QUOTE(Heat @ Thu 7th May 2009, 4:53am)
I'm kind of hoping Jay isn't stripped. The absurdity of having a "Functionary" who is clearly not a "trusted user" (not trusted enough to edit the topic area that has been the focus of 80% or so of his "work") and has been found by the ArbComm to be a relentless POV pusher and edit warrior just lays bare the ridiculousness of Wikipedia's power structure and the fact that it's not based on merit or trust but on a combination of cliqueishness, manipulation and sinicure.
That would be cool. It might hopefully function in a manner similar to the way that Captain Kirk would use a simple paradox to cause the shut-down of some super-computer that was running amok and threatening to destroy the universe.
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Thu 7th May 2009, 7:57am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 7th May 2009, 7:28am)
QUOTE(Casliber @ Wed 6th May 2009, 6:01pm)
Unfortunately arbcom cannot rule on content, so like many of these type of debates, we get left with a vacuum.
The arbcom has been ruling on content for years, just not openly. They sanction the content they prefer by means of double standards in how they treat editors.
{{citation needed}}
As a prime example, take a look at the
Nobs01 and others arbcom case, examine the basic points, and then see what happens when you get to the remedies.