Oversized criticism sections and WP:UNDUE (was: Notability and ski resorts)

[Apoc 2400]

This discussion about splitting off sections to articles, notability and
undue weight reminded me of something I encountered recently:

What do you do if you find an article with a short description of the
subject followed by a huge criticism/controversy section with subsections
for every negative opinion about the subject ever published? It is sourced
so just removing most of it will get you reverted by the people who wrote
the article.

I think the ideal thing to do is to expand the other sections until the
criticism is balanced. Is there anything I can do if I don't have the time
or the expertise on the subject to write a long and good article? This must
be a rather common situation for obscure subjects in controversial areas.

One method I heard is effective is to split off the criticism section to a
separate article leaving a short summary. Someone else will probably
nominate it for deletion, which will often end in a delete/merge. Then you
just have to make sure the whole things isn't merged back. It just feels a
bit too underhanded.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

Typically in a situation like that, unless there are active supporters of
the person, like Stalin, no one is interested in finding and writing
about their virtues. Often the person's main claim to fame is some evil
thing they have done, for example John Chivington the perpetrator of the
Sand Creek Massacre. In that case, he was a bona fide war hero before he
fell into disrepute, so it is possible to create a somewhat balanced
article without stretching. Andrew Jackson, the architect of Indian
removal who defied the Supreme Court, has, of course, both abundant
supporters and many other accomplishments.

The major problem is with living persons who have had considerable press
regarding some negative action or series of actions. There may not be
significant published material regarding their virtues or even details
about their life. Creating a balanced article in such circumstances is
very difficult, although we've succeeded a few times, for example in the
case of Rachel Marsden. Note that in that case, the critical coverage
which once made up the bulk of the article is now forked off into Simon
Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy. A great deal of work went
into that matter. So when you say you don't have time, believe it.

You say, "One method I heard is effective..." May I ask, what is it
effective at? We can only include reliable material from published
sources. If the available material is negative, and the matter
significant, say Charles Manson, what are our goals?

To answer my own question, in the case of people who lead more or less
normal uneventful lives, it is desirable to not pillory them in Wikipedia
for all time based on one unfortunate event which received extensive
publicity.

Fred

> This discussion about splitting off sections to articles, notability and
> undue weight reminded me of something I encountered recently:
>
> What do you do if you find an article with a short description of the
> subject followed by a huge criticism/controversy section with subsections
> for every negative opinion about the subject ever published? It is
> sourced
> so just removing most of it will get you reverted by the people who wrote
> the article.
>
> I think the ideal thing to do is to expand the other sections until the
> criticism is balanced. Is there anything I can do if I don't have the
> time
> or the expertise on the subject to write a long and good article? This
> must
> be a rather common situation for obscure subjects in controversial areas.
>
> One method I heard is effective is to split off the criticism section to
> a
> separate article leaving a short summary. Someone else will probably
> nominate it for deletion, which will often end in a delete/merge. Then
> you
> just have to make sure the whole things isn't merged back. It just feels
> a
> bit too underhanded.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Apoc 2400 wrote:

> This discussion about splitting off sections to articles, notability and
> undue weight reminded me of something I encountered recently:
>
> What do you do if you find an article with a short description of the
> subject followed by a huge criticism/controversy section with subsections
> for every negative opinion about the subject ever published? It is sourced
> so just removing most of it will get you reverted by the people who wrote
> the article.
>
>
>  

Hmm, I thought such "criticism sections" had been deprecated for quite a
few years now. One thing to do is to add {{criticism section}}, the
wording of which is what I recall (that criticism is better integrated
into an article).  In the hugeness case the integration would make the
article look like the "attack article" it probably is.

None of WP:CRIT, WP:NOCRIT and WP:CRIS addressing the issue seem to have
made it past being an essay into a guideline.

