couple of cases.
In fact, the situation is so bad, that I think we should consider alternatives to our current procedures. Is there some other way we could resolved the issues which come to arbitration, perhaps by committees of administrators?
Fred
If indeed ArbCom has lost the trust or respect of some members of the community, I doubt that ad hoc committees of admins will suddenly be accorded the necessary level of respect and trust.
The Arbitrators might wish to remember that Arbitration is not a court, and that unlike a court, it is not obligated to reach a decision. In the case of "Allegations of Apartheid" for example, the Committee could issue a statement to the effect that the Committee recognizes the community's concern that the other Allegations articles were created and defended to make a point, but that it is divided on whether any remedy is needed, and remands the issue to the community for discussion.
I don't think is constitutes failure to acknowledge that the Comittee is as divided as the general community on some issues; in those cases the Committee should confine its role to slapping down editors whose behavior is so outrageous that it interferes with the community's ability to calmly discuss the issue.
Thatcher
The Arbitrators might wish to remember that Arbitration is not a court, and that unlike a court, it is not obligated to reach a decision. In the case of "Allegations of Apartheid" for example, the Committee could issue a statement to the effect that the Committee recognizes the community's concern that the other Allegations articles were created and defended to make a point, but that it is divided on whether any remedy is needed, and remands the issue to the community for discussion.
I don't think is constitutes failure to acknowledge that the Comittee is as divided as the general community on some issues; in those cases the Committee should confine its role to slapping down editors whose behavior is so outrageous that it interferes with the community's ability to calmly discuss the issue.
The community can only really take action if there is a consensus. If a matter has reached ArbCom, then it's usually pretty safe to say there isn't a consensus. If ArbCom don't do anything about it, then nothing will get done.
We could simply overhaul RFA allowing most users who are obviously trustworthy get admin status. Then the admin committee thing might work. Okay, that's never gonna happen...
Phoenix 15
On 14/10/2007, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
We could simply overhaul RFA allowing most users who are obviously trustworthy get admin status. Then the admin committee thing might work. Okay, that's never gonna happen...
Giving admins even more power is certainly not the way to get more people through RFA...
Thoughts...
Some of the things holding this problem in place seem to center around:
1) "Firefighting" mentality
An arbcom (or indeed any body) that is perpetually rushed from case to case will burn out, and will not have time to decide whether it's tackling things as best they could be. There needs to be slack within the arb' system, a 110% load is going to render any long term thought impractical. This is a major cause of problems in business management, and "management" of matters in general, not just Arbcom.
This can in part be addressed by streamlining the arb process, so that cases take less time (by delegation, by having evidence pre-digested, checked and summarized by clerks and trusted admins). It can also be addressed in part by changing the structure of the processes involved (pool of spare arbiters, multiple circuits, looking at where slowdown happens in a case that's not productive). It can also be addressed in part by recognizing time needs to be made, when Arbcom is fresh, to consider measures to minimize the predictable summer slowdown, rather than walking into it, and tracking the situation and considering remedies (stepping outside the problem to view it from outside). These and other ideas will all have strengths and weaknesses. But each has the potential to help, and allocating time to their consideration will allow a good balance to be chosen.
2) High expectations by the community
As referenced elsewhere, there is a high level of expectation. The cases are more complex, often highly multiparty; the evidence is complex; arbitrators have outside lives and pressures, and yet are expected to rule on these complex cases rapidly and in a way that overcomes arbcom's own differing views and satisfies everybody elses varying feelings. There is also considerable work "behind the scenes" (emails and the like, reviews, requests that nobody will take rulings on except from Arbcom, appeals, etc) that most people don't see. The level of expectation translates into a heavy duty job, that can take Wikipedians and burn them out, or expose them to a never ending treadmill. It's not easy, and those willing to try deserve respect.
3) Lack of communal coherence
The community size is such that decisions on process change are not easy to gain consensus. RFA is one perennial example. The situation that everyone can see problems but no agreement can be reached on change (until it is so dire that everyone will agree on * something *) is not implausible.
Against this, arbcom has an advantage that it essentially can set its own processes, answerable to the judgement of its own members, within a fairly wide remit. The problems that have dogged consensus reaching on other major processes may be less an issue in this arena. It is probably necessary for Arbcom to do this, since it's unlikely the community as a whole will reach broad agreement in any reasonable time frame.
4) Mixed sense amongst administrators what exactly the community has delegated them to do.
