| Revision as of 22:07, 16 March 2013 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,282 edits →Email: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:51, 16 March 2013 edit undoNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,665 edits →"etc": new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| I think a fair number of potential candidates are turned off by the prospect of having their email box stuffed endlessly with ArbCom emails. Somebody mentioned that the Malleus situation resulted in 1,000 email. It would be great to minimize email usage. I get it that the clerks need to have a way to email the Arbs for guidance, or that there needs to be a way to notify people to go vote on a matter. Email can be used for procedural stuff, but the substantial discussions would be most beneficial if held in the open. That would tend to increase trust. People are scared by what they don't know. If they can follow a discussion, there is less fear, and the result is less of a surprise or shock. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC) | I think a fair number of potential candidates are turned off by the prospect of having their email box stuffed endlessly with ArbCom emails. Somebody mentioned that the Malleus situation resulted in 1,000 email. It would be great to minimize email usage. I get it that the clerks need to have a way to email the Arbs for guidance, or that there needs to be a way to notify people to go vote on a matter. Email can be used for procedural stuff, but the substantial discussions would be most beneficial if held in the open. That would tend to increase trust. People are scared by what they don't know. If they can follow a discussion, there is less fear, and the result is less of a surprise or shock. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == "etc" == | |||
| Please clarify what "etc" means because the two points you mention aren't going to really help matters. Not many people who are dissatisfied with the 13 arbitrators handling the very occasional sockpuppetry case offwiki (if you recall, the last sockpuppetry allegation we received is being handled onwiki right now, as is the case for most of them). Additionally, we just had a big discussion about child protection with the Office on functionaries-en and it seems pretty clear that the Foundation is not going to step in. Do you propose that we simply stop taking action on child protection reports? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 23:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:51, 16 March 2013
Yup; good start
Thanks for working on this.
There are a bunch of trusted user groups (OTRS volunteers, checkusers, oversighters, stewards, Wikimedia Foundation staff) who can handle a lot of what ArbCom is currently trying to handle. And roles and responsibilities are already somewhat delineated (other groups, queues, mailing lists, etc. already exist), but you're absolutely right that it could be better. If none of these other trusted user groups are willing to deal with a particular request type, those requests can probably be safely ignored or punted back to the broader community. (It's not as though requests aren't being ignored already, this would just make the process clearer to everyone involved.)
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees asked Sue Gardner to narrow the Wikimedia Foundation's focus recently (cf. m:User:Sue Gardner/Narrowing focus). I think ArbCom should seriously consider a similar tactic. ArbCom should figure out what it can do well and what the community wants it to do well and then do that. Easier said than done, I realize. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I think a fair number of potential candidates are turned off by the prospect of having their email box stuffed endlessly with ArbCom emails. Somebody mentioned that the Malleus situation resulted in 1,000 email. It would be great to minimize email usage. I get it that the clerks need to have a way to email the Arbs for guidance, or that there needs to be a way to notify people to go vote on a matter. Email can be used for procedural stuff, but the substantial discussions would be most beneficial if held in the open. That would tend to increase trust. People are scared by what they don't know. If they can follow a discussion, there is less fear, and the result is less of a surprise or shock. Jehochman 22:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
"etc"
Please clarify what "etc" means because the two points you mention aren't going to really help matters. Not many people who are dissatisfied with the 13 arbitrators handling the very occasional sockpuppetry case offwiki (if you recall, the last sockpuppetry allegation we received is being handled onwiki right now, as is the case for most of them). Additionally, we just had a big discussion about child protection with the Office on functionaries-en and it seems pretty clear that the Foundation is not going to step in. Do you propose that we simply stop taking action on child protection reports? NW (Talk) 23:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)