User talk:Sm8900/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] draft of reply

I think ht we absolutely should. Here is a link to a discussion I had at m talk page, re some problems and issues associated with the Arbcom case: User_talk:Sm8900#About_the_arbcomm. Briefly though, my main thought is that if we do not have some psoitive dispute resolution process going on, the ArbCom case will start dissolving into a whol mess of allegations/accusations and counter-allegations, as it has already started to some degree. A MedCab case should have been started a long time ago, for many of these articles. I'm a little shocked that it wasn't already, in some of these cases. I'm also a little shocked to see an ArbCom case being started on such a wholesale, collective basis,. As I said to tiamut, this is not what the Arbcom case is for. It is not how it is designed. It is designed to address specific instances of user misconduct, on specific articles. There are numerous good-faith editors, with legitimate grievances, who are seeking resolution from the ArbCom case, who will find themselves drowned out by the clamor from both sides, as each side seeks to defend its "own" guy(s).

So by starting a mediation case, we can start to impose a little bit of rationality on the process, alittle bir of equity and equanimity, which should have been imposed a long time ago.

I have my own ideas on how to find resolution on most of these cases. Is this a good place to state it? Basically, I have one main approach which I try to apply in a variety odf cases. I feel it is wrong to try to hold everyone to soem mythical view of neutrality which no one reaches in reality. It is better to accept that there are two communities here, with two vastly different viewpoints. Eah has its own legitimate concerns, and its own verifiable sources. It is better to try to give each a fair hearing than to try to seek some mythical "objectivity" or "neutrality". Pople who do seekthat mythical standard often find themselves ensnared by the fact that both sides have equally strong views of their rightness, and in fact often have equal amounts of validity.

whew, alot of typing. Sorry, but this issue has made me a bit reflective. anyway, that's why I think this MedCab case is extremely warranted, and can only play a positive role here, or at the very least, I feel that it definitely cannot hurt to have this Medcab case. thanks.

It's good to be able to discuss this. please feel free to keep posting any general musings, comments, or questions you may have. by the way, I will be off and on the web this evening, so please don't interpret any delays as any kind of ambivalence about a particular issue. thanks.