I made one suggestion, which might not be particularly workable. Regardless, we need to find solutions.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Thatcher131 Wikipedia [mailto:thatcher131@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 07:11 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom
On 10/13/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Actually, we are having some serious trouble. I'm thoroughly burned out. Additionally we have deadlocks on a couple of cases.
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
If indeed ArbCom has lost the trust or respect of some members of the community, I doubt that ad hoc committees of admins will suddenly be accorded the necessary level of respect and trust.
The Arbitrators might wish to remember that Arbitration is not a court, and that unlike a court, it is not obligated to reach a decision. In the case of "Allegations of Apartheid" for example, the Committee could issue a statement to the effect that the Committee recognizes the community's concern that the other Allegations articles were created and defended to make a point, but that it is divided on whether any remedy is needed, and remands the issue to the community for discussion.
I don't think is constitutes failure to acknowledge that the Comittee is as divided as the general community on some issues; in those cases the Committee should confine its role to slapping down editors whose behavior is so outrageous that it interferes with the community's ability to calmly discuss the issue.
Thatcher _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/14/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I made one suggestion, which might not be particularly workable. Regardless, we need to find solutions.
Fred
I had an idea a while ago, I don't remember if I ever presented it before.
Why not have cases heard before a panel of 5 Arbitrators, randomly chosen from the list of Arbitrators active when the case was accepted? Cases that are voted out 5-0 or 4-1 would close as is; cases where the votes were 3-2 or less would be heard before the entire committee. That way, Arbitrators do not have to hear every case, and might not burn out as quickly. (A vote of 5-0 is all most cases get by the Fall of the year anyway.)
Thatcher
On 14/10/2007, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
Why not have cases heard before a panel of 5 Arbitrators, randomly chosen from the list of Arbitrators active when the case was accepted? Cases that are voted out 5-0 or 4-1 would close as is; cases where the votes were 3-2 or less would be heard before the entire committee. That way, Arbitrators do not have to hear every case, and might not burn out as quickly. (A vote of 5-0 is all most cases get by the Fall of the year anyway.)
Thatcher
Been suggested but check out the size of last years candidate pool for the problem.
On 10/14/07, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/14/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I made one suggestion, which might not be particularly workable.
Regardless, we need to find solutions.
Fred
I had an idea a while ago, I don't remember if I ever presented it before.
Why not have cases heard before a panel of 5 Arbitrators, randomly chosen from the list of Arbitrators active when the case was accepted? Cases that are voted out 5-0 or 4-1 would close as is; cases where the votes were 3-2 or less would be heard before the entire committee. That way, Arbitrators do not have to hear every case, and might not burn out as quickly. (A vote of 5-0 is all most cases get by the Fall of the year anyway.)
It would be *more* susceptible to burnout than the current model, actually, since there's no provision for the scenario where none of the five randomly-selected arbitrators are willing to do any case work. In a system where the full Committee hears every case, a few active members can keep things moving (to some degree) even if the bulk of the Committee isn't actively participating.
(Or, in other words: we can currently close a 5-0 case if we find *any* five active arbs, but, in the new model, we would select five arbs first and then expect them to be active -- which is a rather dangerous assumption to make.)
Kirill
It would be *more* susceptible to burnout than the current model, actually, since there's no provision for the scenario where none of the five randomly-selected arbitrators are willing to do any case work. In a system where the full Committee hears every case, a few active members can keep things moving (to some degree) even if the bulk of the Committee isn't actively participating.
(Or, in other words: we can currently close a 5-0 case if we find *any* five active arbs, but, in the new model, we would select five arbs first and then expect them to be active -- which is a rather dangerous assumption to make.)
You make a good point. It should work, though, as long as the arbs are honest about when they are and aren't able to be active. They'll be occasions when something comes up and an arb becomes unexpectedly inactive, but in most cases they should know far enough in advance whether they are able to take on a case or not. An inactive arb can be replaced by one of the others if necessary, of course.
On 10/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It would be *more* susceptible to burnout than the current model,
actually,
since there's no provision for the scenario where none of the five randomly-selected arbitrators are willing to do any case work. In a
system
where the full Committee hears every case, a few active members can keep things moving (to some degree) even if the bulk of the Committee isn't actively participating.
(Or, in other words: we can currently close a 5-0 case if we find *any*
five
active arbs, but, in the new model, we would select five arbs first and
then
expect them to be active -- which is a rather dangerous assumption to
make.)
