I did, of course, mean that only administrators at 30 November should be able to stand for election. The point being that the community has already said it is willing to put an amount of trust in those elected as administrators. By publicising such a fact well in advance, those wishing to be arbitrator candidates who aren't admins will have time enough to apply for the role. It's an idea to weed out clearly unsuitable candidates as I find it inconceivable that the community would be willing to trust someone as an arbitrator but not as an admin. There are all sorts of admins too - many of which probably wouldn't make good arbitrators - but at least such a requirement would remove the trolls from the election.
The idea of having 24 arbitrators of whom only 7 hear each case is designed to lighten the workload and mean not all active arbitrators have to wade through every single case. I'd be interested to hear from current arbitrators as to whether lessening their individual load in such a way would interest them. (Of course, it is predicated on being able to find 24 willing volunteers!)
Jon
Fred Bauder wrote:
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 at 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 at Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail
A second "team" would be good, but team is the operant word. I think a second team might develop organically if we could actually get 12 folks on board who were active. Our biggest problem is that the cases are often very complicated, requiring review of voluminous evidence, most of it poorly presented. Good presentation would highlight the truly egregious offenses which a decision can be readily based on. (But then one must spend time looking at the context -- what everyone else was doing -- in order to determine whether or not the "offender" is actually the one causing the trouble).
Perhaps cases could be decided only by the arbitrators who "sign on" to be part of that particular case. That would then lessen the problem of waiting around for those whose input in necessary but don't have time or energy to review the evidence or vote on the proposals. One problem is that if they are not satisfied with what is being proposed is that they have to make their own proposals (and justify them with cites to specific evidence) but that is a skill which takes some practice. This can seem discouraging and frustrating at first. You just have to dive in and start doing it.
Fred
On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:54 PM, Jon wrote:
The idea of having 24 arbitrators of whom only 7 hear each case is designed to lighten the workload and mean not all active arbitrators have to wade through every single case. I'd be interested to hear from current arbitrators as to whether lessening their individual load in such a way would interest them. (Of course, it is predicated on being able to find 24 willing volunteers!)
Have the arbcom ever considered reducing the amount of evidence presented? I know there are already guidelines but 100 diffs seems a bit too many... surely any worthwhile case could be presented with a fraction of that number. Some of the essays seem a bit more than 500 words (is that the limit?) too.
Dan
Dan Grey (dangrey@gmail.com) [050712 22:51]:
Have the arbcom ever considered reducing the amount of evidence presented? I know there are already guidelines but 100 diffs seems a bit too many... surely any worthwhile case could be presented with a fraction of that number. Some of the essays seem a bit more than 500 words (is that the limit?) too.
It's a tricky one - not enough evidence and an allegation won't be taken seriously; too much and it'll never get read in too many cases.
- d.
From: fun@thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard)
Dan Grey (dangrey@gmail.com) [050712 22:51]:
Have the arbcom ever considered reducing the amount of evidence presented? I know there are already guidelines but 100 diffs seems a bit too many... surely any worthwhile case could be presented with a fraction of that number. Some of the essays seem a bit more than 500 words (is that the limit?) too.
It's a tricky one - not enough evidence and an allegation won't be taken seriously; too much and it'll never get read in too many cases.
Also, for the most egregious offenders 10 links is enough, but for many, in order to show a pattern of behaviour, you have to show a number of examples over a significant period of time. Also, showing 10 examples of a negative behaviour might indicate that the behaviour warrants a warning, or a brief ban from editing certain kinds of articles. However, 100 links showing multiple violations with multiple editors and articles might indicate that this editor is irredeemable, at least in the short term, and warrants a 1 year ban instead.
Jay.
We have restricted the amount that can be presented. But what is really needed is better organized evidence. Most time and energy expended by Arbitrators goes into trying to figure out what is significant.
Fred
On Jul 12, 2005, at 6:51 AM, Dan Grey wrote:
Have the arbcom ever considered reducing the amount of evidence presented? I know there are already guidelines but 100 diffs seems a bit too many... surely any worthwhile case could be presented with a fraction of that number. Some of the essays seem a bit more than 500 words (is that the limit?) too.
