I do not believe arbcom has truly contributed to the resolution of this dispute. All they are willing to say is wishing the people work together - of which a lack of it was the complaint. You are right Arbcom wont rule on actual content but surely taking action against speedy mass removal of content would only be sane.
By reviewing 20 December contribution of TTN:
I see TTN revert waring to remove content: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kracko&action=history
I see TTN, Jack Merridew, sgeureka and perhaps other faces that participated in the RFAR (I didn't look) piling up their vote on the AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Recurring_weapo...
I see a problem there! Disruption! Arbcom isn't willing to say a thing.
Failing to contribute to dispute resolution is a failure of Arbcom in this case. Arbcom hasn't even taken measures compelling people to work together.
I'll just watch the fire works now on. The community has continued to ignore the problem.
- White Cat
On Dec 29, 2007 2:37 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/12/2007, Ned Scott ned@nedscott.com wrote:
It's really not fair to say that such users are unable to work together. TTN, everyone, and myself, have continued to follow advice about making more time for discussion and trying to help users understand why these articles are being removed, rather than just forcing the issue. This is one reason I didn't think the case needed to be accepted. The real reason this was an arbcom case was because of the very large amount of articles that were being redirected, and that resulting in a lot of different people getting mad. That's very different than trying different means of resolving the dispute. This situation is far from hopeless, and despite the impressions you might have gotten, no one wants to be at each other's throats.
Yeah. The reason the AC has historically avoided content issues is because they are not and cannot be experts on everything, and really can't tell when someone's wrong or right in the general case; only their behaviour.
The other issue is good faith: everyone warring, at each others' throats, is almost certainly honestly doing their best for an encyclopedia. It's almost certain no-one is in fact aiming to do evil.
Sometimes, throwing it back is the least worst they can do. The ArbCom is not your mother, even when you want them to be.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l