Charles





_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> Apoc 2400 wrote:
>> This discussion about splitting off sections to articles, notability and
>> undue weight reminded me of something I encountered recently:
>>
>> What do you do if you find an article with a short description of the
>> subject followed by a huge criticism/controversy section with subsections
>> for every negative opinion about the subject ever published? It is sourced
>> so just removing most of it will get you reverted by the people who wrote
>> the article.
>>
> Hmm, I thought such "criticism sections" had been deprecated for quite a
> few years now. One thing to do is to add {{criticism section}}, the
> wording of which is what I recall (that criticism is better integrated
> into an article).  In the hugeness case the integration would make the
> article look like the "attack article" it probably is.

We have around 125 articles with "criticism of" in the title:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=intitle%3Acriticism%2Bof&fulltext=Search&ns0=1

> None of WP:CRIT, WP:NOCRIT and WP:CRIS addressing the issue seem to have
> made it past being an essay into a guideline.

Yes. Failing guidelines, those pages would seem to be where to discuss this.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> Apoc 2400 wrote:
>> This discussion about splitting off sections to articles, notability and
>> undue weight reminded me of something I encountered recently:
>>
>> What do you do if you find an article with a short description of the
>> subject followed by a huge criticism/controversy section with subsections
>> for every negative opinion about the subject ever published? It is sourced
>> so just removing most of it will get you reverted by the people who wrote
>> the article.
>>
> Hmm, I thought such "criticism sections" had been deprecated for quite a
> few years now. One thing to do is to add {{criticism section}}, the
> wording of which is what I recall (that criticism is better integrated
> into an article).  In the hugeness case the integration would make the
> article look like the "attack article" it probably is.

We have around 125 articles with "criticism of" in the title:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=intitle%3Acriticism%2Bof&fulltext=Search&ns0=1

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Andrew Gray-3]

2009/9/24 Fred Bauder <fredbaud@...>:
> Typically in a situation like that, unless there are active supporters of
> the person, like Stalin, no one is interested in finding and writing
> about their virtues.

Most historically prominent figures, no matter how vile, will have
enough people interested in them to ensure that the article is
reasonably well constructed; this doesn't automatically imply it's
being done for partisan reasons. I think it's a little misleading to
say that the only reason we can have a good, balanced, article on
someone like Stalin is the hypothetical presence of active apologists!

(I mean, we have an A-class article on Nero, and a FA on Diocletian. I
don't think many of their supporters are still around...)

> The major problem is with living persons who have had considerable press
> regarding some negative action or series of actions. There may not be
> significant published material regarding their virtues or even details
> about their life.

Yeah. This is the tough case. You mention below writing about the
event, not the person, and I think this is the best way to go about it
- if the notorious event wouldn't stand up as an article in its own
right, should an article about the protagonist really be able to?

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

> 2009/9/24 Fred Bauder <fredbaud@...>:
>> Typically in a situation like that, unless there are active supporters
>> of
>> the person, like Stalin, no one is interested in finding and writing
>> about their virtues.
>
> Most historically prominent figures, no matter how vile, will have
> enough people interested in them to ensure that the article is
> reasonably well constructed; this doesn't automatically imply it's
> being done for partisan reasons. I think it's a little misleading to
> say that the only reason we can have a good, balanced, article on
> someone like Stalin is the hypothetical presence of active apologists!
>
> (I mean, we have an A-class article on Nero, and a FA on Diocletian. I
> don't think many of their supporters are still around...)

Good point, yeh, I'm still living in the past, editwarring over Stalin...

>
>> The major problem is with living persons who have had considerable
>> press
>> regarding some negative action or series of actions. There may not be
>> significant published material regarding their virtues or even details
>> about their life.
>
> Yeah. This is the tough case. You mention below writing about the
> event, not the person, and I think this is the best way to go about it
> - if the notorious event wouldn't stand up as an article in its own
> right, should an article about the protagonist really be able to?
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray@...

