This page is meant to be transcluded. Portions of this page will appear in any page which transcludes it. The mandatory parameter expand= should be set to yes or no to control whether the summary or the details are transcluded. |
Views specifically about what you feel works well, and/or to the benefit and service of the community, under the current setup that we have.
Well gol-dang it, let's not make this a total pile-on. I am stunned by the events of the last couple of days, and I think there is a lot of 'splaining to do. But is the lack of "views" here really saying that nobody thinks the ArbCom does anything well? I beg to differ.
In my (admittedly very limited) experience, where I have seen ArbCom do their best work is in regards to nationalism-related controversies. Nationalism is one of those areas where otherwise rational and intelligent people tend to experience such strong emotions and allegiances that it makes compromise impossible (heh, it's what we fight most of our wars over these days, inun't it?). The community has a particular problem dealing with this, because in many cases your typical unbiased editor doesn't know nearly enough about the issue in order to intervene (anyone who fully understands Estonia's Bronze Soldier controversy, raise your hand!), and a sizeable fraction of editors who are knowledgeable are inherently biased.
This is where I think it is very valuable to have a small group of people who can study a case and make binding decisions. We'll never get enough non-Estonian non-Russian Wikipedians to understand the Bronze Soldier brouhaha to manage it via the normal consensus process. But if we can get a committee to educate themselves, and then issue binding rulings that the community helps to uphold, then we might actually get somewhere.
Users who endorse this summary:
The strength that the Committee brings to Wikipedia, which is devolved from that of Jimmy Wales and (latterly) the Foundation, is as the final arbiter on interpretation of policy in the light of Wikipedia's primary purpose of producing a free high quality encyclopedia, the resolution of disputes, and providing enforceable strategies for the enforcement of policy. It is an elected body and may be replaced by election.
Endorsed by
Factual issues
Users who Support or Endorse this View
Comment
I can attest that the Arbitration Committee does do a good job on hearing appeals of sanctions, be they RFAR-based ones or community-based ones, and there are multiple avenues for users to do this. Direct email, and if that doesn't work, asking someone to post your request as a motion/request/whatever on WP:RFAR will get it done even more directly. Note that I'm talking about hearing appeals--as long as the Committee never tries to do something where certain people CAN'T appeal ultimately in public for wide exposure (no secret trials or appeals) it's good. This is separate of course from whether people agree with their decisions on sanctions...
Users who endorse this summary:
Comment:
Arbcom provides a form of a "due process" for users with large positive contributions. It is known that Wikipedia cannot guarantee the due process. This is caused by the openness of our community. It will be a suicide pact to provide a "due process" that requires weeks of work of great wikipedians to any vandal, any troll, any POV-pusher, any disruptive editor just to get the same accused to return in 24 hour under a different nick. Still we have a due process for the people with years of brilliant contributions who were accused in something improper. We have a due process for the actions that are controversial when the community is divided whether the action is beneficial for the project or not, corresponds to our policies or not. The process is named Arbcom. If a decision is simple and obvious we don't need a due process - it is done by a single administrators or by a "kangaroo court" like WP:AN/I. It can also be reverted at any time by another administrator or another "kangaroo court". When the decision is not simple we have the due process named Arbcom. it is final.
Arbcom processing are open and allowed all the parties being heard and all the evidence being demonstrated. It allows the whole community to share the ideas of solving the problem via workshops. It allow diverse people trusted by community to select they think are the best possible remedies according to a transparent voting process. We cannot guarantee the solution works but at least all the evidence was openly presented, all ideas discussed, all dissenting options were recorded
View is endorsed by: Comment
They do a remarkably good job dealing with complex, thorny issues most of the time. This RfC should focus on the small percentage of times when things go wrong, and identify ways to improve the process further.
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
This page is meant to be transcluded. Portions of this page will appear in any page which transcludes it. The mandatory parameter expand= should be set to yes or no to control whether the summary or the details are transcluded. |
Views specifically about what you feel works well, and/or to the benefit and service of the community, under the current setup that we have.
Well gol-dang it, let's not make this a total pile-on. I am stunned by the events of the last couple of days, and I think there is a lot of 'splaining to do. But is the lack of "views" here really saying that nobody thinks the ArbCom does anything well? I beg to differ.
In my (admittedly very limited) experience, where I have seen ArbCom do their best work is in regards to nationalism-related controversies. Nationalism is one of those areas where otherwise rational and intelligent people tend to experience such strong emotions and allegiances that it makes compromise impossible (heh, it's what we fight most of our wars over these days, inun't it?). The community has a particular problem dealing with this, because in many cases your typical unbiased editor doesn't know nearly enough about the issue in order to intervene (anyone who fully understands Estonia's Bronze Soldier controversy, raise your hand!), and a sizeable fraction of editors who are knowledgeable are inherently biased.
This is where I think it is very valuable to have a small group of people who can study a case and make binding decisions. We'll never get enough non-Estonian non-Russian Wikipedians to understand the Bronze Soldier brouhaha to manage it via the normal consensus process. But if we can get a committee to educate themselves, and then issue binding rulings that the community helps to uphold, then we might actually get somewhere.
Users who endorse this summary:
The strength that the Committee brings to Wikipedia, which is devolved from that of Jimmy Wales and (latterly) the Foundation, is as the final arbiter on interpretation of policy in the light of Wikipedia's primary purpose of producing a free high quality encyclopedia, the resolution of disputes, and providing enforceable strategies for the enforcement of policy. It is an elected body and may be replaced by election.
Endorsed by
Factual issues
Users who Support or Endorse this View
Comment
I can attest that the Arbitration Committee does do a good job on hearing appeals of sanctions, be they RFAR-based ones or community-based ones, and there are multiple avenues for users to do this. Direct email, and if that doesn't work, asking someone to post your request as a motion/request/whatever on WP:RFAR will get it done even more directly. Note that I'm talking about hearing appeals--as long as the Committee never tries to do something where certain people CAN'T appeal ultimately in public for wide exposure (no secret trials or appeals) it's good. This is separate of course from whether people agree with their decisions on sanctions...
Users who endorse this summary:
Comment:
Arbcom provides a form of a "due process" for users with large positive contributions. It is known that Wikipedia cannot guarantee the due process. This is caused by the openness of our community. It will be a suicide pact to provide a "due process" that requires weeks of work of great wikipedians to any vandal, any troll, any POV-pusher, any disruptive editor just to get the same accused to return in 24 hour under a different nick. Still we have a due process for the people with years of brilliant contributions who were accused in something improper. We have a due process for the actions that are controversial when the community is divided whether the action is beneficial for the project or not, corresponds to our policies or not. The process is named Arbcom. If a decision is simple and obvious we don't need a due process - it is done by a single administrators or by a "kangaroo court" like WP:AN/I. It can also be reverted at any time by another administrator or another "kangaroo court". When the decision is not simple we have the due process named Arbcom. it is final.
Arbcom processing are open and allowed all the parties being heard and all the evidence being demonstrated. It allows the whole community to share the ideas of solving the problem via workshops. It allow diverse people trusted by community to select they think are the best possible remedies according to a transparent voting process. We cannot guarantee the solution works but at least all the evidence was openly presented, all ideas discussed, all dissenting options were recorded
View is endorsed by: Comment
They do a remarkably good job dealing with complex, thorny issues most of the time. This RfC should focus on the small percentage of times when things go wrong, and identify ways to improve the process further.
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by any active user. In the interests of conciseness, and to get a clear and hopefully uncluttered feel of the community, please leave shorter individual statements in the appropriate topic section, rather than one long condensed statement. This will allow users to endorse specific aspects more easily.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary: