Grants talk:IdeaLab/An outside observer on the arbitration committee
Add topicSpecifics would make this proposal far stronger
[edit]This proposal could benefit profoundly from some specifics regarding how it would be enacted. What kind of expert would be chosen? An HR professional? A lawyer? A psychologist? Would this person be paid or expected to volunteer (that would be where the grant would come in)? Who would have the authority to choose or remove this person? Would he or she serve for a fixed term? What specific actions would he or she perform? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I intend to write more when I can, and add some references, but since the voting is well underway, I wanted to at least get the proposal out there. You can find some discussion of the specifics on the page I linked. The idea was originally proposed by SV, the Wikipedian who started the Gender Gap Task Force, but I am somewhat unique in that not only have I previously dealt with Arbcom in my capacity with the Signpost (and at one time was one of their supporters), but also currently have standing to bring a request to Arbcom for potential observation. —Neotarf (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say I have mixed feelings. I don't think they made the right decision in my case, but I think it's more the system than the individuals. One specific advantage of this proposal is that people who're very very immersed in Wikipedia's rules might not realize how unintuitive they can be to someone who isn't. An outsider might help with that.
- I want this to pass, and I think it is more likely to pass if it contains specifics on its own page. $0.02. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can see I've hit a nerve here, the endorsements are growing. What I had in mind was about process, and appeals might be part of that process. But what is really needed is for an expert to look at these processes and evaluate them by some criteria, and say how this is affecting our diversity issues, since the theme of this grant cycle is harassment. Heaven knows there has been enough negative publicity. But if we can fix our governance processes to be fair for diversity users, it should be more fair for everyone. The more I think about it, the more I think a lawyer or law student (SV might disagree here) is the type of expertise needed. I think the Foundation or maybe its partners would have to be heavily involved in the format here as well, as there are some core privacy issues. —Neotarf (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm all for improving the project even if it doesn't directly affect my own situation. Better diversity => better Wikipedia. But it's not clear how attaching a lawyer to ArbCom would increase our diversity. Do you think minorities and women are being unfairly targeted? Do you think the Arbitrators are subconsciously picking up on speech patterns associated with minorities and giving them harsher rulings? Do you think they discriminate against people with less-educated writing styles? Then why a lawyer and not, say, an HR professional or sociologist? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can see I've hit a nerve here, the endorsements are growing. What I had in mind was about process, and appeals might be part of that process. But what is really needed is for an expert to look at these processes and evaluate them by some criteria, and say how this is affecting our diversity issues, since the theme of this grant cycle is harassment. Heaven knows there has been enough negative publicity. But if we can fix our governance processes to be fair for diversity users, it should be more fair for everyone. The more I think about it, the more I think a lawyer or law student (SV might disagree here) is the type of expertise needed. I think the Foundation or maybe its partners would have to be heavily involved in the format here as well, as there are some core privacy issues. —Neotarf (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Publicizing this proposal
[edit]A link to Village Pump Proposals or Village Pump Policy might bring in more voices. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Opposed: Arbcom is a directly elected representative body of the community
[edit]Anybody can run and anybody can vote. Who elects the overseer? Absolutely nobody. This is just another tier of bureaucracy and undermining of direct democracy proposed by a banned editor on En-WP for reasons which are not hard to imagine. Carrite (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've thought about what you said, and I think that could be a problem if the outsider had any authority to overrule or even vote with the committee, but as proposed this would only be an advisory position. We're all volunteers on Wikipedia, and a professional of some stripe might be able to help with some of the arbitration system's problems. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Opposed as written: ArbCom needs an outsider, but a professional arbitrator
[edit]I'm not opposed to the idea of at least one arbitrator who is not directly elected (or in fact multiple outsiders replacing ArbCom). However, I strongly suspect, given the tone, that my vision of what outsiders on ArbCom would look like -- actual professional, paid arbitrators that have experience with concepts like consistent evidentiary rules, all parties being treated fairly, and the various other trapping that are part and parcel with due process -- is not what's desired here. I have zero interest in outsiders on ArbCom if the purpose is to make sure that cases are politicized even more than they are now in order to reinforce the rightspeak of a particular clique. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your vision sounds sufficiently different from what is suggested here that it would be worth it to write it up as a separate proposal. For my part, I don't think ArbCom should be replaced entirely, but I would like to see more of some of the other things you've mentioned. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Grants to improve your project
[edit]Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. The deadline for draft submissions is tommorrow. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.
- Submit a grant request
- Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants or Project and Event Grants
The next open call for Project Grants will be in October 2016. You can also consider applying for a Rapid Grant, if your project does not require a large amount of funding, as applications can be submitted anytime. Feel free to ping me if you need help getting your proposal started. Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 22:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom works
[edit]It's obvious. If you want to be freed from ArbCom restrictions, just contact a member on another WMF wiki they're active on. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)