[WikiEN-l] Arbcom

[fredbaud at waterwiki.info]

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 01:17 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom

Riana wrote:
>
> On 14/10/2007, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>   
>> 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
>>
>>
>>     
> Something like - CSN, perhaps? Somehow I skipped over the MfD but I truly
> think that it was a great alternative to the sluggish arbitration process -
> input from a varied range of people across the community spectrum, much less
> of the snipery that goes on at the arb talkpages (Hkelkar 2 springs
> unpleasantly to mind), enforceable sanctions. Quick, nearly painless. Oh
> well, not much point talking about the one that got away.
>
>   
Damn, someone beat me to saying it. As Riana says, rather a moot point
now, but I think we need to seriously consider some processes other than
"Let people misbehave for months on end but never get -quite- bad enough
for an already-overloaded ArbCom to take the case or an admin to justify
a block." A means by which the community could request lesser sanctions
than an outright indef block or ban is needed.

Blocks are blunt instruments, sometimes all that's needed to stop
disruption is to give someone an enforced break from a page for a while.
There are obvious cases where that would be helpful; I would like to see
a proposal where such sanctions can be imposed by the community (perhaps
vetted or approved by a randomly selected group of admins, as suggested
above, and with the arbitrators accepting an appeal if the decision is
clearly questionable).

-----

Something like that is what I have in mind. We need to be much more flexible and immediate.

Fred