Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-12-16/Arbitration report
Latest comment: 8 years ago by MarkBernstein in topic Discuss this story
Discuss this story
- It took just under three years for the community to impose discretionary sanctions in the GMO topic area. During that time, many administrators failed to act responsibility and allowed the disputes to get worse. This is unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- We'll be getting new Arbitrators next month. 2016 is gonna be a new year with new cases. Who knows the results? GamerPro64 22:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- It should be an interesting year. Gamaliel (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- I know it's been done before, but one thing I'd be interested in seeing again is an interview with incumbent and outgoing arbitrators: What was/is it like behind-the-scenes on the committee? Is it a mostly collegial body, or are there heated internal disputes that the public eye doesn't necessarily see? What is the hardest part of arbitrating? The easiest? Do the arbitrators themselves feel like they're doing a good job? Mz7 (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- I do have plans to interview the incumbent arbitrators. Didn't think about interviewing the outgoing members. I'll look into that more. GamerPro64 03:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- I know it's been done before, but one thing I'd be interested in seeing again is an interview with incumbent and outgoing arbitrators: What was/is it like behind-the-scenes on the committee? Is it a mostly collegial body, or are there heated internal disputes that the public eye doesn't necessarily see? What is the hardest part of arbitrating? The easiest? Do the arbitrators themselves feel like they're doing a good job? Mz7 (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- It should be an interesting year. Gamaliel (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- We'll be getting new Arbitrators next month. 2016 is gonna be a new year with new cases. Who knows the results? GamerPro64 22:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- It’s not that incumbent arbitrators (who ought to have joined many of their colleagues in resigning in the wake of this disastrous year) should be interviewed, but that ArbCom needs some way to communicate, either in its decisions or elsewhere, what it imagines it is trying to do. On many points this year, not even the closest study could reveal what the committee was thinking. Is vicious off-wiki harassment a useful tool for Wikipedia editors? Read the tea leaves, because nothing in GenderGap, GamerGate, or Lightbreather will tell you. Is sexual harassment OK if you're a Valued Contributor or have powerful friends? Read the tea leaves. In the GMO case, is the committee trying to side with Science, with Corporations, with the Media, or just trying to ban a bunch of unpopular editors and hoping that everyone else will get the hell off their lawn? Read the tea leaves. As to what the committee is trying to say in the still-open AE2 case, we’ll have to hope that the Shadow knows because it’s pretty clear that the committee does not. Next year’s committee either needs to explain cases in their decisions or in the Signpost, or in some other place. Repeating this circus is insanity. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)