On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 07:42:46 +0200, "Andries Krugers Dagneaux" andrieskd@chello.nl wrote:
One of the working principles of the arbcom is that it does not want to be fair to editors, but to make decisions that will help the project.
That's up there with "verifiability, not truth". It does not mitigate against the idea that there is a set of principles which enjoy broad support, and whose rejection tends to be connected with a short and turbulent life on Wikipedia.
Guy (JzG)
That is not what I meant. I was topic-banned by the arbcom though my edits on that topic ([[Sathya Sai Baba]]) were described as "generally responsible" and I repeatedly but unsuccessfully requested diffs that show that I broke Wikipedia policies or made disruptive or activist edits. When I asked Flonight whether topic-banning in the absence of such diffs was fair, I was told that the arbcom does not want to be fair to editors. Charles Matthews endorsed her reasoning in this respect. If that is the reasoning of the arbcom then I have no intention to be fair to contributors in Wikipedia.
Andries
On 4/1/07, Andries Krugers Dagneaux andrieskd@chello.nl wrote: When I asked Flonight whether topic-banning in the absence of
such diffs was fair, I was told that the arbcom does not want to be fair to editors. Charles Matthews endorsed her reasoning in this respect. If that is the reasoning of the arbcom then I have no intention to be fair to contributors in Wikipedia.
Obviously I know neither Flonight's reasoning nor Charles'. However, speaking as someone who used to be a member of that committee, I'll wager that there was significant more subtlety to their comments than what you've paraphrased there.
The Arbitration Committee's overriding aim is not fairness. Rather it is to do the best for the encyclopaedia. This doesn't mean that fairness is not considered. It just means that, when "justice" and the interests of the encylopaedia collide, the encyclopaedia comes first.
The Arbitration Committee's overriding aim is not fairness. Rather it is to do the best for the encyclopaedia. This doesn't mean that fairness is not considered. It just means that, when "justice" and the interests of the encylopaedia collide, the encyclopaedia comes first.
Sam
I understand that. But topic banning an editor whose edits on that topic were desribed by the arbcom as "generally responsible" and without diffs that show disruptive editing on that topic is neither fair nor does it help the encyclopedia.
I will continue editing at Citizendium.
Andries
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:46:33 +0200, "Andries Krugers Dagneaux" andrieskd@chello.nl wrote:
I understand that. But topic banning an editor whose edits on that topic were desribed by the arbcom as "generally responsible" and without diffs that show disruptive editing on that topic is neither fair nor does it help the encyclopedia.
Wasn't the problem here one of conflict of interest, though?
Guy (JzG)
On 01/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:46:33 +0200, "Andries Krugers Dagneaux" andrieskd@chello.nl wrote:
I understand that. But topic banning an editor whose edits on that topic were desribed by the arbcom as "generally responsible" and without diffs that show disruptive editing on that topic is neither fair nor does it help the encyclopedia.
Wasn't the problem here one of conflict of interest, though?
No, it's that the editors in question have been attempting to get Andries kicked off those articles for the last three years and they finally rules-lawyered it through.
This was *not* a good ArbCom decision, not at all.
- d.
Sam Korn wrote:
The Arbitration Committee's overriding aim is not fairness. Rather it is to do the best for the encyclopaedia. This doesn't mean that fairness is not considered. It just means that, when "justice" and the interests of the encylopaedia collide, the encyclopaedia comes first.
Why should they collide? Decisions in the spirit of fairness _are_ for the best of the encyclopedia. In the event that there is a conflict the rules need to be made absolutely clear and explicit to avoid arbitrary rulings.
Ec