Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification

Archives: 1st and 2nd draft talk • 3rd draft talk • 4th draft talk

Points

Looks good, the only 2 points that I can see are:

1. The one noted by Sandstein - should probably read "serious and primarily conduct-related disputes", or "serious disputes, primarily related to user conduct". My bad, I didn't spot earlier the difference between scope being "primarily, serious conduct-related disputes" vs. "serious, primarily conduct related, disputes".
2. Arbitrators are expected to make high quality, project beneficial, and impartial decisions. I'd have liked to see that in there as a statement of the fundamental duty and spirit of the role, and general guidance in future cases.

In both cases, probably too late at this point. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Jurisdiction question

For clarification, am I correct in understanding that ArbCom does not have jurisdiction over an EnWiki editor acting in the capacity of steward, which is a Foundation-level role? Granted, stewards are not supposed to perform actions on their home wikis, but there is an exemption for emergencies, specific cross-wiki violations, and clearcut rights self-requests (see Wikipedia:Global_rights_policy#Stewards and m:Steward_policies#Avoid_conflicts_of_interest). -- Avi (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Steward actions are excluded.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's true up to a point; we certainly don't have the authority to "destewardize" someone. But if a steward who was also an admin on English Wikipedia took 30 blatantly rogue steward actions and appeared to be out of control, I think we would feel empowered to desysop him on this project, even though he or she hadn't done anything wrong yet with that particular hat on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

4.To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;

This is a joke right? Arbcom resolve stuff? Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator participation

I've seen cases in which arbitrators did not recuse, but then did not vote in any of the findings or measures posted for the proposed decision. Could verbiage be added in which it is stated that non-recused arbitrators are expected to participate in voting in the proposed decision? This is important because of the rules in place to determine how binding motions are passed. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is already covered by "Conduct of arbitrators", point #3 ("Participate conscientiously in the Committee's activities and deliberations..."). Anything more specific than that would be better placed as procedures than as part of the core policy, in my opinion. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In practical terms, a formal "if you're not recused you must participate" clause wouldn't work. This is something volunteers do in their spare time, not a paid job; it's not at all unusual for someone to have an intermittent presence on Wikipedia (and thus not formally inactive) but not have the time to keep up to speed with a complicated case. (This is my situation vis-a-vis the treeshaping case, for instance.) Particularly in cases where there's a clear majority pointing in one direction and the action of any one arbitrator will make no difference, I don't think it's a particularly good use of time reading shedloads of commentary to reach a decision which would have been made anyway; I'd predict that a formal "must participate" clause would just result in a lot of "flip a coin" and "back the majority" voting. – iridescent 14:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The expectation that an arbitrator will participate in everything is certainly unreasonable, because they are volunteers, but is also undesirable, because the associated fatigue would lead to a higher rate of burnout. In my view, it would be better for each arbitrator to continue to not vote on a small number of cases, than try (and inevitably fail) to keep on top of everything. AGK [•] 19:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree 100% with your reasoning here. Case decisions are among the, if not the, most important of the deliverables that the Committee produces. Sometimes, important proposed decision motions don't pass by a hair's-breadth because one or two arbitrators don't vote. To me, and I'm not trying to push this analogy too far (because there are valid arguments made that ArbCom cases should not resemble legal proceedings), it's as if not all the justices on any given nation's supreme court decided not to vote in a decision. It's what they are there for, and if they disagree with the decision, their contrary or dissenting opinion is still important. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is if you are going to only have time to be active on a few cases, to be organised and state this (publicly) upfront at the start of a case and to not go active halfway through the case (unless there is a real dearth of available arbitrators). The other thing is to not have activity levels for arbitrators for a case change during voting. That always messes things up. Work out who is going to be active on a particular case before a proposed decision is posted and before voting starts. And then don't change that until voting finishes. Sometimes pressure has been put on inactive arbitrators to go active to "break a deadlock" - that is something that shouldn't really be done either. Regardless, all this is something that each iteration of the committee has to work out for itself, and comes under procedures more than policy. Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ratification level

