I'm afraid Jimbo that is not my experience of the Arbcom, I regard them as spiteful and vengeful, not qualities needed in an Arb. More interested in maintaining their own status quo than in the encyclopedia. In my opinion many of them need replacing, and even more of them removing from the Arb's mailing list.
Giano
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
White Cat wrote:
Arbcom takes a lot of time to make quick and rash decisions. You hardly
see
extensive discussions by arbitrators on workshops or proposed decisions anymore
In my experience, this is not true. If there are real problems, then please bring me a specific detailed case in which the ArbCom really got something badly wrong. There is an appeal mechanism, after all. And in my experience, the ArbCom is eager to correct errors, examine everything to see where the evidence leads, etc.
Not all the work is public, and for good reason. There are frank and thoughtful discussions about how to best defuse difficult situations, etc.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l