You make a good point. It should work, though, as long as the arbs are honest about when they are and aren't able to be active. They'll be occasions when something comes up and an arb becomes unexpectedly inactive, but in most cases they should know far enough in advance whether they are able to take on a case or not. An inactive arb can be replaced by one of the others if necessary, of course.
"Active" doesn't mean quite what you're assuming it does, though. An active arbitrator is merely one that's participated *in some way* in the recent past; it doesn't constrain them to a particular level of activity.
The basic process of a case is something like this:
1. Case submitted 1a. Delay 2. Case accepted 3. Evidence submitted 3a. Long delay 4. Proposed decision drafted 5. Voting begins 5a. Long delay 6. Case closed
A random panel would essentially attempt to decrease the voting delay (5a) by reducing the number of needed votes, at the cost of increasing the drafting delay (3a) by reducing the chance that an arbitrator would be available to draft a decision (something which, historically, not all arbitrators do a lot of).
You could, I suppose, have a system where arbitrators not on the voting panel could draft a decision for the panel to consider; but that doesn't seem very helpful. Alternatively, you could reduce the voting delay by allowing unopposed cases to pass with smaller majorities, but that would be yet another can of worms.
Kirill
"Active" doesn't mean quite what you're assuming it does, though. An active arbitrator is merely one that's participated *in some way* in the recent past; it doesn't constrain them to a particular level of activity.
Well, yes, I'm using a slight different meaning of "active". If each arbitrator isn't doing as many cases, it is reasonable to expect a higher level of activity in those they do take part it.
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On 10/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It would be *more* susceptible to burnout than the current model,
actually,
since there's no provision for the scenario where none of the five randomly-selected arbitrators are willing to do any case work. In a
system
where the full Committee hears every case, a few active members can keep things moving (to some degree) even if the bulk of the Committee isn't actively participating.
(Or, in other words: we can currently close a 5-0 case if we find *any*
five
active arbs, but, in the new model, we would select five arbs first and
then
expect them to be active -- which is a rather dangerous assumption to
make.)
You make a good point. It should work, though, as long as the arbs are honest about when they are and aren't able to be active. They'll be occasions when something comes up and an arb becomes unexpectedly inactive, but in most cases they should know far enough in advance whether they are able to take on a case or not. An inactive arb can be replaced by one of the others if necessary, of course.
"Active" doesn't mean quite what you're assuming it does, though. An active arbitrator is merely one that's participated *in some way* in the recent past; it doesn't constrain them to a particular level of activity.
The basic process of a case is something like this:
- Case submitted
1a. Delay 2. Case accepted 3. Evidence submitted 3a. Long delay 4. Proposed decision drafted 5. Voting begins 5a. Long delay 6. Case closed
A random panel would essentially attempt to decrease the voting delay (5a) by reducing the number of needed votes, at the cost of increasing the drafting delay (3a) by reducing the chance that an arbitrator would be available to draft a decision (something which, historically, not all arbitrators do a lot of).
You could, I suppose, have a system where arbitrators not on the voting panel could draft a decision for the panel to consider; but that doesn't seem very helpful. Alternatively, you could reduce the voting delay by allowing unopposed cases to pass with smaller majorities, but that would be yet another can of worms.
Kirill _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why not allow clerks to draft proposals? The arbitrators would still be the only ones allowed to -vote-, of course, but I see no harm in letting a clerk make a suggestion. If it's poor, it'll just get voted against anyway.
On 14/10/2007, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Why not allow clerks to draft proposals? The arbitrators would still be the only ones allowed to -vote-, of course, but I see no harm in letting a clerk make a suggestion. If it's poor, it'll just get voted against anyway.
Anyone can draft proposals - that's what the workshop page is for (and to keep idiots occupied somewhere relatively harmless, of course). Proposals from known sensible people are more likely to be taken notice of, of course.
- d.
On 10/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/10/2007, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Why not allow clerks to draft proposals? The arbitrators would still be the only ones allowed to -vote-, of course, but I see no harm in letting a clerk make a suggestion. If it's poor, it'll just get voted against anyway.
Anyone can draft proposals - that's what the workshop page is for (and to keep idiots occupied somewhere relatively harmless, of course). Proposals from known sensible people are more likely to be taken notice of, of course.
- d.
This does suggest to me a completely different approach though. How about having some arbcom members only voting on cases, not being otherwise obligated to participate in the deliberate on the cases?
It may be that I am describing the actual situation as it is currently de facto, but even if so, how about making it de jure. An arbcom member who (chosen for that situation by whatever means and by whatever criterion) need only cast votes, would at least mentally feel less stress about their involvement in the arbcom functioning, and thus would be likely to not burn out that swiftly.
