Sat 22nd November 2008, 12:55am
Actually, it either leave things at the state it already is or exchange content quality with peace.
POV pusher, user:A
Good intentioned user: user:B
user:A engage in pov pushing, it is reverted by user:B. user:A is experienced in Wikipedia policies and continue his disruption with civil pov pushing
, cornering his adversary in a strategy game.
Then things degenerate and the case goes to arbitration.
Now at most user:A and user:B will have the same restrictions, at worst user:B will have a worst outcome. user:A knows how to conduct during the arbitration, user:B doesn't care of such conduct all he cares was that user:A was POV pushing.
So it's all a matter of what the arbcom has termed as 'behavior' which is = to revert warring and personal attack. Only when you are a known member such as Elonka can you ever expect content disruption to be at the center of things.
So most of the time, the arbitration can only work against content, because either it restrict the two, which will work against, or either it will punish user:B more than they do with user:A, because most of the disruption user:A does relate to content, something which the arbitrators wash their hand on, unless you're Elonka or other similar users.
The thing is that if user:A continue disruption and that user:B is still permitted to edit, inevitably user:B will be on the back of user:A. And since the arbitration doesn't give a sh!t for content, the only way to bring peace is to ban user:B.
The arbitration then, can only serve the popular members and those who disrupt and who know the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing game]. Anyone else is damned.
QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 21st November 2008, 10:52am)
Don't you think there is already enough discussion on this site about the "candidacies"? There are already 3-4 other general threads discussing this.
I may as well "spam" my reply to your threads.
The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant
at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that generally have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time.
The Arbitration Committee provides just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. This circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain.
If people can't see this, then I suggest that they are so addicted to this crap they've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help.