It seems the ArbCom is in freefall - only 6 of the 12 still active. Can't say I'm surprised - I'm more surprised we found 12 volunteers to wade through the detritus that it RfAr for no pay! All I can say is that their efforts are appreciated.
Clearly something needs to be done to help the matter. I understand the remaining ArbCom members and Jimbo are discussing with others whether they would take on the role in the short term. But what can be done going forward to the end of year elections?
I don't want comments on the details (which would clearly need to be looked at in due course). But here's an idea that might be more appealing - particularly to those who find themselves on ArbCom (hopefully through volunteering):
1. ArbCom to have 24 members (ie enough to cope with absences, resignations, etc) 2. 7 Arbitrators to hear each case - the arbitrators to hear each case being decided on a taxi rank system (amongst those making themselves available in any given week or fortnight) 3. The first Arbitrator in the queue will be responsible for writing up the initial findings of fact and proposed decisions (this is both to share the workload, plus to ensure that one arbitrator does not gain undue influence by writing them all - this is not a criticism of Fred, who tends to be the first arbitrator at present to write these - more an acknowledgment that it would be better to get a variety of opinions - clearly if the other arbitrators disagree with the findings and proposed decision, it will be rejected anyway, as is the case now). 4. If the number of Arbitrators drops below a certain level - 18 maybe - more Arbitrators are to be co-opted (by three-quarters acceptance by active arbitrators, say) to bring the level up to 21, say. 5. Only Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia that are Arbitrators as at 30 November are eligible for the year end elections (to eliminate trolls and WPians that are clearly undesirable as Arbitrators from the election) - maybe a little harsh - but if publicised in advance would allow all interested candidates that aren't admins to apply for adminship.
Comments?
Jon (Jguk)
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail
--- Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
- ArbCom to have 24 members (ie enough to cope with absences, resignations,
etc)
Having more people will likely make it harder to reach consensus on any one case and increase the number of votes needed to enact anything. Thus this could cause more harm than good. Adding one or two extra seats per yearly election along with finding ways to minimize the effect I just mentioned would likely be a more practical course of action. There are also a limited number of people who have both the trust of the community and want to serve. During the last election, for example, I think it would have been a disaster to add more than a few seats since that would have resulted in some fairly controversial people getting elected.
- 7 Arbitrators to hear each case - the arbitrators to hear each case being
decided on a taxi rank system (amongst those making themselves available in any given week or fortnight)
This could be workable for a slowly-growing ArbCom but would limit the potential pool of people who could move a case along. The way things work now works well so long as we have enough active members around.
- The first Arbitrator in the queue will be responsible for writing up the
initial findings of fact and proposed decisions (this is both to share the workload, plus to ensure that one arbitrator does not gain undue influence by writing them all - this is not a criticism of Fred, who tends to be the first arbitrator at present to write these - more an acknowledgment that it would be better to get a variety of opinions - clearly if the other arbitrators disagree with the findings and proposed decision, it will be rejected anyway, as is the case now).
This would not be workable due to the fact that some people really are better at proposing items while others rarely if ever do so either for time-constraint issues or a lack of ability. Checking the logic of already-proposed items and voting is always much easier than proposing items in the first place.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 11/07/05, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
It seems the ArbCom is in freefall - only 6 of the 12 still active. Can't say I'm >surprised - I'm more surprised we found 12 volunteers to wade through the >detritus that it RfAr for no pay! All I can say is that their efforts are appreciated.
Jon (Jguk)
Looking at the arbcom page does suggest a problem developing.
I'd like to hear from people who want to step down - what's up? What would you like to see changed?
Dan
On Jul 11, 2005, at 6:19 PM, Dan Grey wrote:
I'd like to hear from people who want to step down - what's up? What would you like to see changed?
In a lot of cases, I don't know that there is anything. I mean, my understanding is that Ambi would like to stop being charged by the meg for Internet access...
-Snowspinner
On 7/12/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
In a lot of cases, I don't know that there is anything. I mean, my understanding is that Ambi would like to stop being charged by the meg for Internet access...
-Snowspinner
Well, that's part of it. The key thing though is that I and others are just burnt out - it's vastly more fun to be writing articles than continually having to deal with the worst of Wikipedia day after day. I think it's always going to be something that has a high turnover rate, and that this isn't necessarily a bad thing - as long as we keep replacing people when they've had enough, the current system, with twelve arbitrators, works fine. There's just not always enough decent people to replace a huge amount of spots - I can't help but think that if another six or eight new arbitrators had been appointed in December that there would have been the shitfight from hell all through this year, as some very controversial people could've gotten up.
-- ambi
Actually I think that some of those we might imagine to be bad would, if they were elected, get down to work and a lot of imagined trouble might not happen at all.
Fred
On Jul 11, 2005, at 9:38 PM, Rebecca wrote:
On 7/12/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
In a lot of cases, I don't know that there is anything. I mean, my understanding is that Ambi would like to stop being charged by the meg for Internet access...
