Wikipedia talk:Decentralizing ArbCom

First question

What chances, honestly, do you think this proposal has? Synergy 01:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I know chances are slim that it will be put into effect. But Esperanza was on almost a similar level as the Arbitration Committee. Someone *had* to bring it up. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No; Esperanza was a bureaucratic social club. Arbcom does do stuff. I hear their mailing list is very busy dealing with all sorts of things. Majorly talk 01:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My money is on "not in a million years". Majorly talk 01:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is worth fighting to me. The ArbCom really needs to be defunct. It is an embarrassment. I will try as hard as possible to make this work. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to how much people cling to it. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh but this has been brought up before. Its so unlikely to happen, I could mark this as rejected right now, and I doubt it would be reverted (sorry if that sounds sarcastic, but this will simply never happen). Synergy 01:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would revert it. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I meant besides you. Synergy 02:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of which way you go, I'd say this proposal seems to follow the actual trend of the community. Remember that the Arbitration Committee was itself created because Jimbo couldn't unilaterally handle all the disputes. To decentralize it would, in my opinion, just be the next step in continuing that process. I think you should include that idea into your proposal. I think one could argue that, similar to how the 1600 or so administrators are important but not the end-all of the community, the sixteen arbitrators shouldn't be the end-all of the community. Just food for thought. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - too radical a change for a relatively mature organization. Not practical. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It should reduce much wasted time on conflicts. No workshop proposals, no bureaucratic processes, etc. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Arbcom is bureaucratic because it's the last line of defense in conflict management. Even a small town with a population comparable to Wikipedia's still has a justice system with a courtroom and a judge, because sometimes a decision just has to be handed down with authority, and authority is dangerous when not accompanied by due process. No "decentralized" conflict management can wield that same kind of authority. Dcoetzee 01:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We have article talk pages, administrators, ANI, AN, "Mediation Committee," user talk pages, RfC. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that ArbCom gets so many cases that have already gone through "article talk pages, administrators, ANI, AN, "Mediation Committee," user talk pages, [and] RfC" indicate to you that these methods alone are not adequate in some cases? Hermione1980 02:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that we don't have to jump to ArbCom once a conflict gets too intense. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So what's the next step when a conflict goes through all the levels of dispute resolution? Without ArbCom, there is no body with authority to put an end to it. At least now, there's a "the buck stops here" level in DR. If ArbCom were dissolved, either a) conflicts would never end, or b) some other body would eventually be granted ArbCom-like authority, and we'd be right back where we are now. Hermione1980 02:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Once a user becomes too troublesome, he/she will be blocked (or have adminship removed, etc), probably, to prevent, not punish. That is *all* that is necessary. There are already never-ending conflicts that the ArbCom cannot seem to resolve. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If a conflict becomes never-ending (as with Scientology) it is evident it will be, with or without ArbCom. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And no attempt at mitigating its effects should be made, 'cause it won't do any good? Sounds kinda fatalistic to me.

