On 14 March 2011 11:29, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 March 2011 15:21, Risker
<risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
But for the second time now, you are derailing a
discussion on one topic
(in
this case, whether there is a benefit in breaking
up large projects, and
in
the prior case, how to attract and retain female
editors) so that you can
focus on your preferred topic of berating a committee for not doing what
it's not intended to do. I cannot speak for others, but I find that to
be
quite inconsiderate to the other editors
participating in the respective
threads. Some might even consider it....uncivil.
I think what you mean here is that you don't like being called on what
you said two months ago
If you no longer believe what you wrote, then say so, rather than
attempting to divert attention from your words.
I will note also that if curious readers go to the links I gave and
follow the threads, they will see many others, not just me, also
incredulous at your claims of ArbCom powerlessness to *enforce basic
policies*. Claiming it's all me is (as I noted in that thread) you
attempting to shoot the messenger. Again.
The ArbCom feels it doesn't have much workable power on en:wp. Is a
parallel construction that does the answer?
I do believe what I wrote, David, but I also believe you have deliberately
and completely mischaracterized what I wrote for your own purposes,
which appears to be publicly berating the Committee that you are no longer
in a position to directly berate or manipulate privately. The Arbitration
Committee is not a policing body, it never was even under your tenure as an
arbitrator, and complaining that it is not is like complaining that one's
snowmobile keeps getting bogged down in the sand.
Clearcut personal attacks on the English Wikipedia are addressed on a daily
basis by the hundreds of administrators and other community members with
actions ranging from quiet, personal reminders to redactions and warnings
through to blocks of varying lengths. As you well know, the Arbitration
Committee is a dispute resolution body of last resort tasked primarily to
binding decisions about behavioural issues, which normally only enters the
scene after other attempts to resolve the situation have been unsuccessful.
It's not a front-line policing body, it's not a governing body, and it's not
a court. Not quite two years ago, the Arbitration Committee attempted to
promote the idea of a similar dispute resolution body to address content
disputes, and that concept was soundly derided by the community. I do not
see any reason to believe that a front-line policing body tasked to
addressing personal attacks is any more likely to be acceptable to the
community, particularly as they are already routinely addressed on a regular
basis.
Risker/Anne