[WikiEN-l] Oversized criticism sections and WP:UNDUE (was: Notability and ski resorts)

[Surreptitiousness]

stevertigo wrote:
> George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Arbcom's job description and writ of authority don't include
>> adjudicating policy.
>> Suggestions that they might expand to do that, generally made by
>> community members, have been shot down by the community writ large and
>> by arbcom.
>>     
>
> Hm. This came up recently at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=312162973
>
> Wikidemon wrote: "In short form, Arbcom is not the place to propose
> changes to policies and guidelines. It is not empowered to do so, so
> there is nothing actionable for Arbcom to decide based on this
> request."
>
> Me: 'A court that cannot legislate from the bench - strike
> down law, uphold current law, (or portions thereof) - is not called a
> "court," it's called a "police station." [Which] makes the
> concept plain that an unempowered court cannot even "uphold" law, as
> it has no power to do otherwise. It can however, "parrot" law. Which,
> sort of sums up Wikipedia's dispute resolution affairs quite nicely.'
I've always lamented the fact that people have no idea what arbitration 
means on Wikipedia.  That's one of the biggest reasons why arb-com is 
such a failure, no-one ever treats its decisions as final. Arb-com 
doesn't have to legislate, that's not its purpose.  Its purpose is to 
hear complaints and arbitrate them.  It started going wrong when people 
started expecting it to behave like a court or a policeman. Another 
damaging blow comes from people who wriggle like worms when stuck on a 
hook.  I know six year olds who have a better ability to admit to 
wrong-doing than some grown adults on Wikipedia. Although, I am only 
assuming they are grown ups.  Have we ever established the lowest age of 
a Wikipedian? You can't help but wonder if a new class of remedy which 
bans disruptive editors from talk pages might be an improvement.  Let us 
judge them by their editing!