I apologize if I am misconstruing your position. From what I'm seeing, it looks like you're saying, "ArbCom doesn't work (debatable, true in some cases and not in others), it's bureaucracy to serve the needs of an expanding bureaucracy (true...but imho it's better than nothing, and if it's going to be abolished plans to replace it should be in place before the sacking happens), and article talk/admin intervention/mediation can solve it (I would argue that the mere fact that ArbCom, well, arbitrates would seem to disprove that)." What are you suggesting instead of ArbCom? Maybe I should ask, in your perfect Wikipedia, what would be the final step in dispute resolution, and what benefit would it provide over the current ArbCom? Hermione1980 02:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In my perfect Wikipedia ANI, etc. is the final step. Almost every conflict on Wikipedia (mostly minor, of course) ends at that. There are major conflicts that end in RfC and ANI. The ultimate goal is to stop troublesome users. There is nothing wrong with a conflict where there are no troublesome users. It is very simple, actually. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In many cases admins can resolve conflicts using ordinary admin authority, exercised to the extent permitted by policy. The issue is that when a conflict involves admins, or requires action beyond what admins are permitted to do, higher authority has to come from someplace, and it can't always be Jimbo. It's optimistic to suppose that no such conflict will ever arise. Dcoetzee 02:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Abitrators are sixteen examples of uninvolved (unless recused) administrators that could help in any conflict. There are many administrators hang around at ANI. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed -- not enough information how to replace current system. And this sounds too much like Anarchy to me. BeckyAnne(talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, so few conflicts end up in ArbCom, of all conflicts. "We have article talk pages, administrators, ANI, AN, "Mediation Committee," user talk pages, RfC." Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: with all due respect, I think Tim Q. Wells has not seen the extent to which conflicts can go. His oft-repeated phrase "We have article talk pages, administrators, ANI, AN, "Mediation Committee," user talk pages, RfC." is, at best, naive. If they have solved all our problems, there won't be an ArbCom in the first place. The very unenforceable nature of all of those means of dispute resolution renders them pointless at times. He says "there are major conflicts that end in RfC and ANI"; there are many major conflicts that the community itself cannot solve because of endless deadlock. That is when ArbCom needs to step in. Removing ArbCom is not a step forward in dispute resolution or a redundant institution; it is necessary when the community cannot solve problems by itself. —kurykh 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

