[WikiEN-l] Re: Broken dispute resolution mechanisms (wasReithy is a problem)

Sun Nov 7 03:35:11 UTC 2004

>From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Broken dispute resolution mechanisms (wasReithy 
>is a problem)
>Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 07:02:40 -0700

> > Secondly, the AC should take a leadership role. The AC was appointed by
> > Jimbo, and now has a number of democratically elected members. It has
> > something approaching a mandate. It should make summary judgements in a
> > single sitting, and not be afraid of controversy. It should do what it
> > thinks is best for the community and make up the rules as it goes along,
> > within the bounds of community norms.
>
>As now constituted, it would be difficult to get us together, prepared 
>(this
>is important--you have to have looked at the edits before you sit down) for
>such a procedure. We have acted quickly in a few instances, but in general
>most arbitrators move relatively slowly. Being elected and not being afraid
>of controversy is a contradiction. I think we try to do what is best for 
>the
>community and when there is no explicit rule try to find a way to resolve a
>dispute within expressed community norms.

Abuses are generally obvious, and arbiters takes weeks or months to even 
review the evidence, much less rule on it.  This is a cop-out.

> > Thirdly, sentences should be much, much harsher. Ban them for life and
> > get it over with. Banning only slows them down anyway, most of them will
> > come back under a different name. But at least the community will be
> > able to unite behind the AC ruling.
>
>This was tried at first by one arbitrator but was overruled by the 
>majority.
>Unless the bulk of the arbitrators differ markedly from the users there is
>little support for lifetime banning.

Proof that the process is broken.  We all know what a troll is.

> > The best way to deal with trolls is to unite the community against them,
> > then put up with them until they grow out of it. It only took Michael 18
> > months. Even adult trolls like 142 eventually get bored and go do
> > something else, but you've got to expect it to take a year or two.
> >
> > If only trolling was an criminal offence by international treaty...
>
>It proved impossible to ban obvious trolls who advertised it by
>incorporating troll into their usernames. It was insisted that they should
>be "judged by their edits" not their username. With respect to uniting the
>community, when we were smaller that happened, now there are a number of
>troublesome users that I only become aware of when a request shows up in
>requests for arbitration.

Awareness doesn't seem to be enough, since action is glacial, and good 
editors have been driven away by the time the ice age actually arives.

>May I suggest that when a serious matter arises that any user disturbed by
>it engage in the dispute resolution procedure. Our failures to act in cases
>which are not before us are to be expected. We do not initiate cases.

The issue is that you don't act when the evidence has been brought, as my 
examples have shown.

Jay.