Jimmy Wales 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.
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