> 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 starters, that might reduce > the risk of arbcom siding with admins. I don't think the community would > allow Jimmy to appoint as he sees fit anymore, but if the board mandated > a couple of seats had to be reserved fro picks, that might shake things > up. That would involve the board getting down in the mud though, which > they try not to do.
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. Look back in the history of the arbitration committee and you will find that its original purpose was to deal with gross violations of Wikiquette, see http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-October/006928.html Erik Moeller wrote: "RK was tolerated because he contributed good material. But how much good material has not been contributed because of his well documented behavioral problems? In my opinion, we need to set clearer rules on Wikiquette and be serious about enforcing them, with a well-defined protocol of warning, temporary banning, permanent banning etc. Maybe there could be a 5-10 member Wikiquette "committee" where violations could be reported and decisions would be made by voting." Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
