On 22 October 2015 at 18:09, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
Another option is to invest in training arbs and
functionaries. Both on
technical training - if Sarah and Kevin are right re the Lightbreather case
then it may just be that they didn't know how to get or read the evidence;
Also they could be given the sort of training that UK magistrates go on.
Question to Risker, what sort of training do they currently undertake?
In theory, the community selects as arbitrators individuals whom it
believs have already demonstrated sound judgment in handling disputes
or other problematic situations. In past years, it has had a plethora of
choices; however, as the pool of people who are pretty good at this sort of
stuff has diminished - either the editors who are good at it are not
interested in doing it full-time, or they simply don't exist in the numbers
they used to - we've seen an increasing number of arbitrators being
selected who may be fine Wikipedians but they're just not really suited, or
they've been carefully building their careers to this point. Being able to
make decisions is important. One of the best arbitrators Wikipedia ever had
was Wizardman - and he was also one of the least appreciated, despite the
fact that he was almost always on time, his proposed decisions were bang
on, and there was almost never any chit-chat in the background about the
cases he wrote.
The reality is that there's no training provided to new arbitrators. In
years past, we had developed an orientation program (I do not know if it is
still in existence) that went through very basic stuff. But you have to
keep in mind that historically, as far back as I can remember, most "new"
arbitrator candidates campaign on the idea of "changing" arbcom in various
ways. The problem is that almost none of them want to change it in the
same way, and it gets deadlocked just the way that things get deadlocked
onwiki. There is one topic that one or two arbitrators have been chasing
for a long, long time, but have been unwilling to bend in their own
personal vision so it has never been effectively resolved. I worked very
hard during my last term to try to get out of the mailing list system and
move to a case-based CRM system but it was adamantly opposed by one
colleague and most of the rest simply didn't care enough about the issue to
come out one way or the other - so arbcom is still stuck in that
same circle. In other words, Arbcom does in a lot of ways reflect the
community it "serves" - amateurs at what they're discussing, with
difficulty achieving consensus on any kind of change, and with the same
sort of problems of dominating editors turning off those who have no strong
opinions on matters.
Risker/Anne