White Cat wrote:
So you are saying everything is perfectly fine the way
arbcom operates?
Don't impute to me things that I didn't
I am merely expecting what arbcom exist for from
arbcom. The final step of
dispute resolution must be resolving disputes. Arbcom should be the final
step.
OK
Who said anything about ruling on content? Provided
there are no pressing
legal issues like WP:BLP or WP:COPYRIGHT violatons, any user who mass
removes material w/o consensus inherently is hurting the encyclopedia. Any
arbcom ruling over the behaviour of such users has noting to do with
content. Arbcom was unable come up with anything enforceable on E&C1. E&C1
served to no purpose.
Are we dealing with the Arbcom in general, or your own personal problem
with them?
I am a causal user. I do not have any reason to even
glance at the workshop.
Then why bother bringing it up. If you had no reason to look at it, why
would you have any reason to complain about what is or is not in it..
It is the duty of arbitrators to look at all aspects
of the case to make the
best judgement calls.
Arbitrators need to objectively read the workshop and pull out anything they
feel is worth a vote. Why else is the workshop there? If it has no purpose,
abolish it.
Looking at and reading its contents does not imply an obligation to
comment on evry drive-by rant. If they find a good idea they use it, and
adjust their decision accordingly.
Imagine arbitrators actually talking to people. Since
trolls may abuse it we
must punish everybody as if they were trolls.
I get the impression that what you
mean by talking with them is getting
into exchanges with the peanut gallery. It's a an arbitration not a
mediation. They can ask questions, and they can issue a decision.
Going much beyond that brings their credibility into question.
Ec