And again, regardless of how these voting members were allocated, I can well imagine that they might slip in and out of the role of being a mere voter, and being one who drafts decisions etc.
Since I am not on the arbcom or on it's mailing list or the various organs of its function, I cannot say whether this is practical or adds anything useful, but I offer it purely in the way of tossing ideas to see if they will stick to the wall.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 10/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone can draft proposals - that's what the workshop page is for (and to keep idiots occupied somewhere relatively harmless, of course).
This is the kind of language that is destructive to the culture of this project.
Marc Riddell
On 10/14/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 10/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone can draft proposals - that's what the workshop page is for (and to keep idiots occupied somewhere relatively harmless, of course).
This is the kind of language that is destructive to the culture of this project.
Well, it's perfectly true. I can't speak for the present situation; I was an active clerk for maybe six months a year or two ago. However, back then, I saw a lot of crap going down by editors who were eventually heavily sanctioned or even banned. They probably weren't idiots in the literal sense of the word, but they expended a lot of energy in fighting a case where they were obviously in the wrong. I presume that as the project has grown, the idiocy has grown proportionately.
Johnleemk
Marc Riddell wrote:
On 10/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone can draft proposals - that's what the workshop page is for (and to keep idiots occupied somewhere relatively harmless, of course).
This is the kind of language that is destructive to the culture of this project.
Perhaps generally, but in this case it's probably not so bad. It would be hard to deny that some of the people who show up are idiots. But David's unlikely to cause offense here, as all concerned will be sure that the idiots are those *other* guys.
Don't get me wrong; I'm a big advocate of treating any vaguely serious contributor with respect. But in trying to build open communities on the Internet, you have to be prepared for people who are looking to vent, who come with an agenda, or who are just so lacking in clue that they are unable to make any useful contribution. If you don't give them an outlet, they'll just cram their opinions into any input field or email inbox they can find, disrupting normal business. And heck, some of them will get a clue eventually, so it's best to involve them in ways that help with that.
But definitely be careful applying your off-line intuitions here. As many have observed, the Internet is, sadly, different. [1]
William
[1] E.g., Gabriel's Theory: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Marc Riddell wrote:
On 10/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone can draft proposals - that's what the workshop page is for (and to keep idiots occupied somewhere relatively harmless, of course).
This is the kind of language that is destructive to the culture of this project.
on 10/14/07 6:57 PM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
Perhaps generally, but in this case it's probably not so bad. It would be hard to deny that some of the people who show up are idiots. But David's unlikely to cause offense here, as all concerned will be sure that the idiots are those *other* guys.
Don't get me wrong; I'm a big advocate of treating any vaguely serious contributor with respect. But in trying to build open communities on the Internet, you have to be prepared for people who are looking to vent, who come with an agenda, or who are just so lacking in clue that they are unable to make any useful contribution. If you don't give them an outlet, they'll just cram their opinions into any input field or email inbox they can find, disrupting normal business. And heck, some of them will get a clue eventually, so it's best to involve them in ways that help with that.
But definitely be careful applying your off-line intuitions here. As many have observed, the Internet is, sadly, different. [1]
William,
My "off-line intuitions"?
The quality of a culture is greatly reflected in the quality of its language - "on-line" or off.
Marc
on 10/14/07 6:57 PM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
....
Don't get me wrong; I'm a big advocate of treating any vaguely serious contributor with respect. But in trying to build open communities on the Internet, you have to be prepared for people who are looking to vent, who come with an agenda, or who are just so lacking in clue that they are unable to make any useful contribution. If you don't give them an outlet, they'll just cram their opinions into any input field or email inbox they can find, disrupting normal business. And heck, some of them will get a clue eventually, so it's best to involve them in ways that help with that.
William,
" But in trying to build open communities on the
Internet, you have to be prepared for people who are looking to vent, who come with an agenda, or who are just so lacking in clue that they are unable to make any useful contribution. If you don't give them an outlet, they'll just cram their opinions into any input field or email inbox they can find, disrupting normal business. "
Sounds just like meetings at my last brick and mortar job. Oh, that I wish these folks were confined to cyberspace--I could then just get a job in the real world and never come in contact with them.
KP
My "off-line intuitions"?
The quality of a culture is greatly reflected in the quality of its language
- "on-line" or off.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/14/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
On 10/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone can draft proposals - that's what the workshop page is for (and to keep idiots occupied somewhere relatively harmless, of course).
