On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
White Cat
wrote:
Who said anything about ruling on content? Provided there are no
pressing
legal issues like WP:BLP or WP:COPYRIGHT
violatons, any user who mass
removes material w/o consensus inherently is hurting the encyclopedia.
Any
arbcom ruling over the behaviour of such users
has noting to do with
content. Arbcom was unable come up with anything enforceable on E&C1.
E&C1
served to no purpose.
Are we dealing with the Arbcom in general, or your own personal problem
with them?
You guys asked me to give an example and I have given you an example that I
am most familiar with, cases I had been involved with... This kind of
prosecution is exactly why I did not want to give examples. So pull the
other leg...
I am a causal user. I do not have any reason to
even glance at the
workshop.
Then why bother bringing it up. If you
had no reason to look at it, why
would you have any reason to complain about what is or is not in it..
Because Arbcom payed very little attention to it that is the complaint on my
end, something you do not seem to comment on.
It is the duty of arbitrators to look at all
aspects of the case to make
the
best judgement calls.
Arbitrators need to objectively read the workshop and pull out anything
they
feel is worth a vote. Why else is the workshop
there? If it has no
purpose,
abolish it.
Looking at and reading its contents does not imply an obligation to
comment on evry drive-by rant. If they find a good idea they use it, and
adjust their decision accordingly.
Commenting on some of the issues may be necesary. Avoiding each and nearly
every workshop entry particularly in complex cases are not helpful. Parties
may reach a voluntary compromise in the remedies if arbcom participated in
the discussion. Arbcom participation in workshop discussion has no harm and
lots of potential benefit. That is exactly why the rfar workshop is divided
into 3 parts. One for arbitrators which is typically underused/unused, one
for involved parties, and one for everybody else.
Imagine arbitrators actually talking to people.
Since trolls may abuse
it we
must punish everybody as if they were trolls.
I get the impression that what you mean by talking with them is getting
into exchanges with the peanut gallery. It's a an arbitration not a
mediation. They can ask questions, and they can issue a decision.
Going much beyond that brings their credibility into question.
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
Talking to arbitrators is not a compromise from credibility, on the
contrary such a thing reinforces their credibility if anything. They have a
responsibility to hear out everyones perspective to help determine the
middle ground. Arbitrators are not gods that we cannot reach or interact
directly. They do not need such a protective veil. This isn't a legal court
system and arbitrators are not judges that need to live in complete solitude
from the case they are reviewing.
- White Cat