[WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?

Mon Mar 7 11:33:39 UTC 2005

AndyL wrote:
> on 3/6/05 9:32 PM, David Gerard at dgerard at gmail.com wrote:

>>Let's get back to the point. You're so far not convincing me that your
>>model works better to get an encyclopedia written than the current one.
>>How does it better achieve that goal?

> It wouldn't artificially discourage people from making legitimate complaints
> for fear that they too would be penalised or at a minimum tempbanned from
> editing an article until the hearing is complete. 

I think you greatly underestimate the propensity for gaming the system
amongst our more antisocial editors. You proposal strikes me as more
gameable, not less.

The Arbitration Committee is ultimately the last stage. On small wikis run
by individuals, the owner of the wiki ultimately is the one who can say to
someone, "You're being a dick and I'm who says so." On Wikipedia, that used
to be Jimbo, but the burden of stupid got too stupid so now it's the AC. The
job of the AC is to be the ones who, ultimately say, "You're being a dick.
Here's how you're being a dick. You're off the wiki until we think you can
behave better. And you, who brought this complaint, your behaviour has been
notably dicklike too."

(see [[:meta:Don't be a dick]].)

Ultimately, the AC is the someones who say "You're being a dick" when it's
needed. It's an elected committee because that way there's some balance.
But that's what its purpose is.

- d.