--- On Mon, 14/3/11, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Monday, 14 March, 2011, 13:53
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!
What I had in mind was a committee looking at BLP editing issues. That
does not mean that there must have been an editing dispute at the article
concerned. If someone added inappropriate information to a series of
minor articles three months ago while no one was looking, and the matter
is brought to the committee's attention, they could warn the editor or
remove their BLP editing right, temporarily or permanently. They could even
patrol BLPs themselves, if they run out of things to do, and contact editors
who have a history of inserting problematic material off their own bat.
That would actually be a BLP policing job and is different from the way
arbcom works in en:WP.
Again, any action taken by the committee should be taken by the committee
as a whole, rather than any individual member of it, so no one can abuse
the position to even scores with old adversaries. Arbcom could be appealed
to if any editor feels aggrieved by the actions of the BLP committee; to have
checks and balances, it would be useful to have these be two different bodies.
Andreas