<DIV>Mediators certainly have a right to discuss the creation and repeal of policies. But once policies are in place, they should be expected to enforce them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>RickK<BR><BR><B><I>Anthere <anthere8@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Do you suggest that any arbitrator have '''no''' right to participate to <BR>building policies from now on ?<BR><BR>I suppose that similarly mediators have no right to participate in edit <BR>wars from now on as well ?<BR><BR>Just as Jimbo has no right to edit articles ?<BR><BR>If so, we might just forget the whole process entirely.<BR><BR><BR>Rick a écrit:<BR>> I request Sean Barrett's removal from the arbitration committee.<BR>> <BR>> RickK<BR>> <BR>> Sean Barrett <SEAN@EPOPTIC.ORG>wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > I question your suitability for the role of arbitrator based on your<BR>> > condescention towards those who want the wikipedia policies enforced.<BR>> <BR>> You told me to work to have the policy changed; I tell you to work to<BR>> have me removed. Jimbo appointed me; convince him to remove me. As<BR>> an alternative, if a simple majority of my
fellow arbiters ask me to<BR>> step down, I will.<BR>> <BR>> > The only argument you have given<BR>> > against enforcing such rules is that your time is too precious.<BR>> <BR>> I haven't even given that argument, and I don't intend to give any<BR>> arguments. I simply refuse to be compelled to arbitrate the way you<BR>> think I should.<BR>> <BR>> > So would it be correct to conclude that you either you think that<BR>> nobody will<BR>> > be driven away by person al attacks, or it is not worth your time<BR>> to retain<BR>> > these contributors?<BR>> <BR>> Co nclude what you like. I am a free man. You cannot compel me to<BR>> rule on a case I don't choose to rule on. I encourage you, however,<BR>> to work on impeaching me from the arbitration committee.<BR>> <BR>> > I will also put to you my opinion that in cases where<BR>> > there has been a gross violation of policies such as "no personal<BR>>
attacks",<BR>> > all the arbitration committee will have to do is the following:<BR>> <BR>> And I suspect that in cases where there has been a gross violation of<BR>> the "no personal attacks" policy, there will be contemporaneous<BR>> violations such as edit warring, which I agree rise to a level<BR>> requiring arbitration.<BR>> <BR>> > Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.<BR>> <BR>> Don't forget to inform the arbitration committee of my dereliction of<BR>> duty, and impress upon Jimbo the urgency of appointing arbiters who<BR>> will always rule the way you tell them to.<BR>> <BR>> -- <BR>> Sean Barrett | To bite off your shadow is neither easy<BR>> sean@epoptic.com | no r painless. It<BR>> demands a single-mindedness<BR>> | that is almost unknown in this day.<BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> Do you Yahoo!?<BR>> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site
building tool. Try it! <BR>> <HTTP: evt="21608/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/" us.rd.yahoo.com><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>> WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org<BR>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org<BR>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l</BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21608/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/"><b>Try it!</b></a>