In line with the community vote, I am appointing the following candidates as per their rank-order in percentage vote:
Alpha tranche (2008) --- Mindspillage Filiocht Charles Matthews Morven
Gamma tranche (2007) --- Mark (Raul654) - incumbent Ben (Neutrality) - incumbent Simon P. Dmcdevit
Beta tranche (2006) --- Sean Barrett (The Epopt) - incumbent Theresa Knott - incumbent Sam Korn Mackensen
--------------------
And then in the interests of expanding the committee and maintaining continuity, I'm also making the following appointments (all candidates met with community approval, percentages listed below):
Alpha - JamesF - 75.42% Gamma - FredB - 73.61% Beta - JayJG - 69.75%
--Jimbo Wales
Allow me to be the first to congratulate the new Arbitrators.
On 1/23/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In line with the community vote, I am appointing the following candidates as per their rank-order in percentage vote:
Alpha tranche (2008)
Mindspillage Filiocht Charles Matthews Morven
Gamma tranche (2007)
Mark (Raul654) - incumbent Ben (Neutrality) - incumbent Simon P. Dmcdevit
Beta tranche (2006)
Sean Barrett (The Epopt) - incumbent Theresa Knott - incumbent Sam Korn Mackensen
And then in the interests of expanding the committee and maintaining continuity, I'm also making the following appointments (all candidates met with community approval, percentages listed below):
Alpha - JamesF - 75.42% Gamma - FredB - 73.61% Beta - JayJG - 69.75%
--Jimbo Wales _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
On 1/24/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to be the first to congratulate the new Arbitrators.
Hmm I was more thinking along the lines of offering my commiserations. -- geni
On 1/24/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to be the first to congratulate the new Arbitrators.
Or offer sympathy. :)
But yes, congratulations.
Garion (just browsed through some arb cases)
With what's on the floor right now, good luck to the new Arbbies.
On 1/24/06, Garion1000 garion1000@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/24/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to be the first to congratulate the new Arbitrators.
Or offer sympathy. :)
But yes, congratulations.
Garion (just browsed through some arb cases) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Garion1000
On 1/24/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to be the first to congratulate the new Arbitrators.
Or offer sympathy. :)
But yes, congratulations.
Garion (just browsed through some arb cases)
Congratulations to the appointees. May you be blessed with wisdom, justice and the good will of the community.
The notes of commiseration and sympathy ring far too true, and I wonder if there is anything that can be done to reduce the stress level on our senior magistrates.
I note that High Court judges have assistants and staffs to help them perform their work, and I wonder if something of the same sort could be implemented here. Perhaps long-serving admins could be appointed to serve as assistants for the ArbCom members, doing research and presenting summaries, dealing with correspondence, maintaining and archiving pages and so on - the sort of administrative work that requires knowledge and experience, but does not intrude on the duties of the members. Or perhaps a senior admin could be appointed to each case as an administrative assistant on a rotational basis.
I say this, knowing that I have been guilty of adding to the stress and workload of the Arbcom in the past, and for those sins I am heartily sorry.
Peter (Skyring)
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Garion1000
On 1/24/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to be the first to congratulate the new Arbitrators.
Or offer sympathy. :)
But yes, congratulations.
Garion (just browsed through some arb cases)
Congratulations to the appointees. May you be blessed with wisdom, justice and the good will of the community.
The notes of commiseration and sympathy ring far too true, and I wonder if there is anything that can be done to reduce the stress level on our senior magistrates.
I note that High Court judges have assistants and staffs to help them perform their work, and I wonder if something of the same sort could be implemented here. Perhaps long-serving admins could be appointed to serve as assistants for the ArbCom members, doing research and presenting summaries, dealing with correspondence, maintaining and archiving pages and so on - the sort of administrative work that requires knowledge and experience, but does not intrude on the duties of the members. Or perhaps a senior admin could be appointed to each case as an administrative assistant on a rotational basis.
I say this, knowing that I have been guilty of adding to the stress and workload of the Arbcom in the past, and for those sins I am heartily sorry.
Peter (Skyring)
I think this is a swell idea. Not only would I be glad to volunteer for this, but it would greatly speed up the process of arbitration, IMO. Currently the main problems causing the slowness at the arbcom are (IMO) the lack of staff to look into the evidence and add "eyeballs" (as per Linus' law) to the cases, and the lack of a lower-level form of binding dispute resolution (currently being hashed out at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement]]). It would be great to have clerks for the arbcom, since many hands make light work. Without actually judging the cases themselves, the clerks could help compile evidence, propose things at the workshop, help format new cases properly, and deal with enquiries from the Wikipedia public. Oh, and before I forget, congratulations to the new (and old) arbcom members, especially Filiocht and Mackensen (who says keeping your head down and doing a swell job editing can't win you a popularity contest?) and JamesF (you really deserved this).
