On 27 July 2012 12:54, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Charles Matthews > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The point really is who actually cares about ArbCom decisions > > > I am really surprised to see a former member of ArbCom say this.
Perhaps you would be less surprised if you had been on ArbCom. Part of the job is to have some perspective on matters about which quite small numbers of people care passionately. I mean in an operational sense: most disputes involve the actions of less than 10 people. > Everybody > on this list cares about ArbCom decisions, most of the time, and so does the > entire body of administrators in the English Wikipedia. For the record, > ArbCom members derive their authority from 300 to 600 supporters' votes. > Wikimedia UK board members, from 40 or 50. 600 is less than the number of "active" administrators, though. But let's not argue about numbers. I have given some context for my remark now, which you could have. > ArbCom had a number of reasons for their decision to ban Fae. It would be more accurate to say that there were a number of reasons to propose sanctions. I'm not sure that the _banning_ was for those reasons, though. A complex case. <snip> > Refusing to acknowledge any problem, and beating up on ArbCom instead, > really is the least well advised strategy to deal with this situation. I have certainly not been attacking ArbCom as an institution. I have a long-term problem with the workshop, which I have never liked, but otherwise I think ArbCom in general does pretty well. I sometimes disagree with Arbitration decisions; when I was asked about this particular pending decision by a Board member, I said that ArbCom is fallible, but it tends to know more about the case than we do (i.e. not all the information they have is always public, or fit to be made public). I in fact met three arbs for the first time at Wikimania, with two of whom I had worked. I talked also with Risker, who came onto the committee after me. I am not attacking any of these people, please let me say. There is a half-told story about the Fae case and Wikimania and the ban, clearly, but I am also not going to try to tell that story either. I am not going to say "let's move on", because the topic of the thread is a legitimate one for members of the chapter to discuss. I am not myself a WMUK member, and I have things to do now, as do the Board and Fae. I have my own views on framing the issue, which have to some extent appeared in this thread. Please everyone respect AGF in any further contributions, and minimise personalia. Charles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