Dan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Fred Bauder wrote:
We have restricted the amount that can be presented. But what is really needed is better organized evidence. Most time and energy expended by Arbitrators goes into trying to figure out what is significant.
Speaking as someone experienced in being *in* arbcomm cases :-) I would say that the arcomm could ease their lot, and that of participants, by being a bit more active. Ie, people could present a much more restricted set of the important evidence, the arbcomm review it, and say "OK, thats enough" or "We need more to demonstrate your point X" or something. At the moment, because the arbcomm give little if any feedback on how much evidence is needed, people naturally put up more rather than less.
-W.
William M Connolley | wmc@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/ Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (01223) 221479 If I haven't seen further, it's because giants were standing on my shoulders
On 12/07/05, William M Connolley wmc@bas.ac.uk wrote:
the arbcomm review it, and say "OK, thats enough" or "We need more to demonstrate your point X" or something. At the moment, because the arbcomm give little if any feedback on how much evidence is needed, people naturally put up more rather than less.
-W.
Sounds very sensible.
Dan
"Fred Bauder" fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote in message news:B845F36D-E8A8-4C7C-B5F1-A683CE6FAC55@ctelco.net...
We have restricted the amount that can be presented. But what is really needed is better organized evidence. Most time and energy expended by Arbitrators goes into trying to figure out what is significant.
Many is the time when I've tried to puzzle out badly-formatted evidence and my editing fingers have been itching to re-format into some sort of readable state, but there's this notice which says not to.
Maybe the ArbCom could "employ" some flunkies to janitorise the evidence and wrangle it into a standard, readable, format.
Phil Boswell (phil.boswell@gmail.com) [050712 23:31]:
"Fred Bauder" fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote in message news:B845F36D-E8A8-4C7C-B5F1-A683CE6FAC55@ctelco.net...
We have restricted the amount that can be presented. But what is really needed is better organized evidence. Most time and energy expended by Arbitrators goes into trying to figure out what is significant.
Many is the time when I've tried to puzzle out badly-formatted evidence and my editing fingers have been itching to re-format into some sort of readable state, but there's this notice which says not to. Maybe the ArbCom could "employ" some flunkies to janitorise the evidence and wrangle it into a standard, readable, format.
The evidence talk page welcomes you! Note that in the Baku Ibne case, we thanked Tony Sidaway for his good work untangling the mess and making it clearer just what was going on :-) If not an involved party, it may be an idea to get the person who presented it to check over your rendition as well.
- d.
In real life such "flunkies" are called lawyers, on Wikipedia Advocates. We could require advocates. However our experience with advocates is that they pay no attention to presenting evidence, a real lawyers actual function, but engage in weird Wikilawyering that harms their clients cause. Challenging our jurisdiction and demanding that we all recuse ourselves is not going to work.
Fred
On Jul 12, 2005, at 7:27 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:
"Fred Bauder" fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote in message news:B845F36D-E8A8-4C7C-B5F1-A683CE6FAC55@ctelco.net...
We have restricted the amount that can be presented. But what is really needed is better organized evidence. Most time and energy expended by Arbitrators goes into trying to figure out what is significant.
Many is the time when I've tried to puzzle out badly-formatted evidence and my editing fingers have been itching to re-format into some sort of readable state, but there's this notice which says not to.
Maybe the ArbCom could "employ" some flunkies to janitorise the evidence and wrangle it into a standard, readable, format. -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/12/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
In real life such "flunkies" are called lawyers, on Wikipedia Advocates. We could require advocates. However our experience with advocates is that they pay no attention to presenting evidence, a real lawyers actual function, but engage in weird Wikilawyering that harms their clients cause. Challenging our jurisdiction and demanding that we all recuse ourselves is not going to work.
I think what you're really looking for are law clerks. The only reason lawyers do all the dirty work in organizing material for courts in real life is that failure to do so harms their cases. The ArbCom is FAR more generous about such matters than any real life court. Since the current "penalty" for being uncooperative with the ArbCom is that the ArbCom will simply drop the matter without finding (or delay ruling for months), at least one litigant in every case is usually incented to be uncooperative.