Biographies of living persons, and the considerations behind it, also
apply to the article about the event. And in the cited example, Simon
Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy the material about the
persons involved is considerably toned down from its original iteration
which resulted in deletion for BLP reasons. The focus is changed from the
persons and the alleged details of their behavior to meta considerations
about taking action in situations where facts are inherently unknowable,
perhaps the basis of the notability of the event. That is our clue. We
ought not republish material which is based on one person's version of
events, however laundered the assertion may be by republication in a
generally reliable source.

Fred


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jay Litwyn-2]

"Apoc 2400" <apoc2400@...> wrote in message
news:f90700360909240622g6aa103f9wd8b973aecd357a3e@......
(...)
> What do you do if you find an article with a short description of the
> subject followed by a huge criticism/controversy section with subsections
> for every negative opinion about the subject ever published?
(...)

I realize that I am in a subject that might not be encyclopedic, because it
is controversial, and I avoid it, however much I want the article to come
to my decision. If a torrent of verbiage and commercially, racially, or
ideologically motivated information has established a concept that is at
odds with a foundation, then maybe it does not require my attack. It should
fall on its own. If it seems to hav a life of its own, that is just the
nature of politics, where I do not want to be.
_______
Handy Guide to Modern Science:
1.  If it's green or it wiggles, it's biology.
2.  If it stinks, it's chemistry.
3.  If it doesn't work, it's physics.




_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> Hmm, I thought such "criticism sections" had been deprecated for quite a
> few years now. One thing to do is to add {{criticism section}}, the
> wording of which is what I recall (that criticism is better integrated
> into an article).  In the hugeness case the integration would make the
> article look like the "attack article" it probably is.
> None of WP:CRIT, WP:NOCRIT and WP:CRIS addressing the issue seem to have made it past being an essay into a guideline.

Strange, isn't it Charles, that the deprecation of criticism
sections/articles would be the convention for "quite a few years now"
and yet no attempt at its formalization has "made it past being an
essay into a guideline" let alone policy?

Stranger still, is it not, that this same invisible notion can still
find abuse as the centerpiece of a large-enough edit war such that
resulted in the poorly-conceptualized case given (disrespectfully) the
Prez' name?

More thing on my to-do list: Get Arbcom to actually deal with
adjudicating policy and sections therein.

- Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[George Herbert]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:59 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg@...> wrote:

> Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I thought such "criticism sections" had been deprecated for quite a
>> few years now. One thing to do is to add {{criticism section}}, the
>> wording of which is what I recall (that criticism is better integrated
>> into an article).  In the hugeness case the integration would make the
>> article look like the "attack article" it probably is.
>> None of WP:CRIT, WP:NOCRIT and WP:CRIS addressing the issue seem to have made it past being an essay into a guideline.
>
> Strange, isn't it Charles, that the deprecation of criticism
> sections/articles would be the convention for "quite a few years now"
> and yet no attempt at its formalization has "made it past being an
> essay into a guideline" let alone policy?
>
> Stranger still, is it not, that this same invisible notion can still
> find abuse as the centerpiece of a large-enough edit war such that
> resulted in the poorly-conceptualized case given (disrespectfully) the
> Prez' name?
>
> More thing on my to-do list: Get Arbcom to actually deal with
> adjudicating policy and sections therein.
>
> - Stevertigo

Arbcom's job description and writ of authority don't include
adjudicating policy.

Suggestions that they might expand to do that, generally made by
community members, have been shot down by the community writ large and
by arbcom.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

George Herbert <george.herbert@...> wrote:
> Arbcom's job description and writ of authority don't include
> adjudicating policy.
> Suggestions that they might expand to do that, generally made by
> community members, have been shot down by the community writ large and
> by arbcom.

Hm. This came up recently at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=312162973

Wikidemon wrote: "In short form, Arbcom is not the place to propose
changes to policies and guidelines. It is not empowered to do so, so
there is nothing actionable for Arbcom to decide based on this
request."

