[Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart

[Risker]

On 14 March 2011 11:29, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14 March 2011 15:21, Risker <risker.wp at 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