On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Given what I said above, I think it is obvious that "designing" a replacement for the arbcom would be an excercise in futility.
I frankly don't even understand how that follows even if what you said above was correct, which it isn't.
If what I wrote was incorrect, you have yet to state which part of what I wrote specifically was in error.
I'm sure there are other errors, or at least misleading statements, but here's two of your statements that are in error.
"this is spun so far that it bears almost nil relation to the real historic record"
For this one, I'll have to put it back on you. What part of what *I* wrote did you find in error?
"positing that Jimbo instituted the Arbcom as his own creation, is just not even close to any form of veracity."
I'm not sure how you can say this "is just not even close to any form of veracity", as it is quite literally true. Jimbo instituted the Arbcom as his own creation. It may have morphed into something different from what he initially intended, but that doesn't change the fact that he created it.
More substantively, I'd say it doesn't even resolve him of the responsibility for having created it. But on that point, I'll probably find myself in the minority of people on this list, since the consensus of Wikimedians seems to be that there's nothing ethically wrong with letting others run amok on the property for which one is the caretaker.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Quite realistically, I don't think this morphing into a discussion of the ArbCom in general is helpful anyway. We really should be focusing on -this particular bad decision- by the ArbCom. The ArbCom does do a lot of good, and they are as human as the rest of us. The main problem is this specific instance.