When the community cannot solve it by itself it abruptly goes to some isolated members of the community to help it. We don't need to jump to ArbCom once someone feels the conflict is to intense. And "oft-repeated?" I repeated it once. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it goes to the community when the parties cannot solve it among themselves, or when a third party cannot resolve the dispute; only when the community cannot resolve the problem does and should ArbCom step in. It does not "abruptly" go to ArbCom for no apparent reason; conflicts that need ArbCom to step are usually ones that have been festering for months or even years on end. —kurykh 02:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there are (usually) sixteen administrators that are a third party shows you are wrong. Things like Jayjg's CheckUser incident with CharlotteWebb will not be everlasting. Conflicts like Scientology or Middle East-related articles will be, with or without ArbCom. Those are the ones that last for years. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"The fact that there are (usually) sixteen administrators that are a third party": they themselves, without the binding nature of ArbCom, cannot impose a sanction on any editor even if they agree on everything. If the community cannot, they, as a group, cannot. And you're confusing the issues; ArbCom does not deal with the content topics of Scientology or the Middle East; it deals with the conduct issues that allow them to adversely impact the community. The topics of Scientology and the Middle East will be controversial for the foreseeable future; it was the conduct issues at the time that boiled over, and since the community could not solve them, ArbCom stepped in and stopped it. —kurykh 02:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that well (evident if you've read my other comments). Administrators make bans all the time with "binding nature." Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No they are not of "binding nature" under any interpretation of the term, as they can be overturned by other admins; the very definition of a ban is an indefinite block that no admin is willing to overturn. This clause still holds for community bans; an admin can overturn a community ban, however at his/her own risk. —kurykh 02:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That is one things I mentioned in my proposal. Permanent decisions are overkill and in fact incredibly corrosive. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no "permanent" decisions by anyone, not even ArbCom. There are no permanent desysoppings; people are free to regain the trust of the community and become admins again. People are free to appeal sanctions imposed upon them after a certain period of time. Even bans can be overturned. Your argument makes no sense. —kurykh 04:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al#Remedies Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone (or rather, the party in question) appealed that remedy before? —kurykh 04:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Guanaco did not, but that is irrelevant. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is extremely relevant. It indicates a channel of recourse and appeal, which contradicts your argument of permanence. —kurykh 06:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly think an appeal would have seemed likely? Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that a channel of recourse exists, not whether it has actually been utilized. Permanence implies appeals to overturn it are forbidden; just because something did not happen does not mean it cannot happen. —kurykh 18:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Still irrelevant. The remedy was that Guanaco would never become an administrator again. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Did the remedy say it can't be repealed? I don't think so. My point stands. Stop reading the surface and dig deeper please. —kurykh 04:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just be a request? You say there are no permanent decisions, but there are. You must acknowledge there is a chance that no repeal will ever be accepted. If Guanaco made an appeal, after having adminship removed earlier as well, I completely doubt the Arbitration Committee would suddenly change its mind. It is at least a de facto permanent decision. This would be solved by decentralizing ArbCom. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Conversely, you must acknowledge there is a chance that a repeal will be accepted. Your entire argument above is based on a premise that is at best speculation (and I'm being lenient here); it assumes an entirely hypothetical situation (that an appeal will not be accepted) is true, therefore we must change ArbCom. It's nonsensical and illogical. —kurykh 06:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(reduce indent) That arbitration did state that Guanaco could not ask to have his adminship restored. That kind of statement is rare; a reason is given, though: that he had been desysopped before. I'll agree that this example is relatively permanent. But it's the exception that proves the rule, in fact. Further, point I made, ArbComm decisions are not binding, they are merely advice that is routinely followed. If somehow a community consensus appeared that Guanaco could return as a sysop, a past ArbComm decision doesn't bind a future ArbComm. Basically, if, say, Guananco stood for RfA, objection might be made, based on the old decision. Someone could or would ask for permission or clarification from ArbComm, which could then decide whether or not to permit it. In spite of what was said in 2006. --Abd (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. To avoid beating a dead horse, I will refer to my points above, along with BeckyAnne's and Dcoetzee's. Hermione1980 02:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• OMG Oppose. This proposal does not correct any problems, and would create enormous headaches for all of the issues that have already failed resolution at lower levels of the DR process. It would also make AN/I totally unusable. Horologium (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom is an enormous headache. Creating subpages at AN or ANI is not unheard of. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Arbcom is a headache to whom? If it gives you a headache, don't navigate to the arbcom page. If you find yourself forced to go there as party to a dispute, be less disputatious. Protonk (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was using Horologium's wording, in case you didn't know. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to be glib, but I don't care. The basic thrust of the policy page is that ARB is a bureaucratic nightmare etc., etc.. I'm sure that there is all kinds of bureaucracy related to arbcom. Maybe they have to spin around three times before sitting down. Maybe they need to take a motion to leave and use the bathroom. But I don't care. It is offloaded from the community to them. If we want (and we will always want) some elaborate bureaucratic system to be a final "arbiter" of claims, then I would rather it not be one that I'm expected to work on. If, for all of this bureaucracy gobbledegook that arbcom is, they produce one decision on conduct or content that makes the rest of wikipedia run significantly more smoothly, then it is worth it--mainly because I'm not paying that cost. They are. If I had to participate in eleventyone RfCs and huddles and cabals and what-not in order to produce that marginal change, I would be less inclined to do so. Put in a less sarcastic fashion: we are going to have a court of last resort. That is a foundation directed given (arguably the structure and composition of ARB are foundation directed as well, but let's pretend they aren't). If so, I would rather it be a well insulated, publicly selected and intrinsically motivated group of individuals than whoever is on AN/I that day. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

