On 14 March 2011 09:53, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 March 2011 13:46, Andreas Kolbe
<jayen466(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Having a single person would not work, as people
would assume that a
single
person may have their own personal biases
affecting their judgment.
An elected committee might work, and I do think we should look at
empowering
such a committee to remove the right to edit BLPs
from editors who
repeatedly abuse it, and at creating the technical means to do so.
An elected committee to deal with editor disputes ... we could call it
the Arbitration Committee!
Except the arbcom feels it has lost so much community confidence it
doesn't even feel it has the power to enforce long-standing
fundamental policies:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-January/108319.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-January/108321.html
(The context there being that they feel they can't maintain the rule
"no personal attacks" even to the admins.)
Are you suggesting something like a second, parallel arbcom if the
first has finally stalled?
David, I strongly object to your continued twisting of my words, and your
personal crusade to turn the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee into a
"personal attacks" police force. That was never the intended scope of the
committee, and it remains outside of its scope. We're currently working
through a desysop process in which one of the elements in evidence is the
administrator's alleged incivility: I'm not seeing a huge groundswell of
support from you or any other former arbitrators for the Arbitration
Committee having tackled this issue, and I don't see any historical evidence
of committees prior to 2009 having addressed this issue either, including
the time that you were on the committee.
Risker/Anne