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

Mon Mar 7 16:01:31 UTC 2005

>From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport at bluebottle.com>
>
>The arbcom is empowered to make such decisions.  There is no issue that I
>can see here, except for those who want editors to be free to complain
>about other editors without suffereing the consequences of their own
>behavior where this has been deleterious to Wikipedia.

Why should it be only people who have actually brought cases before ArbCom 
who must "suffer the consequences for their own behaviour where this has 
been deleterious to Wikipedia?"  If you're so keen on the concept that 
everyone should suffer consequences for their behaviour, shouldn't you be 
promoting the idea that ArbCom should have its own investigative police, 
scouring Wikipedia for "deleterious" behaviour, and bringing all suspects 
before ArbCom for summary judgement?

>It's all a matter of what you think arbcom is for. Is it to be a catspaw
>with which adept procedure-manipulators can wage war on their less adept
>enemies, or is it (as I believe to be the case) a body elected by the
>editors and delegated by Jimmy Wales to stop editors doing harm to
>Wikipedia by their actions?  If the latter, it should levy penalties to
>all who merit such penalties.  If it only ever penalizes the people
>nominated by the petitioners, then it can only ever be driven by the
>perceptions of, and the prejudices of, the cleverer, more adept, editors.

You've set up a Strawman ArbCom, and then insisted that the current ArbCom 
is vastly better.  ArbCom has never been "a catspaw with which adept 
procedure-manipulators can wage war on their less adept enemies", and there 
is no indication that it will ever be so.  Rather, it has been a body which 
has helped rid Wikipedia of some of its most egregious policy violators, 
editors who collectively have done more harm to Wikipedia than 100 "catspaw" 
ArbComs could ever do.  The Cheese Dreams et al of Wikipedia were not banned 
for being "unadept" at "procedure-manipulation", and it is ridiculous to 
even imply as much.

Jay.