User talk:MBisanz/Arbcom

Comments

I think you've been paying very careful attention. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is very helpful in my book (certainly to me) - in particular the timeline section is fantastically clear and concise. I understand, and quite like, the model where we consider norms and then find the ways forward based upon them, but would offer the following also;

• There is a need for a third party (steward, and community member alike) to be able to clearly and independantly verify when a committee decision has been made. Can this not be very simple indeed? If an on-wiki action of any kind is required, then an on-wiki vote should be referenced I would think?
• It's well worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Devolution and seeing how the ideas there work in synergy with the suggestions herein - in general I don't think you go quite far enough on this page alone!

Many thanks for this thoughtful writing - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The "undertow" situation was mostly my fault. I just gave up on someone a few days before the rest of the committee. When asked if it was an official arbcom action, I replied, "may as well consider it one, since it's based on confidential arbcom evidence." In truth, I should have said "It's my own action, based upon confidential arbcom evidence, and I'm crossing my fingers and hoping the committee will back me up." Or, more to the point, I shouldn't have gone off on my own there without consulting more with the team. Sometimes my terseness is works to my disadvantage. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Jp, I wanted to add that I have great respect for the work you, Kirill, FT2, and the other arbs have done. You make unpopular decisions that must be made, and hear more difficult stories than one finds even on ANI. This page is meant to point out an issue with the way things work in general, not any down by individuals. If it was, the page User:MBisanz/MBisanz would be far longer with all my mess ups. :) MBisanz ^talk 05:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a great idea

I think this proposal is too prone to burnout. Forcing people to spend three years "Overseeing the Clerks and Trainees" is a very bad idea that's going to result in some very crappy clerks. In general, this proposal gives more weight to a menial unimportant task like that one - ideally, we'd have the majority of arbs putting as much effort as possible into current cases. We don't need one person spending their arbitration career stalking every possible relevant venue for cases of admin abuse - they're guaranteed to go paranoid one way or the other.

I'm in favour of shortening the arbitrator term to 12/18 months, so they can devote more energy to cases without the mindset of "crap, another 2.5 years of this". (Not assuming bad faith of any arb, just going by observations.) —Giggy 09:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the idea is not that they make the decision or are the only person in that area, just that they have to a duty to make sure Arbcom as a group addresses matters in their area. There is no reason the tasks couldn't we rotated every six months to a year, especially considering that new arbs would be joining each year. Would we really wanted to have given Newyorkbrad a CU-related task his first year as an arb, when he admittedly has no idea about technology? Thanks though for the insight, i've clarified a bit of the wording. MBisanz ^talk 21:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Shorten the terms!

Seriously, does anyone on Wikipedia last 3 years? Make terms last 1 year so that bad arbitrators don't last as long and so there are more active arbitrators. MessedRocker (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Though the disadvantage for an arbitrator term expiration date at all is that arbitrators could lose their seats just for being fair. MessedRocker (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't need anything complicated

If someone is suspicious of a claim from ArbCom, they should e-mail the list asking if it is official. Once someone says otherwise, then it is not official. MessedRocker (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

From User talk:Keeper76

Since your a level head, I wanted to get your feelings on an essay I wrote about the arbcom at User:MBisanz/Arbcom and well spamming to this page is more effective than a sitenotice/ANI/watchlist notice put together :) MBisanz ^talk 21:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On first read (and ignoring the typos - hee! :-), I like it. Here's where you'll find problems from the community: It further fractionalizes Arbcom, probably making it even slower than it already is - likely the opposite effect as you were hoping for. Each of the "individual responsibilities" would eventually become "titles" in and of themselves, leading to further dilution (delusion?) of what Arbcom is and what Arbcom does, and finally, it basically is asking Arbcom to self-govern and self-regulate. The "Internal Investigations Unit" of the police department is still paid by the police department. What arbcom needs is community oversight, not "self-oversight", and more importantly community transparency (not in the sense of divulging personal or sensitive info, etc, but in the sense of "we should know what the fuck their doing, excuse my language). Those are my initial thoughts anyway. It's obvious to me that you know more about the structures/strictures of law/court. My final thought (and I was mildly chastised a few rows up on this very page) We shouldn't "over-judiciary-ify" Arbcom. They're not a court, they're not a legal system, they are human beings and volunteers like the rest of us that get a lot of grief and only the hardesthead cases to deal with. They screw up. They've screwed up big time this week, either as a unit or as separate individuals. Screwed up to the point of loss of confidence in their elected positions (right now, I can't think of one arbitor that I would support for "re-election" in December, at least until they all put their stamp on the secret trial) I'm rambling now, been online too long. Thanks for posting here, MB - Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)