A few thoughts:
1) If part of the issue is the more intense use of Checkuser and Oversight, a solution would be to expand checkusers and overseers outside of Arbcom.
2) A larger Arbcom would not necessarily be a bad thing if it thinned out the workload, thus forestalling burnout and enhancing case completion time.
3) Allowing admins to "rule" on user cases is fraught with danger, in my opinion, in that favoritism/cabal accusations will be rife. Various user essays notwithstanding (unabashed plug), I fear that most people do _not_ view adminship as a referendum on editor trust, and may feel rather differently had they known that these people are now authorized to judge these cases. Yes, this is somewhat oxymoronic as admins already have the power to block and propose bans, but I think there is a wiki-wide perception that Arbcom has been selected with the idea of being a court, where individual admins are more janitor/policemen. Now if the culture could be changed, that would be a different story.
4) Part of the issue, and I confess to ignorance in the greater realm of jurisprudence, being neither lawyer, nor judge, nor paralegal, is that the current process may be somewhat over-bureaucratic. As mentioned earlier, if a quorum of three Arbitrators is sufficient, and if much of the current formal drafting and voting can be replaced with a more streamlined posting of the final opinion, perhaps cases can be completed more rapidly.
--Avi
On 10/14/07, Avi avi.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
A few thoughts:
...
- Allowing admins to "rule" on user cases is fraught with danger, in
my opinion, in that favoritism/cabal accusations will be rife.
....
--Avi
en:User:Avraham
But if only 2 ArbCom members are currently drafting proposed decisions, what is the harm in letting admins rule, since it appears that ArbCom members aren't?
Wow, am I ever going to vote against everyone on ArbCom next time around. Why do people run for it if they won't do the work?
KP
Wow, am I ever going to vote against everyone on ArbCom next time around. Why do people run for it if they won't do the work?
They do the work for bit, it's just the term length is too long. You can't expect people to devote the time required to be a good arbitrator for 3 years.
On 10/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, am I ever going to vote against everyone on ArbCom next time around. Why do people run for it if they won't do the work?
They do the work for bit, it's just the term length is too long. You can't expect people to devote the time required to be a good arbitrator for 3 years.
Yeah, maybe that's an answer. It is a volunteer job, after all. But to hear that they're voted in in January, and some have been on vacation (whatever the phrase was) since January, and only two ArbCom members write the proposed decisions says there is more wrong than right at this point with the committe as a whole. It's no wonder decisions are not being made, people are complaining about too much time to get decisions, and ArbCom members are burnt out. If you have a job that requires a dozen people being performed by 2, it gets tiresome, and it doesn't get done on time or very well.
KP
On 10/14/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, am I ever going to vote against everyone on ArbCom next time around. Why do people run for it if they won't do the work?
They do the work for bit, it's just the term length is too long. You can't expect people to devote the time required to be a good arbitrator for 3 years.
Yeah, maybe that's an answer. It is a volunteer job, after all. But to hear that they're voted in in January, and some have been on vacation (whatever the phrase was) since January, and only two ArbCom members write the proposed decisions says there is more wrong than right at this point with the committe as a whole. It's no wonder decisions are not being made, people are complaining about too much time to get decisions, and ArbCom members are burnt out. If you have a job that requires a dozen people being performed by 2, it gets tiresome, and it doesn't get done on time or very well.
I would suggest it's a job that requires a lot more than a dozen people, and people with extraordinary patience at that. It's one of the reasons not many arbs hang around for long, and also the reason that some people stay so long on the committee - because they have the patience to deal with crap nobody else wants to deal with. (In other words, the variance of term lengths for individual arbs is insanely huge, because most people are either totally incapable of dealing with the shit thrown at the arbcom, or have the superhuman patience to do what hardly anyone else wants to.)
Johnleemk
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Wow, am I ever going to vote against everyone on ArbCom next time around. Why do people run for it if they won't do the work?
They do the work for bit, it's just the term length is too long. You can't expect people to devote the time required to be a good arbitrator for 3 years.
