Christiano Moreschi
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.
It was being discussed. Attempts to get it closed earlier were made.
You may have tried to get it closed earlier. I know this quite well. The point is that you failed. Miserably.
Well, you don't know what we discussed and that is confidential.
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.
You are not being fair about "attack sites". If the issue were trite, why would so much discussion result? And the monkey is on the Arbitrators' collective back.
So much discussion? Why? Because people are idiots. As a community, we clearly need some resolution to the matter of attack sites. And yes, it is a trite issue: how hard can "link to reliable sources, but nothing else (and god help you if you break this rule)" be?
Glad to have that all explained by an expert, then.
Fine, then. Deny the problem. Collective unrest will grow, and when the ArbCom commands no respect heaven only knows what chaos will result.
I take it you are announcing your candidacy.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 14/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Fine, then. Deny the problem. Collective unrest will grow, and when the
ArbCom commands no respect heaven only knows what chaos will result.
I take it you are announcing your candidacy.
Charles
Goodness, I hope so. Certainly we need people who are willing to grab issues by the short and curlies, rather than faff around for days on basic points of policy.
On 14/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info 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?
Fred
Something like - CSN, perhaps? Somehow I skipped over the MfD but I truly think that it was a great alternative to the sluggish arbitration process - input from a varied range of people across the community spectrum, much less of the snipery that goes on at the arb talkpages (Hkelkar 2 springs unpleasantly to mind), enforceable sanctions. Quick, nearly painless. Oh well, not much point talking about the one that got away.
Riana wrote:
On 14/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info 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?
Fred
Something like - CSN, perhaps? Somehow I skipped over the MfD but I truly think that it was a great alternative to the sluggish arbitration process - input from a varied range of people across the community spectrum, much less of the snipery that goes on at the arb talkpages (Hkelkar 2 springs unpleasantly to mind), enforceable sanctions. Quick, nearly painless. Oh well, not much point talking about the one that got away.
Damn, someone beat me to saying it. As Riana says, rather a moot point now, but I think we need to seriously consider some processes other than "Let people misbehave for months on end but never get -quite- bad enough for an already-overloaded ArbCom to take the case or an admin to justify a block." A means by which the community could request lesser sanctions than an outright indef block or ban is needed.
Blocks are blunt instruments, sometimes all that's needed to stop disruption is to give someone an enforced break from a page for a while. There are obvious cases where that would be helpful; I would like to see a proposal where such sanctions can be imposed by the community (perhaps vetted or approved by a randomly selected group of admins, as suggested above, and with the arbitrators accepting an appeal if the decision is clearly questionable).