You're asking the wrong question. The purpose of arbcom-like body is to check that the policies are being correctly interpreted, but the policies like:
wp:blocking policy is so full of words like 'may' and vague words like 'disruption' as to be functionally useless. "You got into a discussion with another user and reverted each other. That disrupted Wikipedia. You are hereby banned for life." ^ that isn't against the policy In most cases another admin would reduce the length. Maybe... but they don't have to. On 28 October 2011 20:30, Marc Riddell <michaeldavi...@comcast.net> wrote: > I agree with much of what you say, Ian. But I see the issues of "crime and > punishment" and getting and keeping the playing field level as just one > function of an oversight body. There are many other areas that need > monitoring in such a complex project such as WP. The question I still have > is how do you get such a body established in the first place in the > Project? > > Marc > > on 10/28/11 3:01 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: > > > The flaw isn't the oversight body, it's the almost complete lack of > policies > > about 'crime and punishment'. It's not leadership; having a leader is > very > > good, but only if they do the right things. No, what is lacking is a > > workable theory about what the right thing to do about conflict is in the > > context of the wiki. > > > > The way it works at the moment is anarchy at the administrator level and > > above. Other than a few rules about not administrating when directly > > involved, admins are allowed by the policies to do just about anything; > and > > there's essentially nothing to stop admins ganging up on users; and this > > happens not as infrequently as you would hope. That's where it goes all > > Stanford Prison Experiment. > > > > The reason it's like this is because Sanger was a philosopher of > knowledge, > > and he shaped the policies to collect knowledge really well, but he > doesn't > > have the slightest clue about crime and punishment. > > > > The areas that work the best are things like 3RR; because it's fairly > > clear-cut. But even then, the length of punishments for going 3RR > > occasionally range from nothing to permanent bans,* more or less entirely > on > > administrator whim (modified only somewhat by the administrators fear of > the > > crowd). > > > > It's basically the problem is that editors have no 'civil rights'; > there's > > no policy against severe punishments for trivial transgressions. > > > > *- they don't usually ban people outright for 3RR, they just mark people > as > > 'trouble makers' and then ban them for increasingly minor infractions > later. > > It's sort of like a death penalty for parking offenses because you've > parked > > in the wrong place before, and 'know what you were doing' and therefore > > 'deserved it' > > > > > On 28 October 2011 18:52, Marc Riddell <michaeldavi...@comcast.net> > wrote: > > > >> > >>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell > >>> <michaeldavi...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a > >>>> disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, > collaborative > >> and > >>>> fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change > >> that? > >>>> How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about > >> change, > >>>> get started? I would be interested in helping. > >> > >> on 10/28/11 12:40 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: > >>> > >>> ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you > >>> are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community > >>> (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute > >>> resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started > >>> out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide > >>> leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been > >>> attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body, > >>> but the "community" tends to resist radical change, which is of course > >>> part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too > >>> radical changes). > >>> > >>> The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of > >>> these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by > >>> someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may > >>> take months or years to come to a conclusion. > >>> > >>> Carcharoth > >> > >> I agree with you completely, Carcharoth, that "What is needed is a body > >> other than ArbCom to provide leadership". It is this lack of a formal, > >> structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire > >> Wikipedia Project. But to try and establish this body via ArbCom doesn't > >> register with me. I believe such a new concept such as this will require > a > >> formal resolution, or whatever mechanism such additions or alterations > to > >> the structure of the Project require. > >> > >> Marc > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> WikiEN-l mailing list > >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- -Ian Woollard _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
