>> Fred quoted Erik Moeller as saying:
>> "RK was tolerated because he contributed good material.
Heh. That's is not at all the way I remember it.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
on 9/25/09 5:36 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
> It is more a matter of editors taking back the wiki from the tiny
> minority that is abusing others. You can't vote for people who openly
> advocate not enforcing civility rules and expect the arbitration
> committee to do much. L
David Gerard wrote:
> I'm entirely unsure the arbcom isn't an idea whose time has run, at
> least in its present form - it needs a shakeup to avert the regulatory
> capture.
Surreptitiousness wrote:
> You can't? Is this why nothing ever changes? People are too scared too
> propose anything radi
Jay Litwyn wrote:
> I realize that I am in a subject that might not be encyclopedic, because it
> is controversial, and I avoid it, however much I want the article to come
> to my decision. If a torrent of verbiage and commercially, racially, or
> ideologically motivated information has establishe
> David Gerard wrote:
>> I'm entirely unsure the arbcom isn't an idea whose time has run, at
>> least in its present form - it needs a shakeup to avert the regulatory
>> capture.
>>
> Hmmm. To do that I suppose you would have to create some rules on who
> can run. Maybe bar admins from running fo
Charles Matthews wrote:
> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>
>> George Herbert wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
Hmmm. To do that I suppose you would have to create some rules on who
can run. Maybe bar admins fr
Surreptitiousness wrote:
> George Herbert wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hmmm. To do that I suppose you would have to create some rules on who
>>> can run. Maybe bar admins from running for starters, that might reduce
>>> the risk of
George Herbert wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness
> wrote:
>
>> Hmmm. To do that I suppose you would have to create some rules on who
>> can run. Maybe bar admins from running for starters, that might reduce
>> the risk of arbcom siding with admins. I don't think the
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness
wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> I'm entirely unsure the arbcom isn't an idea whose time has run, at
>> least in its present form - it needs a shakeup to avert the regulatory
>> capture.
>>
> Hmmm. To do that I suppose you would have to create som
David Gerard wrote:
> I'm entirely unsure the arbcom isn't an idea whose time has run, at
> least in its present form - it needs a shakeup to avert the regulatory
> capture.
>
Hmmm. To do that I suppose you would have to create some rules on who
can run. Maybe bar admins from running for star
Looks like google will link directly to subsections of Wikipedia articles now:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/jump-to-information-you-want-right-from.html
(also to other site's subsections although it looks like the Wikipedia
interface is slightly more refined)
Judson
http://en.wikipedia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just a reminder about today's office hours with Sue Gardner. Just as a
note, we're planning alternating the Friday 22:30 UTC office hours with
Thursday 16:00 UTC, which is much easier on our European participants.
Cary
-
As a result of the
2009/9/25 Surreptitiousness :
> Another thing that was good about early arbcom was the desire to
> challenge incivility and to accept cases which now would be refused as
The 2009 arbcom's main problem is a severe case of [[regulatory
capture]] by the worst violators of the civility rules. Note t
stevertigo wrote:
> And if the *shadow men* had not squashed the open support
Hm. I was thinking of "Can-Toi" actually, but forgot the English translation.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mai
Carcharoth wrote:
> It would help to have a list of things this list is *not* for. I
> suspect this thread is one of them, but am not certain.
Well if you people had supported Thomas' idea of creating a
wikilists-l list specifically for mailing list issues, your complaint
itself would be better m
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> However much anyone says that Arbcom doesn't make policy, given that the
> rules are complicated and often ambiguous, "deciding whether something fits
> existing policy" is often the same as "making policy". So you just end up
> with Arbcom making policy and pretending not to
If the law just said "no jaywalking", but the police started arresting
everyone who crossed away from a crosswalk, and there was no court which
could tell the police that their interpretation of "jaywalking" was wrong,
then the police have de-facto made policy. (Especially if the police are
also e
Charles Matthews wrote:
> What was good about the earlier years of Arbcom was that innovation in
> remedies and clarification of policies in terms of the decisions that
> would be taken to enforce them cleared up quite a number of issues that
> now rarely need to get into RfAr. That kind of inno
Surreptitiousness wrote:
> 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. It
stevertigo wrote:
> George Herbert 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.
>>
stevertigo wrote:
> George Herbert 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.
>>
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Would anyone care to define the boundaries or goals of this
> discussion? Is it really going to be "Let's all analyse everything
> Stevertigo has ever said or done, or had said about him?" That could
> take a very long time.
It would help to
George Herbert 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:Arbi
23 matches
Mail list logo
