Nicholas Knight wrote:
2) ArbCom thinks it's toothless to deal rapidly
with clear abuses.
If this is the case, I think *YOU* (Jimbo) can and should fix it by
making it clear to them they're not.
I think we're good at this point. The ArbCom is empowered to deal rapidly
with clear abuses, and I think they know it.
3) ArbCom is afraid of backlash for dealing rapidly
with clear abuses.
I feel like this may be the most likely problem. I
it could be worked through simply by biting the bullet and
coming down hard and fast on a few exceptional problem
cases, making Wikipedians get used to the fact that "due
process" doesn't mean "any process that makes it harder to
ban someone". (I think this is an artifact of a time when
Wikipedia was much smaller you held sole power to ban and did
everything you could to avoid it. A benevolent dictator
presiding over a medium-sized project is markedly different
from a pseudo-democratic body presiding over one of the
largest "open source" projects in the world with one of the
lowest barriers to entry. I don't think enough people have
I think this is basically accurate. I do recommend, though, that the
"coming down hard and fast" be really limited to a few exceptional
problem cases, as opposed to being random.
4) ArbCom is woefully understaffed.
I think staffing levels are a factor regardless of the truth of any
of these other points. From the sound of things, the recent elections have
helped. Depending on how the next few weeks and months go, I think
serious consideration should be given to expanding ArbCom further.
Yes. I think we should keep an eye on it and increase the size as
I liked your idea of some form of temporary volunteer help for the
ArbCom as well, although I hate to see more and more people bogged
down with this stuff. Perhaps it is better to just streamline the
process to a degree.
"La nèfle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org