On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31 January 2011 15:30, Charles Matthews > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have stated my views on site politics on this list not so long ago. >> Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as far >> as the gender gap is concerned (sadly). So I'd like to see people >> standing for ArbCom being asked what they intend to do about it. > > > It's January. ArbCom could start enforcing civility amongst admins > now, bring it off successfully and have huge success to talk about by > voting in December. > > (I outlined a version of this to FT2 and Chase Me Ladies at the 10th > Anniversary bash and neither shrieked in horror. A complaints > procedure would be a crank magnet. Keep it to "going forward", nothing > past; require asking the admin nicely first; vexatious complainants > told to go away after. Admin behaviour will rapidly modify as they'll > do *ANYTHING* to keep the bit. Admins get more crap than they deserve > from the querulous, but this is hardly an onerous proposal. Anyone > feel up to pushing it through? Arbcom could start this now based on > WP:NPA and WP:BITE as policies, but will probably prefer to get at > least a little explicit buy-in.) > > > - d.
They could but they won't; anyone on this list knows that it's been tried before. Making admins the "civility police" as some folks like to call them is too difficult a nut for the Wikipedia community to crack. Either the admins are bad, the rules are bad, or the whole idea is bad - many prominent, longtime 'pedians would argue all three are true. Nathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
