tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post6340420763175860760..comments2024-03-06T19:01:26.120-08:00Comments on Durova: Request for comment on the Arbitration CommitteeLise Broerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15087397520904837725noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-83282312919341393542008-06-29T11:04:00.000-07:002008-06-29T11:04:00.000-07:00With all due respect to former arbitrator Mackense...With all due respect to former arbitrator Mackensen, I think that it is clear that Mackensen does not quite "get it". The community has had a growing sense of unease about Arbcomm's performance for at least the last few months. Voting before there is any evidence present or any chance for a defense? Complete denial of the right to present a defense? Totally ignoring some lines of evidence? Dragging out some cases for months on end? Insulting the general community, and then neglecting to issue an apology or even acknowledge that something inappropriate has taken place? Unresponsiveness? Violations of Arbcomm's own rules, or the principles of Wikipedia? Giving favored editors with a lot of featured content a pass to abuse the system or their fellow editors? The list of problems seems to just keep growing.<BR/><BR/>Arbcomm exists to perform functions for the community, <B>not</B> the other way around. The <I>only</I> reason for Arbcomm to exist at all is to provide services to the community. Arbcomm is supposed to protect the volunteer editing community that Wikipedia depends on. It has no other function or value. It is not a sinecure. Those who hold (or held) Arbcomm positions are not infallible, and are not beyond criticism or reproach. However, there seems to be a growing sense of entitlement and privilege associated with Arbcomm, and frankly, this is quite unattractive. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps a strong message from the community needs to be sent, reasserting the community's authority. After all, if there was no community, there would be no Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a relatively fragile thing, dependent on the goodwill of volunteers. Wikipedia should not gratuitously attack and abuse those it depends on for its very existence.<BR/><BR/>Mackensen's post suggests that Mackensen has forgotten these basic facts. Mackensen's post seems to indicate that he is out of touch with what is going on. My advice to Mackensen, and others who think like Mackensen, is to recognize that their views appear to be out of step with those of most of the Wikipedia community. In a communal consensual volunteer atmosphere, this is a bad sign. Take some time to engage in self-reflection, and realign your attitudes with those of your fellow editors. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, then realize that you will be increasingly marginalized and treated accordingly.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15673311197552455144noreply@blogger.com