I request Sean Barrett's removal from the arbitration committee.
RickK
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I question your suitability for the role of arbitrator based on your condescention towards those who want the wikipedia policies enforced.
You told me to work to have the policy changed; I tell you to work to have me removed. Jimbo appointed me; convince him to remove me. As an alternative, if a simple majority of my fellow arbiters ask me to step down, I will.
The only argument you have given against enforcing such rules is that your time is too precious.
I haven't even given that argument, and I don't intend to give any arguments. I simply refuse to be compelled to arbitrate the way you think I should.
So would it be correct to conclude that you either you think that nobody will be driven away by personal attacks, or it is not worth your time to retain these contributors?
Conclude what you like. I am a free man. You cannot compel me to rule on a case I don't choose to rule on. I encourage you, however, to work on impeaching me from the arbitration committee.
I will also put to you my opinion that in cases where there has been a gross violation of policies such as "no personal attacks", all the arbitration committee will have to do is the following:
And I suspect that in cases where there has been a gross violation of the "no personal attacks" policy, there will be contemporaneous violations such as edit warring, which I agree rise to a level requiring arbitration.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Don't forget to inform the arbitration committee of my dereliction of duty, and impress upon Jimbo the urgency of appointing arbiters who will always rule the way you tell them to.
I think I'd rather wait and see how arbitration actually goes with him on the committee and see what his expressed attitudes actually mean in practice. He has been quite open about hostility to certain policies. Others on the committee may also have trouble with certain policies, but haven't voiced their policy preferences so openly. I certainly haven't, although my attitudes are notorious enough. The question is, sitting on a Wikipedia committee, the purpose of which is to carry out Wikipedia policy, are you willing to do that; or do will you use your role as an arbitrator to continue policy debate, picking and chosing which policies deserve enforcement, which don't.
But then, some policies are more important than others. That we can expect to see reflected in the nature of matters which users bring to the attention of the mediation and arbitration committees.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:58:42 -0800 (PST) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration progress report #2
I request Sean Barrett's removal from the arbitration committee.
RickK
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I question your suitability for the role of arbitrator based on your condescention towards those who want the wikipedia policies enforced.
You told me to work to have the policy changed; I tell you to work to have me removed. Jimbo appointed me; convince him to remove me. As an alternative, if a simple majority of my fellow arbiters ask me to step down, I will.
The only argument you have given against enforcing such rules is that your time is too precious.
I haven't even given that argument, and I don't intend to give any arguments. I simply refuse to be compelled to arbitrate the way you think I should.
So would it be correct to conclude that you either you think that nobody will be driven away by personal attacks, or it is not worth your time to retain these contributors?
Co nclude what you like. I am a free man. You cannot compel me to rule on a case I don't choose to rule on. I encourage you, however, to work on impeaching me from the arbitration committee.
I will also put to you my opinion that in cases where there has been a gross violation of policies such as "no personal attacks", all the arbitration committee will have to do is the following:
And I suspect that in cases where there has been a gross violation of the "no personal attacks" policy, there will be contemporaneous violations such as edit warring, which I agree rise to a level requiring arbitration.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Don't forget to inform the arbitration committee of my dereliction of duty, and impress upon Jimbo the urgency of appointing arbiters who will always rule the way you tell them to.
Do you suggest that any arbitrator have '''no''' right to participate to building policies from now on ?
I suppose that similarly mediators have no right to participate in edit wars from now on as well ?
Just as Jimbo has no right to edit articles ?
If so, we might just forget the whole process entirely.
Rick a écrit:
I request Sean Barrett's removal from the arbitration committee.