When conflicts become more intense it gets well-known and lasts for a longer time, so we won't have to worry about faulty judgment from "whoever is on AN/I that day." Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And we don't have to worry about it with the arbcom there either. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The failure of the arbitration committee to be able to deal with difficult issues, even its own organizational integrity is daily becoming more and more obvious. This proposal would turn the asylum over to the inmates and put a final nail in Wikipedia's coffin. The content of the encyclopedia would be a question of who is most aggressive. Fred Talk 04:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It would allow more than sixteen reasonable third-party administrators (that can block) to participate. My ultimate point is that troublesome users can be dealt with by third-party administrators at another discussion page. There are very aggressive users on any side of any conflict. It certainly does cause power-hungriness to be one of the few judges and we have seen it. I also think it will have fewer overly-harsh effects. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. The other methods of dispute resolution are simply incapable of dealing with issues that are taken too far, and ArbCom is where the buck stops. Without ArbCom, ANI ends up being turned into the old community sanction noticeboard, which was effectively a lynch mob more or less; there has to be some level of dispute resolution that has the power to deal out bans and other resolutions to editorial conduct without reducing itself to a giant popularity contest as to how many "support ban" !votes one can get. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the community sanction noticeboard was absurd. That's not what I want ANI to become. If a user becomes outstandingly troublesome and disruptive, he/she can be blocked for a while to be prevented. I generally never endorse indefinite blocks on regular contributors. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Except ANI will become that. Without ArbCom to bring a final judgment on any given case, ANI gets turned into CSN because there's nowhere else to impose blocks/bans on troublesome users. And you "generally never endorse indefinite blocks on regular contributors"? Have you seen some of these ArbCom cases? Good riddance that some of these "regular contributors" are no longer with us. Being "blocked for a while" isn't going to change their behavior. Per Abd below, you apparently haven't thought this through very well, or aren't aware of the consequences of not having ArbCom. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason ANI should become like that, if it is not now. A conflict that would have been dealt with by ArbCom will be dealt with the same way others are. Users are banned all the time by individual administrators' decisions. Part of my proposal is that the permanence of some of the remedies be revoked. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "permanance" regarding banning actions. I cannot stress that enough. Take a look through the archives of AN and ANI. There are numerous unban discussions. Whether they result in an unban is another thing, but the mere fact that they exist is evidence of lack of permanence in the normal sense of the word. —kurykh 02:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I was not talking about AN or ANI. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The basic premise still remains; any block or ban can be overturned. —kurykh 04:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Anarchy is a bloody awful idea for a project like this one. If we were to leave it to RFCs, we'd be neck-deep in problem editors who gleefully ignored the process because there's no teeth to it without another step of conflict resolution that acts as a final step. If it were all down to community enforcement, then the admins would have to just block and block and block - without a step of conflict resolution that has the ability to say "you shall not pass." The ArbCom might not have everything down perfect, but for pity's sake, the new "reform" group has only been working in it for a month! Give them a chance to settle into the new processes they're developing, give them a chance to see some cases and deal with them. I oppose this idea emphatically. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My idea is far from anarchy. Administrators already block and block and block. You're forgetting that ArbCom deals with very few conflicts. Most or all RfAr's involve well-known and respected editors. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Most or all RfAr's involve well-known and respected editors"; That very argument is the case for ArbCom and not against it, as it indicates that the community has deadlocked on such emotionally invested issues. —kurykh 06:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And those are the very conflicts that will not be everlasting, with or without ArbCom. Jayjg's CheckUser incident is a great example. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

They were not everlasting because ArbCom stepped in, not because they did not step in. I can point out another conflict that without ArbCom would have consumed the community in hellfire: the US highway naming dispute. —kurykh 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationalist disputes are another area that ArbCom is quite well suited for. I know that personally I won't step into those, even armed with a block button - they need wide, sweeping and well constructed regulations generated by a central authority that can then be enforced based on those regulations. Without them, we'd pretty much have to block everyone from both sides until things quieted down. Can the block button be worn out? I think that would be a good test. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Completely impractical and lacking in nuance. Not a solution to an actual problem, but an ideologically-based predigested idea. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose. With all due respect to the Mediation Cabal, RFCs and mediation are not effective methods of dispute resolution - they both depend heavily on the willingness of all participants to come to an agreement, have no guarantee of unbiased judgement, and cannot enforce binding remedies to situations. Moreover, deferring these decisions to individual admins is even worse - it gives disruptive users an incredible amount of room for forum shopping. Arbcom provides an indispensable service in acting as a single last recourse for ongoing disputes; abolishing it would guarantee that any but the most trivial disputes could not be resolved effectively. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• oppose. If it wasn't clear already. Synergy 19:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Everyone has good points, but Protonk especially nails it on the head. Grandmasterka 03:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose this, ArbCom is one of the strongest parts of wikipedia. --Rockstone35 (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is attracting so much attention and editors that you need a last stop for the most serious problems. AN/ANI is not capable of solving some problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Well, I was very nearly shown the door for being very active with reform proposals before being a very active editor of articles.... The proposal here shows a remarkable lack of clue as to how Wikipedia works. The editor has been around since 2006 or earlier, which just goes to show.

