Thu 30th June 2011, 12:04am
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 29th June 2011, 6:18pm)
You have to read between the lines
, my dear.
Well, this is that edit:
:::::I have the authority to override decisions of ArbCom. Do you have a specific case that you'd like me to review? I treat all appeals seriously, but beyond that I'm always happy to listen to arguments that something was wrongly decided. Note well that "wrongly decided" doesn't mean "I would have voted differently" but rather serious breaches of protocol/ethics/etc. leading to a wrong decision.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 21:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
He's right, he does have the authority. He'd also need the cojones. My suggestion to Jimbo would be that he, instead, consider and create a better process that would not depend on his individual authority. ArbComm is highly inefficient and erratic. Yes, this could start by an examination of decisions, but doing it on his talk page would be a mess. Rather, establishing an appeal process that would make recommendations, in a way that guarantees full consideration by neutral parties, could work.
But wait, isn't that the function of ArbComm? Sure, it is, except that process to do this, reliably, was never established. I saw ArbComm work, in RfAr/Abd and JzG, and it fooled me. I expected fair treatment, then. Mistake. When two dozen editors piled in, in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, editors who were, to me, obviously closely aligned, ArbComm was overwhelmed, and made the knee-jerk assumption that anyone who is upsetting so many editors must be disruptive, and they really didn't care about proof.
And they never looked at who was, later, filing all those arbitration enforcement reports. Many of those reports were truly preposterous and were dismissed, but even some preposterous reports were acted upon by a certain admin. Nobody noticed that, nobody objected. And that's just my case, which I use only because it's the one I know best. I saw similar happen to others.
There is a way to guarantee fair process without demanding that everyone take part. But it would take a realization that it's needed and desirable, and, my observation, few, if any, care enough to do it.