This is the main reason I've never seriously considered running myself. I've been with the project since 2001, and I've taken on many large-scale long-term editing projects, but there's always been the option of simply stopping what I'm doing when it becomes too tedious and doing something else instead. If I've made a definite commitment like running for ArbCom, on the other hand, I'd feel terrible if I dropped out partway through. And three years is rather a long time to feel terrible for.
On 10/16/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
This is the main reason I've never seriously considered running myself. I've been with the project since 2001, and I've taken on many large-scale long-term editing projects, but there's always been the option of simply stopping what I'm doing when it becomes too tedious and doing something else instead. If I've made a definite commitment like running for ArbCom, on the other hand, I'd feel terrible if I dropped out partway through. And three years is rather a long time to feel terrible for.
For better or worse you would not be expected to participate in every case, or even the majority of them. For what little it's worth if you do run, you'll have my undivided support.
—C.W.
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:00:15 -0500 From: charlottethewebb@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom
On 10/16/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
This is the main reason I've never seriously considered running myself. I've been with the project since 2001, and I've taken on many large-scale long-term editing projects, but there's always been the option of simply stopping what I'm doing when it becomes too tedious and doing something else instead. If I've made a definite commitment like running for ArbCom, on the other hand, I'd feel terrible if I dropped out partway through. And three years is rather a long time to feel terrible for.
For better or worse you would not be expected to participate in every case, or even the majority of them. For what little it's worth if you do run, you'll have my undivided support.
—C.W.
Oh, and this is another problem: three-year terms are far too long. No one can reasonably be expected to last three whole years at the really pointy end of Wikipedia. Life doesn't work that way: people get bored, get a new job, new life, new woman, new kids, whatever. Things change. I seem to recall a rule of thumb on Meatball, which stated that the average maximum length of participation in online communities was 3 years. We expect our arbitrators do have been around for well over a year before we elect them. Using Meatball's rule, we're only going to get another year and a half out of them, at best. Not good.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Celeb spotting – Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes https://www.celebmashup.com
On 10/16/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Oh, and this is another problem: three-year terms are far too long. No one can reasonably be expected to last three whole years at the really pointy end of Wikipedia. Life doesn't work that way: people get bored, get a new job, new life, new woman, new kids, whatever. Things change. I seem to recall a rule of thumb on Meatball, which stated that the average maximum length of participation in online communities was 3 years. We expect our arbitrators do have been around for well over a year before we elect them. Using Meatball's rule, we're only going to get another year and a half out of them, at best. Not good.
Moreschi
I think what is needed is for Arbitrators to reevaluate their own participation each year. An Arbitrator who finds the workload more than they bargained for should probably step down when the next election cycle rolls around to free up a spot for someone fresh. Institutional memory is a good thing, but replacing 8 or 9 Arbitrators out of 15 should not be a hugely more disruptive situation than replacing 5.
Thatcher
I think what is needed is for Arbitrators to reevaluate their own participation each year. An Arbitrator who finds the workload more than they bargained for should probably step down when the next election cycle rolls around to free up a spot for someone fresh. Institutional memory is a good thing, but replacing 8 or 9 Arbitrators out of 15 should not be a hugely more disruptive situation than replacing 5.
That's what I was thinking when I was considering standing in the last elections (I decided not to, which was the right decision, I think - maybe this time... we'll see) - I didn't really expect to last more than a year, and didn't think it would be a problem to serve for a year and step down at the next election. Less than a year, and I would have felt like I was letting down the people who voted for me (if there had been any, which I doubt - I wasn't ready, and I doubt I could have fooled people into thinking I was), but a year is long enough, I think.
On 10/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I was thinking when I was considering standing in the last elections (I decided not to, which was the right decision, I think - maybe this time... we'll see) - I didn't really expect to last more than a year, and didn't think it would be a problem to serve for a year and step down at the next election. Less than a year, and I would have felt like I was letting down the people who voted for me (if there had been any, which I doubt - I wasn't ready, and I doubt I could have fooled people into thinking I was), but a year is long enough, I think.
I do agree that an arbitrator should not consider it a failure, or a letdown of one's supporters, to announce retirement after the next election and opening up a space for someone else.