1. We can't "bag" the Arbitration Committee because we didn't create it and we don't control it. While we may act as if it is "our" Commmittee, and it looks like we elect it, in fact, our election is only advisory. The Committee is appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation or, in practice, by Jimbo. The purpose is to advise them, but because we typically follow the advice as well, it looks like ArbComm is "governing" us. It isn't. It is an advisory body, it has no power to command; but because the advice is considered binding by WMF/Jimbo, it appears to have power. What would be more accurate is to say that it has influence.
2. It may seem like excess bureaucracy, but ... it's the only place where an editor can be fairly well assured of getting some due process, a careful deliberative consideration of issues. I'd agree we should decentralize, in certain ways, create smaller, faster-moving bodies otherwise like ArbComm that can serve for dispute resolution with clear process on a small scale, not to replace ArbComm, but to filter input to ArbComm, but the proposer here seems to think that the informal, pile-it-on, massively vulnerable to participation bias, and highly inefficient process that works very well in the absence of serious division of the community would work as well with the kind of stuff that ArbComm deals with. (The paradox in our existing process is that in certain ways, it's very efficient; but in others, huge amounts of editor time are wasted dealing with stuff that deliberative bodies learned how to dispose of in less than a minute. The only reason Wikipedia has survived this long is that there has been a vast pool of new editors to replace the older, burned-out ones. That's drying up. ArbComm members have wanted to create a Wikipedia Assembly to deal deliberatively with content issues the way ArbComm deals with behavioral ones. Ultimately, it will be needed.
3. "Permanent adminship removal"? How about pizza on Thursdays? I.e., what does this have to do with ArbComm? Adminship is granted or removed. Neither is permanent. The proposer seems to think that, what, removal is permanent? No, it stands until and unless the editor goes through another RfA or adminship is restored by ArbComm action. I've never seen a "permanent" order on this. But maybe I missed it.
4. There is a difference between a block and a ban, and it's important, and that the proposer seems to discount this, well, just goes to show. Any admin can block. No admin can ban; well, he or she can try, but a ban it isn't. That takes the community, directly, or ArbComm. Again, WTF does this have to do with decentralizing ArbComm?
5. AN/I? I've seen the worst decisions, truly embarrassing, made at AN/I, which is easily distracted by trolls and argument without evidence, just opinion. In one situation, a sock puppet of a blocked editor reverted an admin's closing of an AfD as premature (i.e., the day after previous closure). The admin, instead of blocking the fellow, or protecting the AfD, which would have been a use of tools when involved, a big no-no, went to AN/I. Another editor, more or less an ally of the sock puppet, wrote, "What do you say about that article" and AN/I went off on reams of dispute about the notability of the article, completely ignoring the admin who had, quite properly, asked for help with a behavioral issue. Meanwhile, since the AfD was reopened, the community started commenting, and, of course, it couldn't then be closed, and it became contentiously disruptive, with half the community arguing for Keep on procedural grounds and the other half arguing for Delete based on notability arguments. It was really a simple case of editor misbehavior, with a simple solution: another admin closing the AfD and protecting it. Maybe blocking the sock, which is what did eventually happen, but much later. No, AN/I is very badly broken, and the editor who created it later said that he regretted it. In another, sadder case, an editor was topic banned from her favorite activity, DYK, based on claims of evidence that when examined closely had practically no foundation. Again, reams of discussion, much heat and little light. One admin asked for evidence. None was provided, but ... there was still a "decision" -- which ignored the earlier comments -- re the ban; except that no admin actually closed the discussion, it was just a few editors at the end, with some saying, "If the evidence presented by BlahBlah is true .... ban her," but nobody took responsibility for it. Yet the editor was warned of the ban. I stay away from AN/I if I can; I ventured there today by invitation. The noticeboards are not part of dispute resolution; AN/I seems to have been intended as a kind of 911, where relatively urgent situations can be addressed. It is absolutely lousy at anything that requires balanced consideration of evidence. That most situations are properly addressed, probably, isn't the fault of AN/I, it simply doesn't always break down!
6. Tim, get a clue. Your understanding of Wikipedia is shallow. There are, indeed, vast regions of the project that don't need ArbComm; but that's not the whole story. There are other articles and areas where conflict is severe and subtle, where what is obvious is wrong and deeper consideration is necessary. ArbComm is far from perfect, the process by which arbitrators are chosen is in some ways flawed, etc., etc. But we don't get better by dumping it, unless we can replace it with something better, and informal chaos wouldn't be better. In any case, moot. Convince Jimbo, the proposal would have a chance. How likely is that? --Abd (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

