[WikiEN-l] Re: Broken dispute resolution mechanisms (was Reithy is a problem)

[uninvited at nerstrand.net]

Tim Starling is right on all counts regarding the AC.

The AC began with a weak mandate, or at least, perceived that it had a
weak mandate.

It adopted rules that were designed, in a large measure, to be
absolutely sure it did not step on the community's toes, since it did
not want to lose what little mandate it has.  These rules have
outlasted the weakness of the mandate, which is now stronger, and now
there is no mechanism for the AC to change its own rules, which the AC
asked the community to "ratify."

The requirement to vote on whether to accept, reject, or recuse from
each case is something the AC has imposed on itself.

The use of legalistic procedures has been for the most part adopted by
the AC itself, with some encouragement from the "Member advocate" group
who have overall weakened the AC, which hardly needs to be weakened at
this juncture.  I respect Alex756 a great deal but this particular
initiative of his was most unhelpful.

The requirement to attempt mediation first was adopted by the AC itself
because it did not wish to weaken the mediation committee.

The requirement to sit "en banc," that is, with all arbiters rather than
one or two on each decision, has been imposed upon the AC by itself,
mainly because the arbiters themselves have widely varying approaches
to the matters brought to them.  This should be no surprise, because
Jimbo chose at least some of the members for this purpose to ensure
"balance."

I think that Tim's comment that the AC is not depriving anyone of their
liberty or property, and hence need not operate with the safeguards of
courts empowered to do just that, is particularly insightful.

There is no reason why the AC cannot assign a single arbiter to review a
particular case and deal with it.  Draw straws, take turns, ask for
volunteers -- it doesn't matter.  Most cases are clear.  In tough cases
involving established contributors it may make sense to involve the
other arbiters, informally or formally.

I would also like to draw attention to the growing problem with socks,
or more generally, bad-faith users who are smart enough to know to
create an account.  There is no reason why we cannot implement the
simple measures that every other web site in the world uses, like
requiring confirmation of new accounts through a valid email address,
and logging IPs of each edit in a way that is accessible to whoever is
responsible for dealing with problems.  The UBB software is an
excellent example of this being done correctly in a way that balances
privacy concerns and protection of the content.  It's really just a
modern-day picospan but still, its community-related features are
worthy of notice.  These measures are not foolproof, but they are
enough to create a practical barrier to trolls, socks, and other
troublemakers.

UninvitedCompany