On 14 March 2011 09:53, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14 March 2011 13:46, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Having a single person would not work, as people would assume that a > single > > person may have their own personal biases affecting their judgment. > > An elected committee might work, and I do think we should look at > empowering > > such a committee to remove the right to edit BLPs from editors who > > repeatedly abuse it, and at creating the technical means to do so. > > > An elected committee to deal with editor disputes ... we could call it > the Arbitration Committee! > > Except the arbcom feels it has lost so much community confidence it > doesn't even feel it has the power to enforce long-standing > fundamental policies: > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-January/108319.html > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2011-January/108321.html > > (The context there being that they feel they can't maintain the rule > "no personal attacks" even to the admins.) > > Are you suggesting something like a second, parallel arbcom if the > first has finally stalled? > >
David, I strongly object to your continued twisting of my words, and your personal crusade to turn the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee into a "personal attacks" police force. That was never the intended scope of the committee, and it remains outside of its scope. We're currently working through a desysop process in which one of the elements in evidence is the administrator's alleged incivility: I'm not seeing a huge groundswell of support from you or any other former arbitrators for the Arbitration Committee having tackled this issue, and I don't see any historical evidence of committees prior to 2009 having addressed this issue either, including the time that you were on the committee. Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