Me: 'A court that cannot legislate from the bench - strike
down law, uphold current law, (or portions thereof) - is not called a
"court," it's called a "police station." [Which] makes the
concept plain that an unempowered court cannot even "uphold" law, as
it has no power to do otherwise. It can however, "parrot" law. Which,
sort of sums up Wikipedia's dispute resolution affairs quite nicely.'

- Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Surreptitiousness]

stevertigo wrote:

> George Herbert <george.herbert@...> wrote:
>  
>> Arbcom's job description and writ of authority don't include
>> adjudicating policy.
>> Suggestions that they might expand to do that, generally made by
>> community members, have been shot down by the community writ large and
>> by arbcom.
>>    
>
> Hm. This came up recently at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=312162973
>
> Wikidemon wrote: "In short form, Arbcom is not the place to propose
> changes to policies and guidelines. It is not empowered to do so, so
> there is nothing actionable for Arbcom to decide based on this
> request."
>
> Me: 'A court that cannot legislate from the bench - strike
> down law, uphold current law, (or portions thereof) - is not called a
> "court," it's called a "police station." [Which] makes the
> concept plain that an unempowered court cannot even "uphold" law, as
> it has no power to do otherwise. It can however, "parrot" law. Which,
> sort of sums up Wikipedia's dispute resolution affairs quite nicely.'

I've always lamented the fact that people have no idea what arbitration
means on Wikipedia.  That's one of the biggest reasons why arb-com is
such a failure, no-one ever treats its decisions as final. Arb-com
doesn't have to legislate, that's not its purpose.  Its purpose is to
hear complaints and arbitrate them.  It started going wrong when people
started expecting it to behave like a court or a policeman. Another
damaging blow comes from people who wriggle like worms when stuck on a
hook.  I know six year olds who have a better ability to admit to
wrong-doing than some grown adults on Wikipedia. Although, I am only
assuming they are grown ups.  Have we ever established the lowest age of
a Wikipedian? You can't help but wonder if a new class of remedy which
bans disruptive editors from talk pages might be an improvement.  Let us
judge them by their editing!


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

stevertigo wrote:

> George Herbert <george.herbert@...> wrote:
>  
>> Arbcom's job description and writ of authority don't include
>> adjudicating policy.
>> Suggestions that they might expand to do that, generally made by
>> community members, have been shot down by the community writ large and
>> by arbcom.
>>    
>
> Hm. This came up recently at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=312162973
>
> Wikidemon wrote: "In short form, Arbcom is not the place to propose
> changes to policies and guidelines. It is not empowered to do so, so
> there is nothing actionable for Arbcom to decide based on this
> request."
>
> Me: 'A court that cannot legislate from the bench - strike
> down law, uphold current law, (or portions thereof) - is not called a
> "court," it's called a "police station." [Which] makes the
> concept plain that an unempowered court cannot even "uphold" law, as
> it has no power to do otherwise. It can however, "parrot" law. Which,
> sort of sums up Wikipedia's dispute resolution affairs quite nicely.'
>
>  

The "strangeness" mentioned in your initial query should certainly not
be laid at the door of Arbcom, as has already been pointed out. Calling
Arbcom a "court" and then arguing against that, or whatever this straw
man is supposed to be doing, seems rather pointless to me. If you want
to get into all that constitutionalism, there is a quite strict
"separation of powers" operating, and Arbcom's part is (a) to show what
happens when a few dozen supposedly self-consistent policies have to be
applied together, given that they are separate pieces of legislation,
and (b) to take a view on the implementation of policy so that people
can have some idea of the "tariff" for infringement (and, in extreme
cases therefore, to show up any policies which are in effect
unenforceable or dead letters as they stand).

Arbcom principles certainly don't "parrot" policy.

You wrote:

 >Strange, isn't it Charles, that the deprecation of criticism
sections/articles would be the convention for "quite a few years now"and
yet no attempt at its formalization has "made it past being an essay
into a guideline" let alone policy?