1. I've said the same thing.

3. It has so much to do with ArbCom. Permanent decisions are bad, and I have given my reasons. Maybe you don't have an idea on how Wikipedia works. Look at Guanaco. Comment on the bloody proposal, and not me, thank you, you user who edited 2005, same time I did, and became active only in September 2007.

4. Yes.

5. I could give you a bunch of horrible stories about ArbCom.]

6. Don't be insulting. I admitted it is a radical idea. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Numbered responses.
(1) Don't think so.
(3) What permanent decisions? Sure, edited 2005. However, was involved with on-line community since about 1986. Before that, cooperatives, nonprofits. Structure of something like Wikipedia has been my special study for about twenty years. I do know how to fix Wikipedia. Knowing is not enough. But suit yourself. Maybe you know a lot more. Maybe it's just not obvious. Guanaco? Oh, I get it. Very funny.
(4) I thought so.
(5) That would get you up to your neck in dotals.
(6) Radical? Radical requires original thinking and a much better grasp of fundamentals. Otherwise it's not radical, it's just crazy. But funny.

Ah. Forgot to say it. You show your friends ArbComm? Why? --Abd (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been preparing for this question. I talk about it to them (I certainly don't show it) when going on about things I hate about Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia itself, and believe it is the best website on the Internet. Don't misinterpret that. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

One more comment, then miles to go before I sleep. Above, we see how the neglect of a basic deliberative rule, used for centuries, wastes inordinate amounts of time. Now, people may be !voting just for the yucks, and that isn't a waste, but ... don't debate a motion unless someone seconds it! I've seen meeting after meeting spin out because the chair didn't notice the lack of a second (or there wasn't a chair or the equivalent, a member or members paying attention to process). One of the problems of scale is that as a meeting gets larger, there may be someone to "second" practically anything, but then organizations develop committee systems to filter proposals. Structure. Intelligence requires it; without filtering and organizing structure, intelligence is limited to reactivity, it's either stupid (unresponsive) or overwhelmed. --Abd (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you hear yourself? You are so unbelievably immersed in Wikipedia policy that it becomes your primary way of thinking. This is an amazing phenomenon. It isn't even worth the word "radical" to want to decentralize some order system on some website? It's crazy? Heh, and yes, support is what I desperately want right now. BTW, I don't get the joke I made about Guanaco. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps with your thinking an online encyclopedia anyone can immediately edit is a "crazy" idea. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I made proposals for something like it back in the 1980s. Decentralized (with a caveat) is how Wikipedia started, and remained for some time. In other words, the "decentralize" proposal goes back, not forward. We can, in fact, decentralize and improve function, but with a natural hierarchy that serves for large-scale communication and filtering. It's been proposed, see WP:PRX, which would create the network, but that wasn't understood and was thought to have something to do with "voting." Basically, most Wikipedia operations are highly decentralized, ArbComm only deals with narrow areas. Areas where the chaotic cellular activity of normal editorial process didn't work. What ArbComm does could be done much, much better, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't an improvement, it was. Now, as to Guanaco, perhaps you could explain why you referred to that (user?). Maybe a diff? --Abd (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Guanaco has been mentioned above, and that point has been refuted. —kurykh 02:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your card might be marked. Having said that, you might become a cult hero. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are saying. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from an arbitrator

I acknowlege a conflict of interest in that I am a sitting arbitrator, so read my comments with that in mind.