I think this is more an issue than is commonly recognized. Wikipedia has a flat structure for "unilateral rulings " - basically administrators (either individually, in discussion, or via many processes), then arbcom. The flip side is that the majority of cases need to be handled (* effectively *) by administrators, because Arbcom is neither designed nor has the capacity or role, to handle more than the very small number of exceptional cases.
In some cases where administrators have not felt "safe" to take firm action, or are worried whether they will have communal support or be criticized and "thrown to the lions", mean that a large number of disputes where clear problematic conduct occurs, are not dealt with at this early stage, but grow and fester. Inevitably more of these end up being more disruptive, drawing more people in, and clogging Arbcom later on. Administrators may need reassurance that they * do * have communal sanction to deal with problem editors and problem disputes at an early stage, or when borderline conduct only, is already visible. Often a small use of tools early on when there is misconduct happening, can keep a dispute to a smaller scale before it gets to be a major mess (eg, the effect of 3RR on revert warring). If admins do not feel they will be supported to fairly but firmly address situations when early stage misconduct is clearly occurring (low level stonewalling, incivility, OR, pov pushing, etc... the kinds of things some admins are reluctant to take action on), then this interferes with the communal delegation of conduct handling to them, and it's likely a proportion of these cases will escalate and inevitably clog up Arbcom a few months down the line.
These four are obviously not all the issues, but taken together, they are clearly matters that help to continue the problems described.
Movement on, or reviews of, these will probably be helpful.
</thoughts>
FT2.
On 10/14/07, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
If indeed ArbCom has lost the trust or respect of some members of the community, I doubt that ad hoc committees of admins will suddenly be accorded the necessary level of respect and trust.
I don't remember them losing the trust or respect of the community
I don't think the admin comitee thing is a good idea either. It would make adminship a very big deal. Perhaps ArbCm could be made larger and have shorter terms?
Phoenix 15
On Oct 14, 2007, at 9:20 AM, Phoenix wiki wrote:
On 10/14/07, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
If indeed ArbCom has lost the trust or respect of some members of the community, I doubt that ad hoc committees of admins will suddenly be accorded the necessary level of respect and trust.
I don't remember them losing the trust or respect of the community
I don't think the admin comitee thing is a good idea either. It would make adminship a very big deal. Perhaps ArbCm could be made larger and have shorter terms?
For Christ's sake, people.
Do none of you have a sense of wiki history?
We ALWAYS have this problem leading up to the new arbcom elections. Candidates are ALWAYS badgered on how they're going to make the committee faster. And then, come January, it hums along because it has a plurality of not burnt out members.
Then, come mid-year and fall, it starts to grind to a halt.
And apparently we have the same discussion as though we have forgotten that, over time, burnout happens.
We could maybe stagger elections to have two a year, but given how dreadful elections are, I think that's unlikely to be productive.
-Phil
For Christ's sake, people.
Do none of you have a sense of wiki history?
We ALWAYS have this problem leading up to the new arbcom elections. Candidates are ALWAYS badgered on how they're going to make the committee faster. And then, come January, it hums along because it has a plurality of not burnt out members.
Then, come mid-year and fall, it starts to grind to a halt.
And apparently we have the same discussion as though we have forgotten that, over time, burnout happens.
We could maybe stagger elections to have two a year, but given how dreadful elections are, I think that's unlikely to be productive.
If it happens every year, that's all the more reason to do something about it, surely?
I think the current term length is too long. Things online move very fast - 3 years is an extremely long time. I think elections every 6 months, giving an 18 month term length, would work better. I know it's twice as many elections, but they're not really that time consuming - I think it's worth it.
On 10/14/07, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/14/07, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
If indeed ArbCom has lost the trust or respect of some members of the community, I doubt that ad hoc committees of admins will suddenly be accorded the necessary level of respect and trust.
I don't remember them losing the trust or respect of the community
Has been alleged by some on this list and elsewhere. I don't agree either, and I think any sort of "ArbCom-lite" is more likely to magnify any problems that may exist rather than solve them.
Thatcher
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Actually, we are having some serious trouble. I'm thoroughly burned out. Additionally we have deadlocks on a couple of cases.
In fact, the situation is so bad, that I think we should consider alternatives to our current procedures. Is there some other way we could resolved the issues which come to arbitration, perhaps by committees of administrators?
That's an interesting suggestion. Ad-hoc committees, especially if randomly selected somehow (to avoid having the most interested parties pushing themselves on) would have a few advantages. I personally resigned from the arbitration committee because it's a big time commitment with relatively little benefit---I'd rather be spending the time writing articles, or doing something else entirely. But I'd be willing to help out with a case now and then if asked, since that's a much lower level of commitment.
-Mark