[WikiEN-l] Arbcom

[GDonato]

Christiano Moreschi wrote:
>> From: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
>> To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:12:07 +0100
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom
>>
>> Christiano Moreschi wrote
>>
>>> The arbitration process is currently in a state of fairly major meltdown. COFS sat there for well over 2 months, and it took so long one remedy had to be scrapped as it became irrelevant. 
>> It was being discussed. Attempts to get it closed earlier were made.
> 
> You may have tried to get it closed earlier. I know this quite well. The point is that you failed. Miserably.
> 
>>> Allegations of apartheid is still there, still split, a collective monkey on everyone's backs. Bharatveer, an open-and-shut case if ever there was one, is just sitting there. SevenofDiamonds is split and seems to be going nowhere. Attack sites seems dead in the water.
> 
>> You are not being fair about "attack sites". If the issue were trite, why would so much discussion result? And the monkey is on the Arbitrators' collective back. 
> 
> So much discussion? Why? Because people are idiots. As a community, we clearly need some resolution to the matter of attack sites. And yes, it is a trite issue: how hard can "link to reliable sources, but nothing else (and god help you if you break this rule)" be?
> 
>> Charles
> 
> Fine, then. Deny the problem. Collective unrest will grow, and when the ArbCom commands no respect heaven only knows what chaos will result.
> 
> Moreschi
> 

To be honest I don't think we are miles away from the situation where 
Arbcom loses most of the respect it has (still) got. I think that if 
things carry on like they are, a "state of fairly major meltdown" is 
possibly on the cards. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ArbComOpenTasks does not look very 
positive, lots of disagreed voting, not much closing. As for fixing it, 
bigger ArbCom sounds good to me. I don't think the admins can be trusted 
enough!

GDonato