-Matt
On 10/16/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I was thinking when I was considering standing in the last elections (I decided not to, which was the right decision, I think - maybe this time... we'll see) - I didn't really expect to last more than a year, and didn't think it would be a problem to serve for a year and step down at the next election. Less than a year, and I would have felt like I was letting down the people who voted for me (if there had been any, which I doubt - I wasn't ready, and I doubt I could have fooled people into thinking I was), but a year is long enough, I think.
I do agree that an arbitrator should not consider it a failure, or a letdown of one's supporters, to announce retirement after the next election and opening up a space for someone else.
-Matt
I would consider it a sign of maturity and long term committment to the project if any senior project member takes an intentional sanity break from stressful duties, with an eye towards avoiding total burnout and returning (in the same, or different roles) later.
I would almost argue for "run for a shorter term, can't run again until you've had a year off", but I'm not sure I would want to legislate specific time limits for anyone who has the energy and bandwidth and really grooves on the job.
On 10/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I would consider it a sign of maturity and long term committment to the project if any senior project member takes an intentional sanity break from stressful duties, with an eye towards avoiding total burnout and returning (in the same, or different roles) later.
I would almost argue for "run for a shorter term, can't run again until you've had a year off", but I'm not sure I would want to legislate specific time limits for anyone who has the energy and bandwidth and really grooves on the job.
I wonder how the community would react if an Arbitrator said, I want to take a 6 month break but not give up my seat entirely; and would Jimbo appoint a replacement for that 6 month period.
On 10/16/07, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder how the community would react if an Arbitrator said, I want to take a 6 month break but not give up my seat entirely; and would Jimbo appoint a replacement for that 6 month period.
Very similar (practically identical in fact) to the idea for deputies which I suggested a few days ago. I think this would be the least bureaucratic system, and very simple to implement, to give arbitrators a break. It has to be left up to the overloaded arbitrator to say how long they are taking leave of absence, and they needn't specify a time beforehand; they would continue to be subscribed to the arbitrators' mailing list.
The key point as I see it is that the replacements must be people in whom the community has confidence.
In the end it's up to the arbitrators themselves to come up with a system they feel happy with.
I wonder how the community would react if an Arbitrator said, I want to take a 6 month break but not give up my seat entirely; and would Jimbo appoint a replacement for that 6 month period.
There is precedent for resigned arbitrators being allowed to retake their positions any time until they would have expired normally, even after a replacement has been elected (not appointed, and not just for the length of the break, so the original arbitrator returning would increase the size of the committee temporarily). I don't believe anyone has actually done so, but Mindspillage and Filiocht have the option to for another year (according to the timeline on WP:ARBCOM).
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:58:53 -0400 From: thatcher131@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom
On 10/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I would consider it a sign of maturity and long term committment to the project if any senior project member takes an intentional sanity break from stressful duties, with an eye towards avoiding total burnout and returning (in the same, or different roles) later.
I would almost argue for "run for a shorter term, can't run again until you've had a year off", but I'm not sure I would want to legislate specific time limits for anyone who has the energy and bandwidth and really grooves on the job.
I wonder how the community would react if an Arbitrator said, I want to take a 6 month break but not give up my seat entirely; and would Jimbo appoint a replacement for that 6 month period.
I would jump for joy, and be even happier if the arbitrator was permitted to publicly nominate his replacement for Jimbo to confirm. Doubtless this happens privately, but doing things publicly is even better, don't we think?
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Celeb spotting – Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes https://www.celebmashup.com
Christiano Moreschi wrote:
I would jump for joy, and be even happier if the arbitrator was permitted to publicly nominate his replacement for Jimbo to confirm. Doubtless this happens privately, but doing things publicly is even better, don't we think?
I find this a little bit problematic in that I feel pretty strongly that some of the less-well-received ArbCom appointments came about without a sufficient degree of broad community oversight and support.
Support from me and one arbitrator is not enough to guarantee quality, as any two people can easily be in error and not in possession of all the relevant facts.
On the other hand, some kind of "snap election" procedure in which vacant seats are filled throughout the year with the normal safeguards makes a lot of sense to me.