This is the kind of language that is destructive to the culture of this project.
on 10/14/07 6:57 PM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
Perhaps generally, but in this case it's probably not so bad. It would be hard to deny that some of the people who show up are idiots. But David's unlikely to cause offense here, as all concerned will be sure that the idiots are those *other* guys.
Don't get me wrong; I'm a big advocate of treating any vaguely serious contributor with respect. But in trying to build open communities on the Internet, you have to be prepared for people who are looking to vent, who come with an agenda, or who are just so lacking in clue that they are unable to make any useful contribution. If you don't give them an outlet, they'll just cram their opinions into any input field or email inbox they can find, disrupting normal business. And heck, some of them will get a clue eventually, so it's best to involve them in ways that help with that.
But definitely be careful applying your off-line intuitions here. As many have observed, the Internet is, sadly, different. [1]
William,
My "off-line intuitions"?
The quality of a culture is greatly reflected in the quality of its language
- "on-line" or off.
Marc
This is common behavior online, often used in a harmless or joking manner.
However, I can see that it might not seem so to an outsider, including potentially to the people being referred to. And it is sometimes used in a not joking manner.
I think that this is one of the things that maybe we should listen to Marc about, and I think I'm going to try to remember to stop using jokingly.
On 10/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/10/2007, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Why not allow clerks to draft proposals? The arbitrators would still be the only ones allowed to -vote-, of course, but I see no harm in letting a clerk make a suggestion. If it's poor, it'll just get voted against anyway.
Anyone can draft proposals - that's what the workshop page is for (and to keep idiots occupied somewhere relatively harmless, of course). Proposals from known sensible people are more likely to be taken notice of, of course.
Actually....
Thinking out to the legal system in the US, I wonder if this is a mistake.
In real courts we make Attorneys (or rarely, a defendant or plaintiff representing themselves) do the arguing and submitting of briefs and motions.
The Wikipedia analogy would be changing the system so that anyone who knows something can present evidence, but the proposals are limited to experts.
Experts could be "the parties, plus any administrator", or more open (some senior / experienced non-admins), or more restricted (only people "authorized by Arbcom" or some such).
The downside of this is that taken to an extreme, it effectively *requires* that participants get an experienced advocate to help with the process and motions, which introduces the role that Attorneys play in real life. And we're a volunteer organization, so we can't make someone stand up and argue for someone else's defense.
But it's an idea.
On 16/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The downside of this is that taken to an extreme, it effectively *requires* that participants get an experienced advocate to help with the process and motions, which introduces the role that Attorneys play in real life. And we're a volunteer organization, so we can't make someone stand up and argue for someone else's defense.
The other downside is that this was tried - the Association of Members' Advocates, because people who ended up in arbitration tended to be those who rubbed others up the wrong way and did a really bad job of representing themselves in the first place. The ArbCom welcomed the idea as potentially helpful ... then *all* the AMA did was wikilawyer and try procedural tricks, rather than actually help translate their clients' positions and thoughts into something that appeared reasonable and comprehensible. They were literally worse than useless. I remember having frequently thought "could you please shut up and stop dragging your client down." Eegh.
- d.
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 16/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The downside of this is that taken to an extreme, it effectively *requires* that participants get an experienced advocate to help with the process and motions, which introduces the role that Attorneys play in real life. And we're a volunteer organization, so we can't make someone stand up and argue for someone else's defense.
The other downside is that this was tried - the Association of Members' Advocates, because people who ended up in arbitration tended to be those who rubbed others up the wrong way and did a really bad job of representing themselves in the first place. The ArbCom welcomed the idea as potentially helpful ... then *all* the AMA did was wikilawyer and try procedural tricks, rather than actually help translate their clients' positions and thoughts into something that appeared reasonable and comprehensible. They were literally worse than useless. I remember having frequently thought "could you please shut up and stop dragging your client down." Eegh.
There were a variety of problems with the AMA. 1) Many of the advocates were the self-righteous sort who enjoy wikilawyering 2) Many others were people who while not clueless were close to it 3) Many of the people who go in front of the ArbCom don't have a better argument to make that can be reasonably translated. This third problem seemed to be the most common and serious problem. If translating their clients positions are going to definitely get their clients banned, or if their clients positions are impossible to translate into any coherent thoughts, the AMA members didn't have many options other than to wikilawyer.
This is related to the fact that the vast majority of people who get hard sanctions from the ArbCom do in fact deserve the hard sanctions, in at least the minimal sense that the project will be better off with the editors sanctioned.
