On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Carcharoth <carcharot...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:13 PM, stevertigo<stv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't participate much in > openly > > discussing its cases. Strange isn't it? > > If you catch us in a good mood, maybe. :-) > Hm. If Arbcom mood is the impeding issue, then anything the community can do to mitigate Arbcom caseload is naturally the first solution. Beyond that, issues related to how Arbcom members deal with stress, have to change their editing patterns, have to reconceptualize how they interact with people, etc. may require some kind of closed support group. I would not object even proposals for Wikimedia to hire cousellors for our Arbcom members from each of our various language wikis. [I'm currently one of those arbitrators, if that's a bit cryptic for some.] > Identifying yourself as an Arbcom member might be appropriate. Something like "User:Carcharoth (Arbcom, Jan. 2009 - Dec. 2010, inactive)" would work. More seriously, if you find the right venue and present a good case > that something needs discussion or clarification, even after a case is > closed, you stand a good chance of getting a reasonable level of > responses eventually. Hm. By "right venue" do you mean arbcom-l or some IRC? Wouldn't a "dispute resolution" mailing list work well for this purpose? > The main problem, as those who are current > arbitrators and those who were former arbitrators, should be able to > attest, is time and the amount of stuff to deal with. Some of it is > pure overload, other bits are time-management (some of us deal with > simple or interesting stuff first, before tackling the difficult stuff > - it's human nature really). > Hm. Issues that we can deal with on res-l, and perhaps we can even find solutions for them. I have ideas for mitigating caseload, as I'm sure do you and others. The main issue in that aspect is just dealing with them. A closed list is not the place for brainstorming. One of the things that has been suggested, is reviews of cases after > the dust has settled. Not returning to the old discussions, but seeing > how effective the remedies have been, and looking at the enforcement > of cases, and whether the articles involved (if the case involved > articles) have improved at all. Good points, though "returning to the old discussions" implies that there actually were "discussions," and that by being "old" they were also not currently relevant. There are certain very old things that remain relevant, despite what anyone says about their age. I'm sure this applies in the context of Arbcom case arguments as well. Another aspect of review would be > whether any of the policy-related stuff suggested by ArbCom principles > would gain community consensus to be incorporated into polices. > Technically, the principles should be interpreting existing policies, > but sometimes ArbCom does strongly suggest that change is needed in a > certain area. That's like finding that a house is on fire, and at the same time telling the fire department that putting it out is optional, and subject to only whims - whims that might mathematically resemble common housecat herding patterns. Whether that happens or not, as Fred points out, depends > on the resulting community discussions. Isn't voting still evil? Just like IAR is still a "pillar" of "principle?" > In some cases, though, those > community discussions don't actually take place, and six-month reviews > could point this out. > Six months is a long time. We should try living in the real world, instead of a shell. -Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
