Re: Wikibook User Arbitration

I don't object to either oversight or arbitration (in
fact I think both are necessary), but the format here
is truly appalling. For one thing, the
"plaintiff/defendant" structure is unnecessarily
hostile, made even more so because it's really unclear
who the plaintiffs and defendants are. Are we
reviewing my block? Panic's behavior? If (as it seems)
we are reviewing Panic's behavior, it seems a bit
strange to name me as the "plaintiff": I'm not
involved in an editorial dispute with Panic... my role
has been as a mediator and later arbitrator of a
dispute that's been going on for years without any
previous arbitration of constructive mediation.

Worse, this has devolved into what looks more like an
inquisition than anything else. 

What we will suffer in the long term is an even
stronger reticence on the part of administrators to
get involved in content disputes (I for one will
certainly say "no" next time around). This particular
dispute had gone on unaddressed for far longer than it
should have been, and while this arbitration might end
up bringing a resolution to this particular issue,
it's going to make it a lot harder to address the next
one. 


--- Andrew Whitworth <[email protected]> wrote:

> I agree with Dragontamer (although I'm sure
> everybody already knows my 
> opinions on this matter). A user was blocked for
> misbehavior, and he 
> complained about it. I can't imagine any user
> (besides a vandal) getting 
> blocked and not complaining. This doesnt mean that
> every instance needs to 
> become some kind of arbitration nightmare. What I
> don't see, besides Panic's 
> plea, is a reason to review or even overturn
> SBJohnny's decision. People who 
> make bold decisions to benefit the project should be
> rewarded, and I dont 
> think we should be introducing unnecessary oversight
> into our system.
> 
> --Andrew Whitworth (Whiteknight)
> 
> 
> 
> >*Sigh* it was only a matter of time. Get a bunch of
> people working
> >together, and people will suddenly not want to work
> together for
> >whatever reason :-/
> >
> >I have not looked at the current issue (in fact,
> this is the first
> >time I have heard of it. But I feel that in this
> specific case,
> >community consensus may be a bad thing. Eventually,
> there may be
> >groups of users vs other groups of users. Maybe
> Jimbo or some other
> >person would have to step in there.
> >
> >Oy, this is a whole new can-o-worms in Wikibooks
> policy...
> >
> >--Dragontamer
> >_______________________________________________
> >Textbook-l mailing list
> >[email protected]
>
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> 
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Your Hotmail address already works to sign into
> Windows Live Messenger! Get 
> it now 
>
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> [email protected]
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com