On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> on this list cares about ArbCom decisions, most of the time, and so does the
> entire body of administrators in the English Wikipedia. For the record,
> ArbCom members derive their authority from 300 to 600 supporters' votes.
> Wikimedia UK board members, from 40 or 50.
600 is less than the number of "active" administrators, though. But
let's not argue about numbers. I have given some context for my remark
now, which you could have.
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I meant that each individual arbitrator was voted into office with 300 to 600 Wikimedians' support votes, vs. three or four dozen for each Wikimedia UK board member. ArbCom represents a significantly greater Wikimedia electorate (probably even within the UK) than the WMUK board. But no matter. I agree arguments about numbers are tedious.
> Refusing to acknowledge any problem, and beating up on ArbCom instead,
> really is the least well advised strategy to deal with this situation.
I have certainly not been attacking ArbCom as an institution. I have a
long-term problem with the workshop, which I have never liked, but
otherwise I think ArbCom in general does pretty well.
I sometimes disagree with Arbitration decisions; when I was asked
about this particular pending decision by a Board member, I said that
ArbCom is fallible, but it tends to know more about the case than we
do (i.e. not all the information they have is always public, or fit to
be made public).
I in fact met three arbs for the first time at Wikimania, with two of
whom I had worked. I talked also with Risker, who came onto the
committee after me. I am not attacking any of these people, please let
me say. There is a half-told story about the Fae case and Wikimania
and the ban, clearly, but I am also not going to try to tell that
story either.
I am not going to say "let's move on", because the topic of the thread
is a legitimate one for members of the chapter to discuss. I am not
myself a WMUK member, and I have things to do now, as do the Board and
Fae. I have my own views on framing the issue, which have to some
extent appeared in this thread. Please everyone respect AGF in any
further contributions, and minimise personalia.
Fair enough, Charles.
Let me add that, like everyone else, I don't agree with every detail of every ArbCom decision either. That's only natural; the arbs don't even always agree among themselves. But on the whole I believe the committee as a group get it right, and significantly more so than the community average as expressed at a free-for-all venue like ANI. If ANI were all Wikipedia had, all hope would be lost.
Even where I wish ArbCom had decided differently in a specific case, I can still see that the decision they made was made in good faith, and within the realm of what's reasonable. One can't ask for more than that.