I've given my responses as to why arbcom doesn't bother with these cases in
another response, Jimbo.
But here's the short side:
you've put up so many roadblocks to starting an arbcom case, and there are
so many items an abusive administrator can throw in the way of one, that
there is no chance for any of these cases to possibly see arbcom attention.
Our dispute resolution system is a joke.
On 10/6/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
Why
doesn't ArbCom come down on admins who fail to respect
contributors? Why isn't that a high priority?
Why don't we get the cases brought that mean we could do that? We
have a clear policy on civility. Some people do reckon that long
service gives them some rights in how they talk to others. They are
certainly wrong about that, and should note well that ArbCom doesn't
have binding precedents, and may well up the tariff of punishment for
shooting off your mouth. As far as I can see, this causes a large
outcry when it is proposed, but it may well happen.
I back Charles 100% on this.
I am on the ArbCom mailing list, and take an active part in it. I can
assure everyone that the ArbCom takes a very dim view of admins behaving
badly. The thing is, unless cases are brought, then the ArbCom doesn't
see it.
It's pretty easy to say "thuggish admins going wild"... but what is
needed are specific examples and cases.
There is no doubt in my mind that some of what has been raised in this
thread is valid. As the community has grown, it has become harder to
maintain the distinction between the kindness and love of Wikipedia and
the hostility you find in most of the Internet.
But, I think we still do a pretty good job, even though as humans of
course we could always do better.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l