I do not believe arbcom has truly contributed to the resolution of this
dispute. All they are willing to say is wishing the people work together -
of which a lack of it was the complaint. You are right Arbcom wont rule on
actual content but surely taking action against speedy mass removal of
content would only be sane.
By reviewing 20 December contribution of TTN:
I see TTN revert waring to remove content:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kracko&action=history
I see TTN, Jack Merridew, sgeureka and perhaps other faces that participated
in the RFAR (I didn't look) piling up their vote on the AfD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Recurring_weap…
I see a problem there! Disruption! Arbcom isn't willing to say a thing.
Failing to contribute to dispute resolution is a failure of Arbcom in this
case. Arbcom hasn't even taken measures compelling people to work together.
I'll just watch the fire works now on. The community has continued to ignore
the problem.
- White Cat
On Dec 29, 2007 2:37 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/12/2007, Ned Scott <ned(a)nedscott.com>
wrote:
It's really not fair to say that such users
are unable to work
together. TTN, everyone, and myself, have continued to follow advice
about making more time for discussion and trying to help users
understand why these articles are being removed, rather than just
forcing the issue. This is one reason I didn't think the case needed
to be accepted. The real reason this was an arbcom case was because of
the very large amount of articles that were being redirected, and that
resulting in a lot of different people getting mad. That's very
different than trying different means of resolving the dispute. This
situation is far from hopeless, and despite the impressions you might
have gotten, no one wants to be at each other's throats.
Yeah. The reason the AC has historically avoided content issues is
because they are not and cannot be experts on everything, and really
can't tell when someone's wrong or right in the general case; only
their behaviour.
The other issue is good faith: everyone warring, at each others'
throats, is almost certainly honestly doing their best for an
encyclopedia. It's almost certain no-one is in fact aiming to do evil.
Sometimes, throwing it back is the least worst they can do. The ArbCom
is not your mother, even when you want them to be.
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l