RickK
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
> I question your suitability for the role of arbitrator based on your > condescention towards those who want the wikipedia policies enforced. You told me to work to have the policy changed; I tell you to work to have me removed. Jimbo appointed me; convince him to remove me. As an alternative, if a simple majority of my fellow arbiters ask me to step down, I will. > The only argument you have given > against enforcing such rules is that your time is too precious. I haven't even given that argument, and I don't intend to give any arguments. I simply refuse to be compelled to arbitrate the way you think I should. > So would it be correct to conclude that you either you think that nobody will > be driven away by person al attacks, or it is not worth your time to retain > these contributors? Co nclude what you like. I am a free man. You cannot compel me to rule on a case I don't choose to rule on. I encourage you, however, to work on impeaching me from the arbitration committee. > I will also put to you my opinion that in cases where > there has been a gross violation of policies such as "no personal attacks", > all the arbitration committee will have to do is the following: And I suspect that in cases where there has been a gross violation of the "no personal attacks" policy, there will be contemporaneous violations such as edit warring, which I agree rise to a level requiring arbitration. > Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Don't forget to inform the arbitration committee of my dereliction of duty, and impress upon Jimbo the urgency of appointing arbiters who will always rule the way you tell them to. -- Sean Barrett | To bite off your shadow is neither easy sean@epoptic.com | no r painless. It demands a single-mindedness | that is almost unknown in this day.
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21608/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
One of the things that will go on as we consider cases is that both the arbitrators and the mediators will be looking at Wikipedia policies, examining where they originated, (like who wrote the page, was it after a considered discussion on the talk pages and mailing lists, how much support particular policies have among the users, i.e. is the policy generally followed or ignored, etc.).
And of course the artitrators can sound off about policy, mediators can be in edit wars, Jimbo can edit all he wants, and like elephants we will never forget or give up on anything.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com Reply-To: anthere8@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 10:54:18 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration progress report #2
Do you suggest that any arbitrator have '''no''' right to participate to building policies from now on ?
I suppose that similarly mediators have no right to participate in edit wars from now on as well ?
Just as Jimbo has no right to edit articles ?
If so, we might just forget the whole process entirely.
Anthere wrote:
Do you suggest that any arbitrator have '''no''' right to participate to building policies from now on ?
I suppose that similarly mediators have no right to participate in edit wars from now on as well ?
Just as Jimbo has no right to edit articles ?
If so, we might just forget the whole process entirely.
I'm wondering at the moment whether mediators will have /time/ to get involved in edit wars from now on
;)
--sannse
Mediators certainly have a right to discuss the creation and repeal of policies. But once policies are in place, they should be expected to enforce them.
RickK
Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com wrote: Do you suggest that any arbitrator have '''no''' right to participate to building policies from now on ?
I suppose that similarly mediators have no right to participate in edit wars from now on as well ?
Just as Jimbo has no right to edit articles ?
If so, we might just forget the whole process entirely.
Rick a �crit:
I request Sean Barrett's removal from the arbitration committee.
RickK
Sean Barrett wrote:
I question your suitability for the role of arbitrator based on your condescention towards those who want the wikipedia policies enforced.
You told me to work to have the policy changed; I tell you to work to have me removed. Jimbo appointed me; convince him to remove me. As an alternative, if a simple majority of my fellow arbiters ask me to step down, I will.
The only argument you have given against enforcing such rules is that your time is too precious.
I haven't even given that argument, and I don't intend to give any arguments. I simply refuse to be compelled to arbitrate the way you think I should.
So would it be correct to conclude that you either you think that
nobody will
be driven away by person al attacks, or it is not worth your time
to retain
these contributors?
Co nclude what you like. I am a free man. You cannot compel me to rule on a case I don't choose to rule on. I encourage you, however, to work on impeaching me from the arbitration committee.
I will also put to you my opinion that in cases where there has been a gross violation of policies such as "no personal
attacks",
all the arbitration committee will have to do is the following:
And I suspect that in cases where there has been a gross violation of the "no personal attacks" policy, there will be contemporaneous violations such as edit warring, which I agree rise to a level requiring arbitration.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Don't forget to inform the arbitration committee of my dereliction of duty, and impress upon Jimbo the urgency of appointing arbiters who will always rule the way you tell them to.
-- Sean Barrett | To bite off your shadow is neither easy sean@epoptic.com | no r painless. It demands a single-mindedness | that is almost unknown in this day.
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!