QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 7th July 2011, 8:56am)
QUOTE(Rhindle @ Wed 6th July 2011, 11:01pm)
If I were an admin, I would Block em' all and let Arbcom sort it out.
A case like this shows just how dysfunctional Wikipedia currently is. A large percentage, perhaps as high as two-thirds, of the editors who have opined on that case request are probably activists to some extent in some topic area in Wikipedia. How could ArbCom clear-up a problem that deep-rooted without being able to fundamentally alter how WP is administered?
Right. That's why they bury their heads in the sand. It's much more comfortable.
There is an obvious solution: facilitate DR, set up real dispute resolution process, facilitated by experts, or at least by people with good success in finding consensus (as quite distinct from deciding what side of a dispute is "wrong" and blocking that side). Enforce behavioral restrictions with graduated remedies that encourage cooperation and discourage battle. Distinguish between battle and "pov-pushing," i.e, expressing a pov, as if the latter were a bad thing.
Clarify and enforce recusal policy. I argued that any admin should recuse on request. On recusal, an admin proceeds as any other editor, they may file complaints, etc. Allow emergency bypass of recusal rules upon prompt notice, declaring emergency, and consultation. "Emergency" would only allow short blocks.
Administrators should have clear policy to follow which would both enable and protect them. I saw an admin desysopped for blocking an editor while allegedly involved, but the admin had immediately consulted. Errors should be allowed.
Suspend admin privileges for recusal failure, unless the admin acknowledges the failure and shows understanding and acceptance of the policy. Suspend admin privileges immediately upon a showing of cause to believe that there has been recusal failure without proper process being followed. Suspension should not be considered and should not require a finding of guilt.
"Suspending admin privileges" may include flexible injunctions, i.e, orders to not use tools in some specific area, and would only involve actual lifting of the tools if the orders are violated.
Indeed, injunctions should be used far more liberally as an alternative to blocking. Set up full deliberative process for appeals of restrictions. Develop a user set, clerks, whose task would be to neutrally organize deliberations, making the process intelligible, instead of the tangled threaded mass that often results.
Respect editors, they are more likely to return this with respect. If not, well, you do what you can do.
ArbComm followed, itself, highly defective process that boiled down, too often, to personal likes and dislikes.
Create a Wikipedia Assembly, either using delegable proxy or, if secret ballot is to be used, Asset Voting. The Assembly, elected in this way, would fully represent the interested editorial community, and would then allow authenticated and efficient communication between the full community
and the WMF. Let the Assembly elect ArbComm and appoint whatever executives are needed.
Let the Assembly determine its own operating rules, as is standard with any deliberative body.