There is an important element of good sense in this proposal, which could be phrased as "the complexity of an ArbCom case should usually be avoided if an issue can reasonably be resolved another way." Actually, though, this has already been the committee's philosophy for a long time: we decline more cases (with a recommendation of mediation, a third opinion, an ANI discussion, or whatever seems appropriate) than we accept. In fact, a lot of situations that probably would have been ArbCom cases a couple of years ago are now handled directly by administrators or the community. (The corollary is that the average case that actually is accepted is more complicated than it used to be, because the simpler cases cases don't come to us any more.)

The essayist says that the bureaucracy of ArbCom embarrasses him when he explains Wikipedia to his friends. With respect, there is no need to discuss the details of ArbCom or our other internal procedures in explaining what Wikipedia is to someone outside the project or to a new editor. This would be a bit like a doctor, asked to summarize the practice of medicine, explaining the procedures for professional discipline and malpractice suits. It's important information for those who need it, and can be mentioned in passing so the listener will be able to ask for more details if later needed, but it forms little part of an introduction to the subject. We insiders can lose sight of it sometimes, but the "average Wikipedian" or casual editor probably has little awareness of and even less interaction with the arbitration process.

Finally, the essayist has overlooked that an important part of the committee's work is dealing with disputes that involve non-public information and matters that cannot or should not be discussed on-wiki. These range from serious legal threat situations, outing situations, sockpuppet allegations involving checkuser data, and so on. The essayist has not proposed an alternative method for addressing these types of problems, whose number, unfortunately, seems to be increasing. I cannot think of a better means of resolving them than by confiding trust in a group of experienced users selected through a community election.

For these reasons and some others discussed above, and despite the workload reduction I would enjoy if the Arbitration Committee were dissolved or "decentralized," I cannot endorse this proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the legal threats and other things they deal with. I don't have a problem with some group if the ArbCom is decentralized, that has to deal with that. A residual ArbCom, that has been decentralized. Good point. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I had been preparing for this. I should not have told other people about it if it would embarrass me. I give detailed discussions about Wikipedia to others. However I thought my embarrassment was worth mentioning. Also, if that is the committee's philosophy, how ironic.... Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the nature of any community or organization. Complexity just tends to evolve over time. I mean, just try to explain what "the encyclopedia that anybody can edit" meant at the start (just that), with the addition of blocking (ok, not those people), protection (ok, not those pages), and now with flagged revisions (ok, but nobody will see it). It's a sign of maturity in my opinion, not something to be dismissed. Now, I think the complexity has started to bend back, as CSD, non-free imagery and notability policies have clarified but things always change. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Users proposing abolishing arbcom appear at almost every arb election and they're always soundly defeated. Arbcom exists because the community can't deal with difficult conflicts, that's why cases end up at arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for an overview of what ArbCom is meant to do. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the community could deal with many of the conflicts at a lower level, before they escalated to the absurd degrees of ArbCom cases. We just need a few simple procedures, minimally bureaucratic but leading to clearly defined decisions on matters of substance. These could be handled by admins or other experienced editors, without the need for everyone to waste time at ArbCom except in exceptional cases.--Kotniski (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

