Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Filiocht: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
→Request from Dragons flight: somewhat longer response |
||
Line 67:
Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions: [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-October/thread.html#29915][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Proposed_modifications_to_rules] Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 07:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:I'm reading and will get back. My longish post above, written before I read your question, may address it in some small part. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 08:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Interesting reading! I'm one of those who believe that AfD as it currently operates is less bad than any of the alternatives on offer, so I don't have a lot to say there. Ditto (as per my comments [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Proposed modifications to rules|on this page]], although I would favour an increase in the size of the ArbCom.
I am concerned to see how content disputes could be better handled, and see a role for the ArbCom as a court of final resort. It is important to recognise that there is no such thing as a person without a point of view. This has to be the starting point for any discussion of content disputing and NPOV policy. To simplify, editors can be categorised into three meta-groupings:
#Those who edit in good faith but with no awareness of their biases (possibly the majority, generally speaking just need to have their biases pointed out to them).
#Editors who are aware of their biases and make a conscious effort to achieve balance in articles (the "best" editors).
#POV warriors who repeatedly attempt to impose their biases on articles (the problem group)
Bearing in mind that any content dispute is likely to involve a mix of some or all these types, how can we, as a community, best address the challenge involved? Basically, I like the idea of a bottom up approach, with editors first attempting to find consensus in Talk, focusing particularly on such guidelines as [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]. This is most likely to work in the absence of a type 3 editor.
If this fails, I'd suggest the creation of [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Content mediation]], where those involved in a dispute could ask for the assistance of one or more uninvolved admin to help build consensus. I am here suggesting admins because page protection and blocking may become necessary, but there is nothing to stop uninvolved non-admins from helping out. (As an aside, I personally prefer page protection to reflex-action 3RR blocks and would like to see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Content mediation]] replace [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]].
If mediation fails, any or all of those involved, including the mediator(s), can raise a request for comment which may, in turn, result in an ArbCom hearing. My idea is that ArbCom would not rule on actual issues of content but rather on the behaviours of those involved. They may impose sanctions up to and including bans, but most likely order that more disruptive editors refrain form editing the article(s) in dispute. They would also rule that content inserted by such disruptive editors be verified by the other parties, with the assistance/guidance of the mediators and, where appropriate, be included in the agreed version. Editors who oppose the inclusion of any such '''valid''' content may be subject to the sanctions previously handed down to disruptive editors.
I'm sorry that this is so long-winded and that I haven't come up with any exciting new policy to win extra points, just a bunch of tentative suggestions. Then again, I need to remain true to my belief that policy can only be made, changed or broken by consensus, I suppose.
[[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 10:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
| |||