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
On Jan 23, 2006, at 8:03 PM, Ilya N. wrote:
Allow me to be the first to congratulate the new Arbitrators.
On the other hand, allow me to be the first to congratulate Kelly and David on their newfound freedom.
On a more serious note, are we just expanding the size of the committee, or are we also changing the rules so that the same vote totals are required? Requiring things to cross three more people's desks seems to me to do nothing to speed up business. Quite the opposite. Can we perhaps change to, say, five net support votes required or a majority, whichever is less?
-Phil
Snowspinner wrote:
On a more serious note, are we just expanding the size of the committee, or are we also changing the rules so that the same vote totals are required? Requiring things to cross three more people's desks seems to me to do nothing to speed up business. Quite the opposite. Can we perhaps change to, say, five net support votes required or a majority, whichever is less?
Traditionally it is up to the ArbCom to set their own internal rules of procedure, but I do absolutely recommend that adding members should not _slow down_ the process but rather _speed up_ the process. Adding members without changing the necessary quorum seems reasonable.
One thing we know: ArbCom members are dedicated volunteers but they are of course volunteers and therefore real life has to take precedence at times -- so ArbCom members often go inactive for periods of time. Having more members should ensure smoother functioning and fewer times when we're really beating the bushes to get cases closed.
--Jimbo
On 1/24/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Traditionally it is up to the ArbCom to set their own internal rules of procedure, but I do absolutely recommend that adding members should not _slow down_ the process but rather _speed up_ the process. Adding members without changing the necessary quorum seems reasonable.
One of the changes that I think we'll be seeing is the use of a group of clerks to both take care of the administrative issues of running the ArbCom (thereby freeing the Arbitrators to actually arbitrate) and also to remind the Arbitrators that they have work to do. The clerks will be monitoring case progress and poking the Arbitrators when cases appear to be going stale. It's hoped that these changes will help keep the Arbitrators focused on task and get cases processed faster.
Kelly
After we see who is really on board, perhaps we can split up the cases between two subcommittees.
Fred
On Jan 24, 2006, at 12:14 AM, Snowspinner wrote:
On Jan 23, 2006, at 8:03 PM, Ilya N. wrote:
Allow me to be the first to congratulate the new Arbitrators.
On the other hand, allow me to be the first to congratulate Kelly and David on their newfound freedom.
On a more serious note, are we just expanding the size of the committee, or are we also changing the rules so that the same vote totals are required? Requiring things to cross three more people's desks seems to me to do nothing to speed up business. Quite the opposite. Can we perhaps change to, say, five net support votes required or a majority, whichever is less?
-Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/24/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
After we see who is really on board, perhaps we can split up the cases between two subcommittees.
Fred
This keeps coming up, but in the last big "arbcom reform" thread that idea got shot down because it could (and probably will) factionalize the arbitration committee and create authoritative inconsistency problems when one panel receives a high-profile case and rules on it differently than how the other panel would have. If a similar case comes up in the future, it will create an environment where the result you get will be determined significantly by which subcommittee rules on it, and that's something we don't want.
Ryan
We don't disagree with each other all that often and we notice and focus on the cases where we do. If something is going that way we could all jump in.
Fred
On Jan 25, 2006, at 5:04 AM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
On 1/24/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
After we see who is really on board, perhaps we can split up the cases between two subcommittees.
Fred
This keeps coming up, but in the last big "arbcom reform" thread that idea got shot down because it could (and probably will) factionalize the arbitration committee and create authoritative inconsistency problems when one panel receives a high-profile case and rules on it differently than how the other panel would have. If a similar case comes up in the future, it will create an environment where the result you get will be determined significantly by which subcommittee rules on it, and that's something we don't want.
Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/24/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
After we see who is really on board, perhaps we can split up the cases between two subcommittees.
Fred
Also, we have no idea how many of the new arbitrators will be able to stick with the job for their full terms. I'm still anticipating a healthy percentage to burn out after the first year, which obviates a two-panel system.
Ryan
But we have a number of other users who ran and had substantial community support who could be appointed.
Fred
On Jan 25, 2006, at 5:39 AM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
On 1/24/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
After we see who is really on board, perhaps we can split up the cases between two subcommittees.
Fred
Also, we have no idea how many of the new arbitrators will be able to stick with the job for their full terms. I'm still anticipating a healthy percentage to burn out after the first year, which obviates a two- panel system.
Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l