That rather assumes we do need a policy for everything, that is
explicit. I have said before that requiring everything in
black-and-white tends to benefit wikilawyers who like to exploit
drafting weaknesses.

Charles




_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Surreptitiousness wrote:
> I've always lamented the fact that people have no idea what arbitration
> means on Wikipedia.  That's one of the biggest reasons why arb-com is
> such a failure, no-one ever treats its decisions as final. Arb-com
> doesn't have to legislate, that's not its purpose.  Its purpose is to
> hear complaints and arbitrate them.  It started going wrong when people
> started expecting it to behave like a court or a policeman.
Arbcom has been around for about five years, with dozens of people
involved, and much change of personnel. Two basic types of criticism are:

(a) (Demagogue) Arbcom has changed too much from its intended role,
pushing for power to order people around as Jimbo pulled back from
day-to-day management;

or

(b) (Armchair General) If I were on Arbcom, I'd see that some
fundamental issues about behaviour on the site were tackled in a
purposeful way. As it is, Arbcom just tinkers with a few of the worst
disputes, and can't make major change in what is basically a holding
operations.

Since enWP has changed almost beyond recognition since 2004, what is
more remarkable to me is that Arbcom is roughly what it always was, even
with a completely different bunch of people running it. The limitations
appear to be that what is distinctive about Arbitation (evidence-led
decision-making rather than threaded discussion) scales only as far as
supporting offsite discussions do (i.e. Arbcom has no physical meetings,
so its committee work is by threaded discussion which is a lousy way to
get quick decisions made sensibly).

What was good about the earlier years of Arbcom was that innovation in
remedies and clarification of policies in terms of the decisions that
would be taken to enforce them cleared up quite a number of issues that
now rarely need to get into RfAr. That kind of innovation as "crafting"
decisions to the needs of the site ceased to have so much (new) traction
a couple of years ago.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Surreptitiousness]

Charles Matthews wrote:
> What was good about the earlier years of Arbcom was that innovation in
> remedies and clarification of policies in terms of the decisions that
> would be taken to enforce them cleared up quite a number of issues that
> now rarely need to get into RfAr. That kind of innovation as "crafting"
> decisions to the needs of the site ceased to have so much (new) traction
> a couple of years ago.
Another thing that was good about early arbcom was the desire to
challenge incivility and to accept cases which now would be refused as
being seemingly trivial I have to say though, I haven't noticed arb-com
being unable to craft decisions to the needs of the site. Although I
haven't followed arbcom in a long while, I seem to recall a lot of BLP
stuff following from arb cases. There was a case this year that seemed
to tighten the policy on neutral point of view, and that seems to have
passed through without issue.  So I think it is fair to say the
situation is much the same with regards tailoring decisions and
policies.  Arbcom can tailor where the community allows.  I think it has
always been so. The idea that Arbcom can't make policy is certainly an
idea I've known all my wiki life, and arb-com has but a year on me.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ken Arromdee]

If the law just said "no jaywalking", but the police started arresting
everyone who crossed away from a crosswalk, and there was no court which
could tell the police that their interpretation of "jaywalking" was wrong,
then the police have de-facto made policy.  (Especially if the police are
also empowered to hand out sentences, which actual police don't do.)

However much anyone says that Arbcom doesn't make policy, given that the
rules are complicated and often ambiguous, "deciding whether something fits
existing policy" is often the same as "making policy".  So you just end up
with Arbcom making policy and pretending not to.  And then you get
Wikipedians who need a policy decision and recognize on some level that
Arbcom makes policy, but need to go through hoops phrasing their complaint
so that Arbcom can answer it "without making policy".