On 10/15/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 16/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The downside of this is that taken to an extreme, it effectively *requires* that participants get an experienced advocate to help with the process and motions, which introduces the role that Attorneys play in real life. And we're a volunteer organization, so we can't make someone stand up and argue for someone else's defense.
The other downside is that this was tried - the Association of Members' Advocates, because people who ended up in arbitration tended to be those who rubbed others up the wrong way and did a really bad job of representing themselves in the first place. The ArbCom welcomed the idea as potentially helpful ... then *all* the AMA did was wikilawyer and try procedural tricks, rather than actually help translate their clients' positions and thoughts into something that appeared reasonable and comprehensible. They were literally worse than useless. I remember having frequently thought "could you please shut up and stop dragging your client down." Eegh.
There were a variety of problems with the AMA. 1) Many of the advocates were the self-righteous sort who enjoy wikilawyering 2) Many others were people who while not clueless were close to it 3) Many of the people who go in front of the ArbCom don't have a better argument to make that can be reasonably translated. This third problem seemed to be the most common and serious problem. If translating their clients positions are going to definitely get their clients banned, or if their clients positions are impossible to translate into any coherent thoughts, the AMA members didn't have many options other than to wikilawyer.
This is related to the fact that the vast majority of people who get hard sanctions from the ArbCom do in fact deserve the hard sanctions, in at least the minimal sense that the project will be better off with the editors sanctioned.
Sounds like they (the AMA members) didn't quite grasp the concept of "plea bargain" ...
Quoting George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
On 10/15/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 16/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The downside of this is that taken to an extreme, it effectively *requires* that participants get an experienced advocate to help with the process and motions, which introduces the role that Attorneys play in real life. And we're a volunteer organization, so we can't make someone stand up and argue for someone else's defense.
The other downside is that this was tried - the Association of Members' Advocates, because people who ended up in arbitration tended to be those who rubbed others up the wrong way and did a really bad job of representing themselves in the first place. The ArbCom welcomed the idea as potentially helpful ... then *all* the AMA did was wikilawyer and try procedural tricks, rather than actually help translate their clients' positions and thoughts into something that appeared reasonable and comprehensible. They were literally worse than useless. I remember having frequently thought "could you please shut up and stop dragging your client down." Eegh.
There were a variety of problems with the AMA. 1) Many of the advocates were the self-righteous sort who enjoy wikilawyering 2) Many others were people who while not clueless were close to it 3) Many of the people who go in front of the ArbCom don't have a better argument to make that can be reasonably translated. This third problem seemed to be the most common and serious problem. If translating their clients positions are going to definitely get their clients banned, or if their clients positions are impossible to translate into any coherent thoughts, the AMA members didn't have many options other than to wikilawyer.
This is related to the fact that the vast majority of people who get hard sanctions from the ArbCom do in fact deserve the hard sanctions, in at least the minimal sense that the project will be better off with the editors sanctioned.
Sounds like they (the AMA members) didn't quite grasp the concept of "plea bargain" ...
The real issue in many ways was that AMA members had divided loyalty, some to their clients and some to the project. An AMA member couldn't say something like "After talking to my client, I'm now convinced that my client will not understand NPOV and even if my client did understand he would ignore it". Furthermore, no form of plea bargain works well at that point. The people who go in front of the ArbCom who got AMA members were often people who would have had little or no interest in anything other than being in charge or at least have their POV in charge. No amount of AMA representation would have changed that.
On 10/15/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The downside of this is that taken to an extreme, it effectively *requires* that participants get an experienced advocate to help with the process and motions, which introduces the role that Attorneys play in real life. And we're a volunteer organization, so we can't make someone stand up and argue for someone else's defense.
The other downside is that this was tried - the Association of Members' Advocates, because people who ended up in arbitration tended to be those who rubbed others up the wrong way and did a really bad job of representing themselves in the first place. The ArbCom welcomed the idea as potentially helpful ... then *all* the AMA did was wikilawyer and try procedural tricks, rather than actually help translate their clients' positions and thoughts into something that appeared reasonable and comprehensible. They were literally worse than useless. I remember having frequently thought "could you please shut up and stop dragging your client down." Eegh.
I remember hearing a bit about it, but I don't think I saw any of it firsthand.
The question of whether it's necessarily true that any such organization or role will descend into legalism or whether it depends on personalities involved is something I am curious about. I can see why someone who sees their role as pure advocate will try legalism and procedural fights.
On 10/14/07, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/14/07, Thatcher131 Wikipedia thatcher131@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/14/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I made one suggestion, which might not be particularly workable.
