The Arbitration Committee needs new members. They are down to 6; 2 are on holiday, 3 have resigned, and 1 is permanently inactive. This means that majority decisions pass with only 4 votes, which is fine in a sense, but may not provide the needed level of detailed analysis that each case deserves.
The last vote was unbelievably rancorous and a huge pain in the neck for everyone, to no obviously good purpose, and yet I am committed in the long run to appointing people based on the results of community votes. But for an emergency, I don't think we need to go through that whole process.
Therefore, I am appointing some special members for the next 6 months (to cover the period until the next election), at the advice (and plea for help!) of the existing arbcom and (ultimately) my own judgment about who seems to be available and would do a good job.
JamesF Fennec JayJG
This is an absolutely horrible job, guaranteed to earn you general condemnation for being both a wimp and a tyrant, and I most sincerely apologize to the poor victims I am pulling into our service here.
There will be an additional appointment as soon as I confirm what appears to be the case, which is that Nohat is sadly leaving the position as well.
--Jimbo
On 7/22/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
This is an absolutely horrible job, guaranteed to earn you general condemnation for being both a wimp and a tyrant, and I most sincerely apologize to the poor victims I am pulling into our service here.
It isn't wimp/tyrant from where I sit. It's that stressed people don't perform well. Good editors don't necessarily make good arbitrators and if you force people to do what they aren't good at and put a lot of pressure on them, you are asking for trouble.
An ArbCom decision should be the result of understanding the issues and reaching a fair decision. Not finding an easy way out and rushing off to the next case.
The system needs changing. Who'd want to be an ArbCom member if the certain result is a LOT of hard work and stress?
Here's a thought. Draft a random bunch of admins to investigate a case. Give them temporary IDs so they can be anonymous if they want. They can do all the hard work and come up with a summary of evidence, consensus view on points of difference and agreement, possible solutions. The ArbCom can then review the case once it's prepared in a reasonably professional manner.
This would shift a lot of the work to editors willing and able to do it, and the ArbCom can then function in a role more suited to management and arbitration, rather than wading through a morass of claims and counterclaims, diffs and so on.
The Arbom is thinning because its been stretched--same with the MC. Making a separate NPOV committee for handling specifically npov issues would save work for both AC and MC, and would be a natural and responsive expansion of the committee model to focus on an extremely important aspect.
As I understand it, BDFL approval is required to form a new formal committee, though in the interests of responsiveness, that too might need some abstraction.
SV
--- Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/22/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
This is an absolutely horrible job, guaranteed to
earn you general
condemnation for being both a wimp and a tyrant,
and I most sincerely
apologize to the poor victims I am pulling into
our service here.
It isn't wimp/tyrant from where I sit. It's that stressed people don't perform well. Good editors don't necessarily make good arbitrators and if you force people to do what they aren't good at and put a lot of pressure on them, you are asking for trouble.
An ArbCom decision should be the result of understanding the issues and reaching a fair decision. Not finding an easy way out and rushing off to the next case.
The system needs changing. Who'd want to be an ArbCom member if the certain result is a LOT of hard work and stress?
Here's a thought. Draft a random bunch of admins to investigate a case. Give them temporary IDs so they can be anonymous if they want. They can do all the hard work and come up with a summary of evidence, consensus view on points of difference and agreement, possible solutions. The ArbCom can then review the case once it's prepared in a reasonably professional manner.
This would shift a lot of the work to editors willing and able to do it, and the ArbCom can then function in a role more suited to management and arbitration, rather than wading through a morass of claims and counterclaims, diffs and so on.
-- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 23/07/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Making a separate NPOV committee for handling specifically npov issues would save work for both AC and MC, and would be a natural and responsive expansion of the committee model to focus on an extremely important aspect.
As I understand it, BDFL approval is required to form a new formal committee, though in the interests of responsiveness, that too might need some abstraction.
This is something that has been discussed. A lot. It didn't come to anything though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC
Dan
Wow. Well congratulations and good luck to the new arbitrators, great choices! And to those who've left as well as those who remain, thank you for all your hard work, it's obviously a very difficult and draining job. I've been impressed with how quickly and reasonably cases have been handled since the new committee came on in December. Things have definitely improved since you all came on board. And I have great confidence in the new members that they will do a fine job serving in their new positions. --Miri
On 7/21/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Arbitration Committee needs new members. They are down to 6; 2 are on holiday, 3 have resigned, and 1 is permanently inactive. This means that majority decisions pass with only 4 votes, which is fine in a sense, but may not provide the needed level of detailed analysis that each case deserves.
The last vote was unbelievably rancorous and a huge pain in the neck for everyone, to no obviously good purpose, and yet I am committed in the long run to appointing people based on the results of community votes. But for an emergency, I don't think we need to go through that whole process.
Therefore, I am appointing some special members for the next 6 months (to cover the period until the next election), at the advice (and plea for help!) of the existing arbcom and (ultimately) my own judgment about who seems to be available and would do a good job.
JamesF Fennec JayJG
This is an absolutely horrible job, guaranteed to earn you general condemnation for being both a wimp and a tyrant, and I most sincerely apologize to the poor victims I am pulling into our service here.
There will be an additional appointment as soon as I confirm what appears to be the case, which is that Nohat is sadly leaving the position as well.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l