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Ken Arromdee wrote:
> However much anyone says that Arbcom doesn't make policy, given that the
> rules are complicated and often ambiguous, "deciding whether something fits
> existing policy" is often the same as "making policy".  So you just end up
> with Arbcom making policy and pretending not to.
I think you need to recognise that the community can then clarify in
whatever direction it likes: removing the ambiguity in the same way as
the Arbcom went, or not, as the mood takes it. Since the drafting cannot
be expected to be watertight, adjustments may be needed. But we know who
has the last say. And a given case is not a precedent (such examples as
there are for people using Arbitration cases as direct precedents are
rather discouraging).
>  And then you get
> Wikipedians who need a policy decision and recognize on some level that
> Arbcom makes policy, but need to go through hoops phrasing their complaint
> so that Arbcom can answer it "without making policy".
>  
That is a somewhat periphrastic way of saying that people nonetheless do
take notice of the decisions. As we know, people tend to think they
"need" some policy to win an argument they currently are in engaged in,
without great regard to the overall needs of the project. So no doubt
cases are brought for those kinds of reason, and if the case has to be
accepted for the common good, the Arbcom has to make some sort of sense
of it all, by writing down principles that give some proper context to
what is decided.

If it is all as fraught as you imply, I wonder why no one has brought
out a codified form of Arbitration "principles", so we can see the
"policy made by Arbcom" in the round. (I have certainly pondered this in
the past, but really there is perhaps less in this than meets the eye.
Only if you assume that the community's norms are limited to what is
written down on official policy pages - which is undoubtedly an
incorrect view - does the production of Arbcom's principles seem like
major innovation.)

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/9/25 Surreptitiousness <surreptitious.wikipedian@...>:

> Another thing that was good about early arbcom was the desire to
> challenge incivility and to accept cases which now would be refused as


The 2009 arbcom's main problem is a severe case of [[regulatory
capture]] by the worst violators of the civility rules. Note the case
of the admin busted grossly abusively sockpuppeting, where the arbcom
sat on the evidence for a month (two arbs apparently resigning in
disgust at the regulatory capture of the AC - check the resignation
times versus the block log); and, when the case finally became public,
having to be dragged kicking and screaming to actually acting in the
way they would for any other socking admin.

I'm entirely unsure the arbcom isn't an idea whose time has run, at
least in its present form - it needs a shakeup to avert the regulatory
capture.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Surreptitiousness]

David Gerard wrote:
> I'm entirely unsure the arbcom isn't an idea whose time has run, at
> least in its present form - it needs a shakeup to avert the regulatory
> capture.
>  
Hmmm.  To do that I suppose you would have to create some rules on who
can run.  Maybe bar admins from running for starters, that might reduce
the risk of arbcom siding with admins. I don't think the community would
allow Jimmy to appoint as he sees fit anymore, but if the board mandated
a couple of seats had to be reserved fro picks, that might shake things
up.  That would involve the board getting down in the mud though, which
they try not to do.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[George Herbert]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness
<surreptitious.wikipedian@...> wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
>> I'm entirely unsure the arbcom isn't an idea whose time has run, at
>> least in its present form - it needs a shakeup to avert the regulatory
>> capture.
>>
> Hmmm.  To do that I suppose you would have to create some rules on who
> can run.  Maybe bar admins from running for starters, that might reduce
> the risk of arbcom siding with admins. I don't think the community would
> allow Jimmy to appoint as he sees fit anymore, but if the board mandated
> a couple of seats had to be reserved fro picks, that might shake things
> up.  That would involve the board getting down in the mud though, which
> they try not to do.

You can't just throw out a possible new arbcom membership requirement
without considering the effects.

Practically - arbcom is going to come from people who already populate
AN and ANI, admins and others.  Nobody else is aware enough of the
abuse issues and problems that crop up.

There are some people on ANI who aren't admins and also aren't at
least somewhat of a problem case.  But most of those are on the path
to be admins or have been asked and have declined.

I am not sure if we want the others as Arbcom members.  That would be
pretty much the opposite of what David is trying to get at, I think.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l