-Snowspinner
Well, that's part of it. The key thing though is that I and others are just burnt out - it's vastly more fun to be writing articles than continually having to deal with the worst of Wikipedia day after day. I think it's always going to be something that has a high turnover rate, and that this isn't necessarily a bad thing - as long as we keep replacing people when they've had enough, the current system, with twelve arbitrators, works fine. There's just not always enough decent people to replace a huge amount of spots - I can't help but think that if another six or eight new arbitrators had been appointed in December that there would have been the shitfight from hell all through this year, as some very controversial people could've gotten up.
-- ambi _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/12/05, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
- Only Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia that are Arbitrators as at 30 November are eligible for the year end elections (to eliminate trolls and WPians that are clearly undesirable as Arbitrators from the election) - maybe a little harsh - but if publicised in advance would allow all interested candidates that aren't admins to apply for adminship.
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that in your proposal, only people who are currently Arbitrators can be elected as Arbitrators at the year end elections? Or that only current Arbitrators can vote in the year end elections (election by peers, so to speak)?
~Mark Ryan
On 12/07/05, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/12/05, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
- Only Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia that are Arbitrators as
at 30 November are eligible for the year end elections (to eliminate trolls and WPians that are clearly undesirable as Arbitrators from the election) - maybe a little harsh - but if publicised in advance would allow all interested candidates that aren't admins to apply for adminship.
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that in your proposal, only people who are currently Arbitrators can be elected as Arbitrators at the year end elections? Or that only current Arbitrators can vote in the year end elections (election by peers, so to speak)?
From the reference in the last part to "apply[ing] for adminship", I
assumed that he meant to write:
"Only Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia that are _Administrators_ as at 30 November are eligible for the year end elections..."
On 7/11/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
"Only Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia that are _Administrators_ as at 30 November are eligible for the year end elections..."
I wasn't aware that there was a requirement that arbitrators be administrators.
Kelly
It is not. Although all current Arbitrators happen to be.
Fred
On Jul 11, 2005, at 8:21 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 7/11/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
"Only Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia that are _Administrators_ as at 30 November are eligible for the year end elections..."
I wasn't aware that there was a requirement that arbitrators be administrators.
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/11/05, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
It seems the ArbCom is in freefall - only 6 of the 12 still active. Can't say I'm surprised - I'm more surprised we found 12 volunteers to wade through the detritus that it RfAr for no pay! All I can say is that their efforts are appreciated.
Clearly something needs to be done to help the matter. I understand the remaining ArbCom members and Jimbo are discussing with others whether they would take on the role in the short term. But what can be done going forward to the end of year elections?
I don't want comments on the details (which would clearly need to be looked at in due course). But here's an idea that might be more appealing - particularly to those who find themselves on ArbCom (hopefully through volunteering):
- ArbCom to have 24 members (ie enough to cope with absences, resignations, etc)
- 7 Arbitrators to hear each case - the arbitrators to hear each case being decided on a taxi rank system (amongst those making themselves available in any given week or fortnight)
- The first Arbitrator in the queue will be responsible for writing up the initial findings of fact and proposed decisions (this is both to share the workload, plus to ensure that one arbitrator does not gain undue influence by writing them all - this is not a criticism of Fred, who tends to be the first arbitrator at present to write these - more an acknowledgment that it would be better to get a variety of opinions - clearly if the other arbitrators disagree with the findings and proposed decision, it will be rejected anyway, as is the case now).
- If the number of Arbitrators drops below a certain level - 18 maybe - more Arbitrators are to be co-opted (by three-quarters acceptance by active arbitrators, say) to bring the level up to 21, say.
- Only Wikipedians on the English Wikipedia that are Arbitrators as at 30 November are eligible for the year end elections (to eliminate trolls and WPians that are clearly undesirable as Arbitrators from the election) - maybe a little harsh - but if publicised in advance would allow all interested candidates that aren't admins to apply for adminship.
Comments?
Jon (Jguk)
While I agree that the Arbitration Committee probably needs to be expanded, your point #5 is only going to feed the trolls that say that administrators are a power clique. (I assume that "administrator" is your desired eligibility criteria, as it doesn't quite make sense as written.)
If you're afraid that an expanded Arbitration Committee will be ruined by the presence of one or two elected "undesirables", they I don't think you have enough faith in the rest of the arbitrators, and probably don't see the value of having a free radical or two in the mix. Unless you don't trust the community not to vote for a whole lot of radical, "undesirable" candidates, I don't think that rule #5 will help more than it will appear to taint the process.
Personally, I'd rather see a little *more* variety in the Arbitration Committee, not less (which restriction to administrators would give). In fact, I'd support choosing one user at random from a pool of volunteers to serve on each case. I am not floating this as a serious idea, though.
Jon (thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk) [050712 05:55]:
BTW, thanks for this. A lot of your suggestions are actually close to ideas we've been floating already, so I expect the problems can be called obvious ;-)
The AC is a fairly heavy duty to do properly - you have to be able to cope with unbelievable amounts of crap without becoming flustered - and burnout is far too easy. Dealing with relentless obnoxiousness and stupidity is intrinsically not fun. A number of prospective mid-term draftees have turned the job down already ...
