Jimmy Wales wrote:
charles.r.matthews@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.
True enough, but if the person being abused is a genuine newbie you can't expect him to make immediate sense of the process that would bring his case to ArbCom.
It's pretty easy to say "thuggish admins going wild"... but what is needed are specific examples and cases.
Yes, but not on this thread.
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.
Does the fact that I still believe in those principles mean that I have been here too long?
Ec