stevertigo wrote:
More thing on my to-do list: Get Arbcom to actually deal with
adjudicating policy and sections therein.
That can't work without opening up the broader question of how policies
are formulated and later amended. Any kind of policy review process
needs to operate
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com 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
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
Having just nullified a load of inactive proposals, I can attest to
that. I was wondering if there was a better way to organise historical
and rejected proposals, but after a moment's
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 7:53 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 3:34 AM, George Herbert
I agree, the experience for Arbcom trying to constructively grapple
with the problem is clearly as frustrating as for admins trying to
grapple with it, but obviously different as
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I would also be *very* wary of reports from partisans of what ArbCom
has done, or has been doing this year.
A couple days ago I had a chance to read Jimbo's Arbcom appointment
directive from Dec. '08 (a diff - for some reason posted to his own
talk
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
Having just nullified a load of inactive proposals, I can attest to
that. I was wondering if there was a better way to organise historical
and rejected proposals,
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
Yeah, or I could have a life. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not
propose more and more ways of how to write an encyclopedia. Maybe we
could just go back to the old system where
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I believe you are misreading what is said here. It is not being stated
that Arbcom has no time to do the job. Rather, it is being stated that
if it wants to do the job, it doesn't also have the time to deal with
all the heckling and
George Herbert wrote:
snip
It's not so much that it's impossible to do and make stick, as doing
it and making it stick requires the right people, timing, attention,
and focus, and those are all in perpetual short supply.
Well, of course I respect your hands-on experience. I was coming at
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
(1) There is actually no substantive consensus position that uncivil
editors are a net negative to the site;
I would disagree - I think there's no consensus on individual cases
where the editor's positive
Marc Riddell wrote:
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
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
snip
It's not so much that it's impossible to do and make stick, as doing
it and making it stick requires the right people, timing, attention,
and focus, and those are all in
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Traditionally, though, the problem has been underestimated. One need not
adopt the language of regulatory capture, as David Gerard does, to
look the issues in the eye:
Ah, but that you do now look such things in the eye - is it not due in
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 3:34 AM, George Herbert
I agree, the experience for Arbcom trying to constructively grapple
with the problem is clearly as frustrating as for admins trying to
grapple with it, but obviously different as you have pointed out.
The internal perspective there is
stevertigo wrote:
George Herbert george.herb...@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
stevertigo wrote:
George Herbert george.herb...@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
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. Its
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
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.
I
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
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com 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
George Herbert wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com 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
Surreptitiousness wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com 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
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 Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Apoc 2400 wrote:
This discussion about splitting off sections to articles, notability and
undue weight reminded me of something I encountered recently:
What do you do if you find an article with a short
25 matches
Mail list logo
