Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RFC

I think in general this is a good idea and something that needs to be done. I'll take my own example because I know it better than any others: I was involved in a content dispute and I was punished for that by the ArbCom even though there was really no rational reason for punishment, since I repeatedly stated I was open to any kind of compromise or concession. But basically a content dispute had gotten heated and moved along to the point that people collectively seemed to agree that something needed to be done to resolve it; they were tired of the endless bickering and personality feuding. So I was slapped with a harsh penalty, ostensibly for bad behavior, which effectively ended the content dispute, but without any actual consideration of the content itself.

I think that's less than ideal, and something of a stopgap remedy where a more direct and effective approach could be imagined. It might have been more effective, in a case where nobody was breaking any rules, but tensions were clearly at an intolerable level, to have a committee to take a look at the content issues and make some broad recommendations about it, perhaps even make a judgment on some particularly contentious specific points. As I see it, that would undoubtedly have resolved the issue without requiring any unreasonable user penalties.

The case I was involved in is a part of the broader differences of opinion between inclusionists and deletionists. These disputes get very heated at times and really go to the very heart of what Wikipedia is as an encyclopedia, yet the resolutions we arrive at are often clumsy and inconsistent. It would be nice to have a committee to say, regarding the most intractable sorts of questions, that one thing seems generally preferable and one thing seems contrary to such and such basic principle. I think ideally this would not be something with any kind of teeth, but just an advisory committee that people would more or less agree to adhere to. If they didn't, then I think that would make these cases more clearly behavioral in nature (in an indirect sort of way) and more easily dealt with by the ArbCom. Those are just some thoughts off the top of my head after reading what Raul wrote. Everyking 19:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wrong place to comment
Sorry if I put my screed in the wrong place. Since I'm not on the arbcom, I guess it wasn't my place to comment.

I don't think I'm in "some kind of old-timers heaven", I just forgot. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:42, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Increased civility
The real problem is lack of civility in the discussion. The solution is much simpler than many of the dicussions above - more frequent and broader use of specific subject matter bans, based on behavior. We should continue to use behavior as the barometer, one revert a day for 2 weeks is just as egregious as 3RR. We should not rely on subject matter experts the opinions of those in the field are easily available. No one or two (or ten editors) will hold back the work that needs to be done - and those that can not compromise and consensus build should work on other things.

Providing a better environment for people to work - Good. More and more buraaucracy - Bad. Trödel| talk 21:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. Less buraucracy = speeder RfC = what we need. For example, the (first and only so far) case I am invovled in, Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas, is dragging close to a month now, with almost nothing happening lately, and I have to admit I am dissapointed in RfC. In such a simple case, why a decision cannot be made in less then one week? I am afraid to think how long decisions must take in more 'grey' situations, if simple banning of a permanent vandal and his IP range with no objections takes close to (or longer then...?) a month. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lengthy page
Whoa, this is long. It kind of impairs legibility of the entire discussion. There are over a dozen proposals up to now, and several of them have apparently been discounted because too many people think it's not a good idea. Maybe those should be moved to some archive page, so we can focus on brainstorming on the active proposals? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)