Regardless, we need to find solutions.
Fred
I had an idea a while ago, I don't remember if I ever presented it before.
Why not have cases heard before a panel of 5 Arbitrators, randomly chosen from the list of Arbitrators active when the case was accepted? Cases that are voted out 5-0 or 4-1 would close as is; cases where the votes were 3-2 or less would be heard before the entire committee. That way, Arbitrators do not have to hear every case, and might not burn out as quickly. (A vote of 5-0 is all most cases get by the Fall of the year anyway.)
It would be *more* susceptible to burnout than the current model, actually, since there's no provision for the scenario where none of the five randomly-selected arbitrators are willing to do any case work. In a system where the full Committee hears every case, a few active members can keep things moving (to some degree) even if the bulk of the Committee isn't actively participating.
(Or, in other words: we can currently close a 5-0 case if we find *any* five active arbs, but, in the new model, we would select five arbs first and then expect them to be active -- which is a rather dangerous assumption to make.)
Kirill
I was thinking of this when the discussion started, but my initial idea was to use a 3-arbitrator panel rather than 5.
That was based off US Federal Courts of Appeal - they have a pool of judges, with 3-judge panels brought together for specific cases. One can then appeal to the whole Court in a particular district if one doesn't like the ruling from the group of 3.
Another thing that occurs to me is that we could do 4 instead of 3, even. Yes, it's an even number, so one can tie... but we're not looking for "what to do about ties", we're looking for "how can we dispose of things that end up obvious reasonably quickly". More things will fall into the latter category (I hope), and a 3:1 vote (or 3 to an abstention or idle arbitrator) is good enough for majority or consensus. A tie is a kick-it-to-entire-arbcom.
Or even a single arbitrator for cases, with "punt to a 3/4/5/whatever larger group" as an accepted option for the ugly cases.
On 14/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I made one suggestion, which might not be particularly workable. Regardless, we need to find solutions.
Fred
If arbcom wishes to delegate is has to do so by fait. Open debate is no more likely to come to a conclusion than RFA debates. Arbcom does have the power to delegate caseload should it chose to although I would suggest that delegating to the usual suspects would be a bad idea.
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I made one suggestion, which might not be particularly workable. Regardless, we need to find solutions.
Fred
Say, Fred. Since you're a retired lawyer, are there any other approaches we might borrow from real-world court systems?
For example, some of the suggestions that have gone by sound vaguely similar to my very limited understanding of the way US appeal courts manage workload. Perhaps there's something we could learn from them?
I also wonder if there other tricks we could borrow, like the special focus that juvenile or drug courts have. Or the limited scope of a small-claims court.
Since I know relatively little about either courts or the workings of ArbCom, this may be crazy talk. But I thought I'd ask.
William
Say, Fred. Since you're a retired lawyer, are there any other approaches we might borrow from real-world court systems?
For example, some of the suggestions that have gone by sound vaguely similar to my very limited understanding of the way US appeal courts manage workload. Perhaps there's something we could learn from them?
I also wonder if there other tricks we could borrow, like the special focus that juvenile or drug courts have. Or the limited scope of a small-claims court.
Since I know relatively little about either courts or the workings of ArbCom, this may be crazy talk. But I thought I'd ask.
I think most real courts have one judge per case. It's only when you reach the highest level that you get tried by the entire bench (or, at least, a selection from it). One judge only works when you have clear laws that have right and wrong answers, and you have a jury to determine points of fact. We could introduce a jury system to Wikipedia, but I don't think it would work - the population is too small, and we have no way to make jury duty compulsory (if you pick 12 Wikipedians at random from those active and willing to serve, you stand too great a chance of some of them being involved, or at least knowing the parties).
On 10/15/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Say, Fred. Since you're a retired lawyer, are there any other approaches we might borrow from real-world court systems?
Well, if I can answer this as a law student...
[[Case management]] is a very poor article currently but that's one idea that immediately springs to mind. That's the concept of having, particularly at the trial level, the same judge assigned to every motion, hearing etc in a given proceeding. This ensures that a judge hearing an interlocutory application, for example, will be familiar with the facts of that case and will be able to make a quick decision, and also allows judges to have a greater influence over how cases proceed (since the lawyers typically have less free reign).
The way that clerks are assigned to cases at the moment is very similar to this, but we could possibly extend this to Arbitrators by having a single one assigned to each case, who could handle all the motions or injunctions raised during the case, or be responsible for the maintenance of the workshop page.