Wikinews EN ArbCom

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Wikinews EN ArbCom

Nathan Carter
I was just wondering what the use of ArbCom is if certain users choose
not to participate and claim that they do not recognise ArbCom procedures.
Why should we even have it if that is the case?
For those interested in this take a look at -
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Requests_for_arbitration/Users_Cartman02au_et_al_v_Mrmiscellanious#Statement_by_User:Mrmiscellanious
Cheers,
Nathan Carter (Cartman02au)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikinews EN ArbCom

Chris Jenkinson
Nathan Carter wrote:
> I was just wondering what the use of ArbCom is if certain users choose
> not to participate and claim that they do not recognise ArbCom procedures.
> Why should we even have it if that is the case?
> For those interested in this take a look at -
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Requests_for_arbitration/Users_Cartman02au_et_al_v_Mrmiscellanious#Statement_by_User:Mrmiscellanious
> Cheers,
> Nathan Carter (Cartman02au)

Well, presumably they would break the conditions set down by the
Arbitration Committee, in which case they could be blocked.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
[hidden email]

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikinews EN ArbCom

Erik Moeller-3
In reply to this post by Nathan Carter
The user in question originally opposed the ArbCom; a discussion
followed. On http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Arbitration_Committee
, Amgine wrote in November 2005: "I'm going to assume, lacking
opposition, that this proposed policy is in force then, and we should
begin considering a slate of people who would be good nominations to
serve." There were no further objections, and a public election
followed; the user in question voted in this election in support of
several candidates and posted no comments indicating that he opposed
the existence of the Arbcom at that point.

Therefore, should an ArbCom ruling require steward action, I would ask
stewards to consider the ArbCom on the English Wikinews to be official
policy as it was developed through an open consensus process. Should
stewards, however, ask for a poll "ratifying" the ArbCom policy, I
would also not object to such a poll being taken.

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikinews EN ArbCom

Nathan Carter
Thankyou Erik :)

Erik Moeller wrote:

>The user in question originally opposed the ArbCom; a discussion
>followed. On http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Arbitration_Committee
>, Amgine wrote in November 2005: "I'm going to assume, lacking
>opposition, that this proposed policy is in force then, and we should
>begin considering a slate of people who would be good nominations to
>serve." There were no further objections, and a public election
>followed; the user in question voted in this election in support of
>several candidates and posted no comments indicating that he opposed
>the existence of the Arbcom at that point.
>
>Therefore, should an ArbCom ruling require steward action, I would ask
>stewards to consider the ArbCom on the English Wikinews to be official
>policy as it was developed through an open consensus process. Should
>stewards, however, ask for a poll "ratifying" the ArbCom policy, I
>would also not object to such a poll being taken.
>
>Erik
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikinews EN ArbCom

Michael R. Irwin
In reply to this post by Nathan Carter
Nathan Carter wrote:

>I was just wondering what the use of ArbCom is if certain users choose
>not to participate and claim that they do not recognise ArbCom procedures.
>Why should we even have it if that is the case?
>For those interested in this take a look at -
>http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Requests_for_arbitration/Users_Cartman02au_et_al_v_Mrmiscellanious#Statement_by_User:Mrmiscellanious
>Cheers,
>Nathan Carter (Cartman02au)
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>  
>
Basically the case was made early both in public and in private to Jimbo
and Larry that "Jimmy says ..." or "Larry says ..." might not scale well
as the sole method of conflict resolution as Wikipedia conquered the
Alexi ratings.

The Arbcom was established sometime thereafter .... possibly to help
provide the appearance of legitimacy to a "community" evolving on an
owner's server's and bandwidth.   Notice that Fred Bauder also
established an outlet for POV articles.  Another useful way to allow
individual expression and bleed off some of the more militant POV
warriors.

The use of Arbcom in the face of some users' refusal to acknowledge its
sovereignty or applicability is fairly straightforward.  Some useful
conflict resolution now is better than zero conflict resolution or
perfect legitimate sovereign resolution authority sometime in the next
few hundred years.  I assume Arbcom has proven efficacious at resolving
some conflict or Mr. Bauder would probably not still be involved with
it.  I saw him in action at several legal articles and he does not
strike me as one interested in wasting his time.