NYBrad, you must not have thought things thru when you said it was difficult for a doctor to summarize "the procedures for professional discipline and malpractice suits". Someone did that a few centuries ago: "First of all, strive to do no harm"; all of that professional discipline & malpractice comes in to solve the problems when that rule is ignored. (And there are many complications in that solution, but that's because people are involved.) I always summarize the goal of the ArbCom this way: "this is the mechanism used to end the most difficult & bitter disputes between Wikipedians." (Yes, there are many complications in that mechanism, but that's because people are involved.) Any alternative to the ArbCom must not only end those disputes -- but in a better & more efficient manner. The only solution I've been able to come up with is don't get involved in a difficult & bitter dispute to begin with. -- llywrch (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, some (not referring to anyone in particular) are unable to extract themselves with from such "difficult & bitter disputes," hence the existence of ArbCom. —kurykh 02:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You are, unfortunately, correct Kurykh. -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, can we end this already?

It's obvious that this proposal has no consensus, and the chances of it passing are roughly zero. At this point, we're arguing over the nuances of dispute resolution with one user, and nothing is going to come out of this. Any opposition to marking this as rejected? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the proposal in its present form is going anywhere, but there is something in this. The excessive bureaucracy that Wikipedia is developing into, as exemplified by ArbCom and the way it functions, as well as much else that goes on around policies, processes and so on, is surely creating a community that will end up failing to attract and retain the sort of people we want to help build an encyclopedia. This overriding goal often seems to be lost sight of in the melee of discussion about rules and procedure in general and in specific cases. I agree with everything in the proposal except the proposed solution itself - perhaps we can work on it to find a more profitable direction to go in?--Kotniski (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting rid of ArbCom apparently has no consensus. If such a proposal had any sort of consensus from the community, it would have been done already in the reform firestorm we had before the elections. Someone in the giant morass of ArbCom reform proposals would have we get rid of ArbCom if there was any support for such a thing, and Kmweber, the anti-ArbCom candidate running for ArbCom, was rejected by the community by a ridiculous margin (besides the fact that he's a troll, but whatever). If you want to make your own suggestion for an alternative to ArbCom or think that another essay on why bureaucracy on Wikipedia is ridiculous, then feel free to make another proposal. This one isn't going anywhere. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an understatement that "this proposal has no consensus." It has no support at all, nobody else has signed in support, only the author of the proposal. Eventually, you could someone, I'd think, to sign on, when the group aware is large enough, but this was on AN/I. I'm still amazed that we will write so much in opposition to a proposal which has no second. One of the obvious areas where Wikipedia process could be improved would be to implement that principle (no debate without a second) more thoroughly. I wrote here more or less as a personal attempt to explain exactly why the proposal was so thoroughly off, and not "radical" as thought. --Abd (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagged as essay

The page reads more like an essay, so I've tagged it as such. If it's reworked, it could become a proposed policy. --TS 11:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a proposal, but a very simple one. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And one that, while made with good intentions, is, with all due respect, divorced from reality. —kurykh 18:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The best idea I've heard all week...

Unfortunately, it will never work. Enwiki has long since passed a point where it does need a team of holier-than-thous to keep the peace. Its not ideal, I wish we didn't need it, but we do. The days of civility are long since gone, and unfortunately when you have 8.8 million users (and around 160k active users), you're naturally going to create conflict. People disagree over fundamental things, and I am afraid that this cannot be helped. Claiming to be NPOV doesn't help the issue, it just agitates feelings. To take a common example: anti-abortionists feel that any stance other than anti-abortion is pro-abortion. Forget being neutral: we're already offending them by not being anti-abortion. The same goes for gay rights, religious views, geo-political concerns, and a whole host of other issues.

Back to my original point: this is why we need ArbCom. In an ideal world we wouldn't. In an ideal world, people could collaborate on neutrally-phrased articles and be just fine. Sadly, the concept of "live and let live" is lost on far too many people. The ArbCom is here to keep people from killing each other (metaphorically). Without somebody having the final say, Enwiki would have long since degenerated into a cesspool of arguments--some would argue it already has, and has been this way for quite some time. So while I would love to bag ArbCom, MedCom, RFC, AN/I, etc...they are a necessary evil of the community we inhabit. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)