Just FYI, the "normal safeguards" are:
1. Confirmation by a minimum of 50% of the community 2. Support from the existing ArbCom 3. Support from me, based mostly on (1) and (2) but also based on thoughtful consideration of objections outside that hierarchy
--Jimbo
Thatcher131 Wikipedia wrote:
I wonder how the community would react if an Arbitrator said, I want to take a 6 month break but not give up my seat entirely; and would Jimbo appoint a replacement for that 6 month period.
That sounds entirely reasonable and possible to me. One of the reasons we retain our "constitutional monarchy" is to make possible just that sort of reasonable flexibility.
The main thing we want is that people who are absolutely trusted by the community to a very high degree are making some cautious and careful decisions about policy and individual cases in a way that is both transparent and protective of privacy (two things that are often in tension of course).
--Jimbo
On 10/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I would almost argue for "run for a shorter term, can't run again until you've had a year off", but I'm not sure I would want to legislate specific time limits for anyone who has the energy and bandwidth and really grooves on the job.
E.g. Fred Bauder has been on the arbcom for ages and has been very active for the majority of the time - way past one year.
-Matt
On 16/10/2007, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Oh, and this is another problem: three-year terms are far too long. No one can reasonably be expected to last three whole years at the really pointy end of Wikipedia. Life doesn't work that way: people get bored, get a new job, new life, new woman, new kids, whatever. Things change. I seem to recall a rule of thumb on Meatball, which stated that the average maximum length of participation in online communities was 3 years. We expect our arbitrators do have been around for well over a year before we elect them. Using Meatball's rule, we're only going to get another year and a half out of them, at best. Not good.
I suspect it's about six to eighteen months, much like the typical MMORPG. I keep seeing good people who disappear after that long. If we ever get another good full-history dump of en:wp, we should be able to analyse this nicely if we work out the precise right question.
Once someone *has* lasted a year or two, they have a much better handle on their own attention span.
I first ran for ArbCom mid-2004, after six months here (and came third with two positions open). I ran again end of 2004 and got in, and chose a 1 year term as I have a fair grasp of my own attention span ...
- d.
On 10/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/10/2007, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Oh, and this is another problem: three-year terms are far too long. No one can reasonably be expected to last three whole years at the really pointy end of Wikipedia. Life doesn't work that way: people get bored, get a new job, new life, new woman, new kids, whatever. Things change. I seem to recall a rule of thumb on Meatball, which stated that the average maximum length of participation in online communities was 3 years. We expect our arbitrators do have been around for well over a year before we elect them. Using Meatball's rule, we're only going to get another year and a half out of them, at best. Not good.
I suspect it's about six to eighteen months, much like the typical MMORPG. I keep seeing good people who disappear after that long. If we ever get another good full-history dump of en:wp, we should be able to analyse this nicely if we work out the precise right question.
Once someone *has* lasted a year or two, they have a much better handle on their own attention span.
I first ran for ArbCom mid-2004, after six months here (and came third with two positions open). I ran again end of 2004 and got in, and chose a 1 year term as I have a fair grasp of my own attention span ...
There is a selection effect... "typical" timespan of participation doesn't measure those who feel a long term committment and stay for much longer. Plenty of 5 and 10 and more year contributors in the history of the Internet, though I can't recall a lot of projects or contributors that lasted 15 plus years without mutating beyond recognition.
Hopefully, the people running for arbcom are those who are already known (individually and by the collective consensus) to be likely long term contributors.
With that said, the burnout factors are real. If it's overworking people, they will eventually withdraw mentally and find something else to do, even if they're still engaged in the project in general.
Christiano Moreschi wrote:
Oh, and this is another problem: three-year terms are far too long. No one can reasonably be expected to last three whole years at the really pointy end of Wikipedia. Life doesn't work that way: people get bored, get a new job, new life, new woman, new kids, whatever. Things change. I seem to recall a rule of thumb on Meatball, which stated that the average maximum length of participation in online communities was 3 years. We expect our arbitrators do have been around for well over a year before we elect them. Using Meatball's rule, we're only going to get another year and a half out of them, at best. Not good.
Might I suggest one-year terms with two automatic one-year renewals if the person is still around and interested. The question here is not whether we trust them for three years, but whether they can last when they find out how much work is really involved.
Ec