On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 15:30, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I have stated my views on site politics on this list not so long ago. Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as far as the gender gap is concerned (sadly). So I'd like to see people standing for ArbCom being asked what they intend to do about it.
It's January. ArbCom could start enforcing civility amongst admins now, bring it off successfully and have huge success to talk about by voting in December.
(I outlined a version of this to FT2 and Chase Me Ladies at the 10th Anniversary bash and neither shrieked in horror. A complaints procedure would be a crank magnet. Keep it to "going forward", nothing past; require asking the admin nicely first; vexatious complainants told to go away after. Admin behaviour will rapidly modify as they'll do *ANYTHING* to keep the bit. Admins get more crap than they deserve from the querulous, but this is hardly an onerous proposal. Anyone feel up to pushing it through? Arbcom could start this now based on WP:NPA and WP:BITE as policies, but will probably prefer to get at least a little explicit buy-in.)
- d.
They could but they won't; anyone on this list knows that it's been tried before. Making admins the "civility police" as some folks like to call them is too difficult a nut for the Wikipedia community to crack. Either the admins are bad, the rules are bad, or the whole idea is bad - many prominent, longtime 'pedians would argue all three are true.
Nathan