Kelly
Fred Bauder wrote:
In real life such "flunkies" are called lawyers, on Wikipedia Advocates. We could require advocates. However our experience with advocates is that they pay no attention to presenting evidence, a real lawyers actual function, but engage in weird Wikilawyering that harms their clients cause. Challenging our jurisdiction and demanding that we all recuse ourselves is not going to work.
It sounds like they're getting the kind of avocado they paid for. :-)
Ec
On 7/12/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe the ArbCom could "employ" some flunkies to janitorise the evidence and wrangle it into a standard, readable, format.
The idea of the ArbCom having a "special master" corral the evidence into good order is a good one, but the problem is in finding people to do that. Finding people who are willing to do such tedious work without compensation and also disinterested in the matter _sub judice_ is very difficult -- even harder than finding good arbitrators.
Kelly
"Kelly Martin" kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote in message news:bd4c411e05071206555cdd1908@mail.gmail.com...
On 7/12/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe the ArbCom could "employ" some flunkies to janitorise the evidence and wrangle it into a standard, readable, format.
The idea of the ArbCom having a "special master" corral the evidence into good order is a good one, but the problem is in finding people to do that. Finding people who are willing to do such tedious work without compensation and also disinterested in the matter _sub judice_ is very difficult -- even harder than finding good arbitrators.
Then you want someone like me, but with more regular access and more spare time, who could give less than two hoots about who's involved but will happily wrangle data into a nicer shape because it hurts less to look at.
Happily I have never yet been involved in anything like this, but IMNSHO almost the worst aspect is just how painful it is to try to figure out what happened when.
On 7/12/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Kelly Martin" kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote in message news:bd4c411e05071206555cdd1908@mail.gmail.com...
On 7/12/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe the ArbCom could "employ" some flunkies to janitorise the evidence and wrangle it into a standard, readable, format.
The idea of the ArbCom having a "special master" corral the evidence into good order is a good one, but the problem is in finding people to do that. Finding people who are willing to do such tedious work without compensation and also disinterested in the matter _sub judice_ is very difficult -- even harder than finding good arbitrators.
Then you want someone like me, but with more regular access and more spare time, who could give less than two hoots about who's involved but will happily wrangle data into a nicer shape because it hurts less to look at.
Happily I have never yet been involved in anything like this, but IMNSHO almost the worst aspect is just how painful it is to try to figure out what happened when. -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
You know what, I wouldn't mind doing a little grunt-work either. Wanna start a [[Wikipedia:Wikicleks|wikiclerk office]]? I wouldn't mind helping out a bit on arbcom cases.
- gkhan
Phil Boswell (phil.boswell@gmail.com) [050713 00:41]:
"Kelly Martin" kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote in message news:bd4c411e05071206555cdd1908@mail.gmail.com...
On 7/12/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe the ArbCom could "employ" some flunkies to janitorise the evidence and wrangle it into a standard, readable, format.
The idea of the ArbCom having a "special master" corral the evidence into good order is a good one, but the problem is in finding people to do that. Finding people who are willing to do such tedious work without compensation and also disinterested in the matter _sub judice_ is very difficult -- even harder than finding good arbitrators.
Then you want someone like me, but with more regular access and more spare time, who could give less than two hoots about who's involved but will happily wrangle data into a nicer shape because it hurts less to look at.
Heh - the volunteer efforts of people who like things ordered :-)
It will be of course *very* important not to tread on the toes of the people who presented the evidence, if you're not presenting it on your own behalf.
Happily I have never yet been involved in anything like this, but IMNSHO almost the worst aspect is just how painful it is to try to figure out what happened when.
Um, yes.
- d.
Fred Bauder wrote:
We have restricted the amount that can be presented. But what is really needed is better organized evidence. Most time and energy expended by Arbitrators goes into trying to figure out what is significant.
I would venture to say that some people get into trouble when they can't organize their thoughts in the first place; they are still the same people when confronted with the task of organizing evidence. ;-)
Ec