If you wish to improve the perception of the legitimacy of the Arbcom
more widely throughout the "community" it might be useful to consider
ways to improve the selection of the arbitrator's.   I may be out of
date here.  It is possible/likely that the stacked Board has moved
beyond hand picking people it likes and trusts.  OTOH The label and
lynch mentality established early in the project may have simply been
polished up a bit.   Why design and implement a political machine if
there is no intent to use it?  How were the emerging committees intended
to offload some of the stacked Board's workload and traceable
responsibilities established?   Were they handpicked by the stacked
Board, Jimbo, or selected/elected/nominated by the communities of
interest that they serve or represent?

Another angle of attack might be to improve the appearance of the appeal
process.  A few years ago I saw Fred explain that Arbcom's authority was
derived from Jimbo's status as site owner/God King and therefore he
could not really effectively arbitrate policy disputes directly
involving Jimbo as an adversarial party.   As I understand it, at that
time, appeals beyond the Arbcom were made to Jimbo as the God King.  
Borrowing some vernacular from "24", the ultimate governing ontological
dinstinction is "Jimmy says ...".   (Which "24" and I and possibly a few
others rather vocally viewed as a potentially fatal flaw in the
implementation of the universal ether, absolute correct frame of
reference, or NPOV.   Fortunately, there is a limit to how much damage
Jimbo can personally do in other language Wikis.  Inevitably multiple
biases will infiltrate and errors begin to cancel as the WikiEmbassies
and translaters improve the flow of information between wikis. )

We could lift and tailor the U.S. approach to adjudication appeal.  When
U.S. citizens are in dispute with the all powerful executive (el
Presidente Jimbo) the case is generally appealed to a separate body
(U.S. Supreme Court) with authority completely autonomous from the
executive specified by the U.S. Constitution.

Note that in reality this effects the executive very little in day to
day administration.  Presidents often do as they please despite the
Court's rulings.  After all they control the armed forces, the daily
expenditures, and often a public mandate.  Nevertheless it provides a
pressure relief valve and a focus for vocal minorities attempting to
drive change to more tolerable (to them, not necessarily the executive's
minions) conditions.

Note that this process would probably require modification of the
existing charter of the Wikimedia Foundation's filed charter.   This is
not surprising since Jimbo explicitly stated on the Wikipedia mailing
list that he intended to stack the Board and then proceeded to privately
develop the initial Wikimedia Foundation charter to do just that.

The whole issue thus resolves to the question of when Jimbo will get
tired of the problems that unilateral godhead creates within these
projects he founded and whether suitable modifications can be designed
and implemented to rectify the deficiencies before some upstart
organization lifts our materials and begins improving them under a more
useful charter that encourages effective widespread participation.

It will be interesting to see what recommendations the external
professionals the stacked Board has been contemplating bringing in have
and how they compare to some of the community's previously volunteered
opinions and recommendations.   Of course it is always possible that
only yes people professionals will be hired as a next stage of window
dressing.  Effectively this can be done in face saving ways such as
having the consultants or experts provide multiple options along with
analysis from which the client then selects the "best" or preferred
options which are then made public.

Notice how quickly the hired legal expertise turned out to be private
client confidential with the "clients" being the stacked Board members
with fiduciary responsibilities rather than the wiki community members
or foundation membership at large.   This after qualified (Self alleged,
I asked the volunteer for no verifiable credentials, ... assume good
faith and all that.) volunteers from the community at large were
pointedly and repeatedly ignored.

Perhaps we need several teams of legal beagles to adequately represent
all segments of the "community"?

Might also be interesting .... does anyone know whether any of our
attempted grant proposals to date have been declined due to specific or
general concerns stated regarding potential conflicts of interest?

I realize the details are probably
secret/proprietary/private/something.    I am more interested in the
existence of the category .... monies not available locally due to
apparent conflicts of interest.   Could be viable funding should an
upstart fork ever arise to compete ineptly with the status quo we elite
few have created herein.

Regards,
lazyquasar

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l