I do not really see what purpose arbcom serves anymore.
It clearly is incapable of resolving disputes. But now it is starting to be the source of disputes.
I tried creating a redirect to a former case (for the convenience to reference to this old case which has a rather long title). That redirect was promptly deleted (by an arbitrator I believe). Deletion was not based on a speedy deletion criteria. In addition deleting admin wasn't even willing to discuss this to date. My post to ANI over this was shut tight.
On a different note I was trying to seek restructuring RfAR page. As in technically chipping out appeal part of the page (which now occupies a greater amount of space than actual requests). I am told was attempted not too long ago. The attempt failed only because arbitrators and clerks did not like it - or so I am told. For seeking to change it despite the arbitrator/clerk apathy towards people who have a very slow internet connection my initiative was labeled as trolling.
If I am not even allowed to change/criticize the technical aspects of arbcom and if such an attempt hits an iron curtain I wonder how useful arbcom is on actual controversies.
So I really do not really see what purpose arbcom serves anymore.
- White Cat
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 8:01 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I do not really see what purpose arbcom serves anymore.
It clearly is incapable of resolving disputes. But now it is starting to be the source of disputes.
I tried creating a redirect to a former case (for the convenience to reference to this old case which has a rather long title). That redirect was promptly deleted (by an arbitrator I believe). Deletion was not based on a speedy deletion criteria. In addition deleting admin wasn't even willing to discuss this to date. My post to ANI over this was shut tight.
On a different note I was trying to seek restructuring RfAR page. As in technically chipping out appeal part of the page (which now occupies a greater amount of space than actual requests). I am told was attempted not too long ago. The attempt failed only because arbitrators and clerks did not like it - or so I am told. For seeking to change it despite the arbitrator/clerk apathy towards people who have a very slow internet connection my initiative was labeled as trolling.
If I am not even allowed to change/criticize the technical aspects of arbcom and if such an attempt hits an iron curtain I wonder how useful arbcom is on actual controversies.
So I really do not really see what purpose arbcom serves anymore.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Seems you're criticizing just fine. Maybe, instead of making POINTs, you should just bring up your concerns? I've generally found that to work better.
2008/5/18 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
<snip> On a different note I was trying to seek restructuring RfAR page. As in technically chipping out appeal part of the page (which now occupies a greater amount of space than actual requests). I am told was attempted not too long ago. The attempt failed only because arbitrators and clerks did not like it - or so I am told. For seeking to change it despite the arbitrator/clerk apathy towards people who have a very slow internet connection my initiative was labeled as trolling.
If I am not even allowed to change/criticize the technical aspects of arbcom and if such an attempt hits an iron curtain I wonder how useful arbcom is on actual controversies.
<snip>
Actually, it wasn't just the clerks and the arbitrators who disliked it; many people who were trying to follow the cases involved found it difficult, as well, and it became another backwater page that few in the community were watching. While I do sympathise with the issue of slow loading (AN and ANI are worse, even on high-speed and T-1 connections), I think it's probably more important that the cases continue to be as highly visible as possible in the hopes that they might get some response.
Risker
Subpages have backward compatibility. You can transclude them all in one big page.
Functionality has priority. RFAR is a place only people with high speed connections can edit. People with low speed coonnections will frequently edit conflict.
AfD works fine with sub pages.
Also what I suggested was breaking RFAR into two pages only (for now). watching two pages shouldn't be that hard...
- White Cat
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:26 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/18 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
<snip> On a different note I was trying to seek restructuring RfAR page. As in technically chipping out appeal part of the page (which now occupies a greater amount of space than actual requests). I am told was attempted
not
too long ago. The attempt failed only because arbitrators and clerks did not like it - or so I am told. For seeking to change it despite the arbitrator/clerk apathy towards people who have a very slow internet connection my initiative was labeled as trolling.
If I am not even allowed to change/criticize the technical aspects of arbcom and if such an attempt hits an iron curtain I wonder how useful arbcom is on actual controversies.
<snip>
Actually, it wasn't just the clerks and the arbitrators who disliked it; many people who were trying to follow the cases involved found it difficult, as well, and it became another backwater page that few in the community were watching. While I do sympathise with the issue of slow loading (AN and ANI are worse, even on high-speed and T-1 connections), I think it's probably more important that the cases continue to be as highly visible as possible in the hopes that they might get some response.
Risker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:01 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I tried creating a redirect to a former case (for the convenience to reference to this old case which has a rather long title). That redirect was promptly deleted (by an arbitrator I believe). Deletion was not based on a speedy deletion criteria. In addition deleting admin wasn't even willing to discuss this to date. My post to ANI over this was shut tight.
See also this discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Renamin...
Not related.
- White Cat
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:01 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I tried creating a redirect to a former case (for the convenience to reference to this old case which has a rather long title). That redirect
was
promptly deleted (by an arbitrator I believe). Deletion was not based on
a
speedy deletion criteria. In addition deleting admin wasn't even willing
to
discuss this to date. My post to ANI over this was shut tight.
See also this discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Renamin...
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l