I completely understand that ArbCom wasn't going to make a content
decision (although, I still kinda question why not. If ArbCom is our
equivalent of the Supreme Court, they should have this jurisdiction.).
It just seems odd to me. ArbCom is our highest level of dispute
resolution. So, those in dispute must have went through several other
mediums of DR before getting to ArbCom. ArbCom takes the case, and
spends a month reviewing evidence and what-not. Then, they come back
with a ruling and that ruling is to urging the editors to work
collaboratively and constructively with the community and implement an
acceptable approach to resolving content dispute (paraphrase of actual
ruling). Obviously, they are unable to do this and that's why its failed
a couple previous rounds of dispute resolution. Just seems off to me. By
the time a case gets to ArbCom, all matters of negotiations have failed.
I don't even know what I expected ArbCom to do, it just seems like a lot
of wasted time for an impotent ruling.
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 11:40 AM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:EPISODE
That is actually not all that uncommon for these types of situations -
similar things happen in nationalism disputes. Rather than making the
difficult content dispute decisions (which isn't their place) they
admonish editors to work constructively and sometimes address conduct
issues if necessary.
They didn't accept this case to deal with the underlying content
dispute, and the decision principles cover the conduct that was
objectionable which was the basis of 'cert' here.
Generally, there is no need to pause attempts to build consensus in a
content dispute during an ArbCom case, as long as it is done without
exacerbating the conduct and policy issues being addressed by Arbs.
On Dec 28, 2007 12:28 PM, Majdan, Nik <nmajdan(a)aplmc.com> wrote:
Just FYI for everyone, this ArbCom case has closed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes
_and_characters
I don't follow ArbCom cases too much but was following this one as a
frequent editor of the Scrubs TV series articles. I was surprised at
the
lack of an apparent decision in this one. As I stated
in AN, telling
the
editors to "work collaboratively and
constructively with the broader
community" seems ridiculous to me. The case made its way to ArbCom
because the editors were unable to do exactly that. Granted, ArbCom
doesn't get into content disputes, but telling users to work together
who obviously can't seems counterproductive to me. There was a reason
it
went to ArbCom in the first place.
_______________________________________________
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
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is non-public, proprietary,
privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and
(i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message
immediately if this is an electronic communication.
Thank you.