I'm not sure how to get it to scale. I can only see the workload going up as the editor population goes up, and hence the problem children in proportion.
Some people also seem to regard the AC as a parent-like authority to run to in case of conflict, or to try to use a RFAr as a way to bludgeon their opponent in debate. This is considered less than ideal.
- d.
On 12/07/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I'm not sure how to get it to scale. I can only see the workload going up as the editor population goes up, and hence the problem children in proportion.l.
- d.
You could increase the deterrent factor. Longer, more frequent bans etc.
BTW wasn't Raul suggesting a month or two ago that the workload was actually going _down_?
Dan
Dan Grey (dangrey@gmail.com) [050712 23:22]:
On 12/07/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
I'm not sure how to get it to scale. I can only see the workload going up as the editor population goes up, and hence the problem children in proportion.l.
You could increase the deterrent factor. Longer, more frequent bans etc.
Long bans basically don't work. Sockpuppetry seems to be the rule rather than the exception. And that seems only to provide incentive to *bring* querulous cases, in the hope of punishing one's opponent more.
BTW wasn't Raul suggesting a month or two ago that the workload was actually going _down_?
Serious problem users tend to get shown the door (then the alley outside, then the garbage bins opposite) in reasonably short order. It's the knottier conflicts that are the lengthy and painful ones.
- d.
On 12/07/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Long bans basically don't work. Sockpuppetry seems to be the rule rather than the exception
- d.
Are you saying banning doesn't work?
Dan
Dan Grey (dangrey@gmail.com) [050713 00:41]:
On 12/07/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Long bans basically don't work. Sockpuppetry seems to be the rule rather than the exception
Are you saying banning doesn't work?
Really long ones don't seem to actually be respected at all as a rule.
- d.
"David Gerard" wrote
I'm not sure how to get it to scale. I can only see the workload going up as the editor population goes up, and hence the problem children in proportion.
Indeed. I see that Alexa today for the first time makes WP one of its top World 50 sites. WP stands at 35 in its English-language ranking, immediately below the Dell and then Apple sites. The reach has become impressive.
I suppose there are just a handful of options, such as 'lower courts', and summary procedures in the less serious cases, which are realistic for extrapolating the ArbCom into the future. That future is not so far away, given that WP's growth is untrammelled, it seems, except by the need to get more heroics out of the developers and servers.
Look at it this way: no bad-guy meltdowns have occurred; and, what is more, the idea that law-and-order would systematically fail unless this and that draconian measure were in place is daily refuted. IP editors come and go freely, still. The solution we have is still well adapted to making 'soft security' look very good.
Some people also seem to regard the AC as a parent-like authority to run to in case of conflict, or to try to use a RFAr as a way to bludgeon their opponent in debate. This is considered less than ideal.
Redress - my heart sinks every time someone says 'redress' - the mission is not to redress things but to encyclopedicate the planet.
Charles
Charles Matthews (charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com) [050713 18:27]:
Redress - my heart sinks every time someone says 'redress' -
A lot of people think the AC should be delivering punishment. The important thing, though, is what does the project good.
the mission is not to redress things but to encyclopedicate the planet.
"Encyclopedicate the planet!" Don't invent words like that when I'm editing [[Space opera in Scientology doctrine]] and choking on Hubbardisms as well as my coffee ;-)
- d.
On 13/07/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
A lot of people think the AC should be delivering punishment. The important thing, though, is what does the project good.
- d.
I do. And I'd see that as doing the project good. Maybe if more people knew they weren't going to get away with trouble-making, they may be more reluctant to do it.
Dan
Dan Grey (dangrey@gmail.com) [050713 23:33]:
On 13/07/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
A lot of people think the AC should be delivering punishment. The important thing, though, is what does the project good.
I do. And I'd see that as doing the project good. Maybe if more people knew they weren't going to get away with trouble-making, they may be more reluctant to do it.
The aim is what's good for the project. A year's ban indicates *considerable* displeasure, after all. But lesser restrictions seem to work better at keeping an editor around and editing and not sockpuppeting. Punishment is a tool in our armoury, not the purpose of the exercise.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Charles Matthews (charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com) [050713 18:27]:
Redress - my heart sinks every time someone says 'redress' -
Instructions for Hans Christian Andersen's emperor.
the mission is not to redress things but to encyclopedicate the planet.
"Encyclopedicate the planet!" Don't invent words like that when I'm editing [[Space opera in Scientology doctrine]] and choking on Hubbardisms as well as my coffee ;-)
You are just a Gilbert looking for his Sullivan. :-)
Ec
Alot of brilliant comments in this thread. A few of the best:
Perhaps cases could be decided only by the arbitrators who "sign on" to be part of that particular case.
Actually I think that some of those we might imagine to be bad would, if they were elected, get down to work and a lot of imagined trouble might not happen at all.
Serious problem users tend to get shown the door (then the alley outside, then the garbage bins opposite) in reasonably short order. It's the knottier conflicts that are the lengthy and painful ones.
my advice is to work on preventitive medicine, rather than relying on surgery and euthenasia. Or, to be more clear, find a working mediation / rewards for good behaviour system.
Jack (Sam Spade)