Gimmetoo's point about the low bar of 100 supports to "ratify" does seem valid actually. It looks to me as if 100 supports is a rather arbitrary number. Admittedly, setting that bar too high would be embarrassing. Can anyone track down precisely when the "majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour" language entered the proposed policy? My concern is that the best value for this number may vary over time if the size of the active core editing community at en-wiki (that could be persuaded to vote on this) varies. I suspect this value has been set at a level so that we never end up with a situation where it is not possible to get future changes passed. But maybe for the next set of changes (hopefully not for a few years), this could be tweaked. The metric I would use for this number would be related to the area of Wikipedia that currently sees most active participation. Is that still the ArbCom elections, or are there RFA and bureaucrat nominations that get more participation? Anyway, maybe link this ratification number to the number voting in the ArbCom election previous to the vote on any changes? That would be an elegant way of having the minimum level adjusted to fit the size of the community that takes an interest in these matters. Though hopefully there will be far more than 100 editors giving their opinions here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the 100 figure is an intent at quorum so much as a safeguard against trying to slip in a change "under the radar" as it were. Anything 100 people have commented on has been visible. — Coren ^(talk) 01:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The 100 figure has been in the draft since 9 June 2009.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As a further safeguard to "prove" that it was as visible as reasonably possible, you could add links to where this has been publicized (which would also ensure a wide cross-section of the community were notified). Have all the places listed in the preamble been notified about this? I would presume so, but the preamble seems to only say that the drafts were announced there. FWIW, the current listing of where this page is linked from is here. That may change over the next few days, of course. I can't make head or tail of it at the moment - presumably some template is in use on many of those pages accounts for the links from many AfD log pages - the WP:CENT template maybe? This is why an independent listing of where this has been announced (maintained by those who made the announcements) would help. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I was intending to spread the announcements - which will appear in all the venues used to publicise the drafts - out over a couple of days, rather than just have a single blitz of announcements everywhere. Yesterday was WP:AC/N and Signpost. This will have the effect of the later ads acting as reminders for earlier ones in other venues and keep it visible for longer.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I interpreted this the same as Coren - we don't want the bar so high that bad practices can be entrenched due to change being seen as discouragingly impossible. We do want to ensure the policy isn't changed frivolously, or by small groups with agendas, or in a way that hasn't involved high visibility community discussion. If 100 editors agree on seeking consensus for some change, that seems neither so high as to discourage genuine improvement nor so low as to be the result of non-significant discussion. So I'm relatively happy.

My only (and slight) concern in this area is the possibility of drama driven proposals in the wake of some notorious future case, leading to a bad policy change. For that reason requiring a 2/3 majority rather than a 50% majority, or endorsement by 2 arbitrators might have been safer (if not even 2 arbs would agree then it's probably a very poorly conceived idea). But then again people do generally understand the importance and seriousness of Arbcom's remit, and if there were good reasons for the current practice, hopefully they would prevail anyway. We do want the policy to be capable of steady improvement for significant matters so there's a balance. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Authority

Commenting on Gimmetoo's other point ("One could view AC's authority as delegated by the community, but that view appears contrary to the current wording of the "jurisdiction" section"), some historical information and background:

Arbcom's authority is part within, and part without, the community. The originating concept (this was back in the days of 2003-04!) was that if the community failed to resolve a serious dispute, then Jimbo Wales had absolute authority to make a unilateral decision, which role and authority he delegated to a panel of users chosen from within and by the community - which was the arbitration committee. So the committee's authority stems partly from within the community as volunteer editors in good standing, and part from Jimbo's original role (which has become more ceremonial and less executive over time) as project leader of English Wikipedia. That might be "constitutionally outdated" or an anachronism, but as history, that's how it came about. (Another way to describe it is that the community elects the editors it wishes to see operating Jimbo's original and delegated residual powers as project leader, on Jimbo's behalf.) The "part and part" style has kind of stayed with the committee ever since - it's answerable in a sense to the project itself, and responsible for making decisions in the best interest of the project (ie the goals and aims of Wikipedia), rather than the purely to the court of public opinion, and has a slight independence from–and authority deriving from outside–the community, as well as being drawn from and answerable to it. Like with most things wikipedia, it's a technical muddle that oddly works if you don't analyze it too closely :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of the history. Wikipedia has experienced a process of discovery and development analogous to many young countries' development of government and a legal system, from the roles of various ruling bodies to the role of precedent. Someone could write a law review article about this. Practically, the AC exists because some disputes are not easily settled by the community as a whole; if the community could solve all disputes, then even Jimbo's role would likely have related to issues external to the community, such as legal and business issues now handled by the WMF. If wiki-government appears to be evolving from monarchy to elected democracy, then policies should avoid enshrining language which appears contrary to the latter. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As the comment purely references the legislative source of authority, it's of the nature of a recital rather than an actionable matter. Let's wait another iteration, until it's much more visibly redundant (if it is). Another 5 or 7 years (passes like a flash!) will allow old traditions to be more clearly anachronisms, the community's competence to self-govern the worst and most private of matters clearer, and so on. No harm done by deferring the reconsidering of a recital. At this point it's accurate and including it eases the transition from the slightly ambiguous situation and the policy of 2004 to this one. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ratifying changes

Probably some of this text should have been in the procedural header. As it stands, it can be read two ways:

• Proposed amendments may be presented to the community for a decision if they obtain 1/ Committee assent, or 2/ a petition of 100+ endorsing users.
• Proposed amendments must undergo the "identical ratification process" - adoption by the committee and formal referendum. They can be presented to the community if they obtain 1/ Committee assent, or 2/ a petition of 100+ endorsing users.

With hindsight this section should simply say "Future amendments require <process>" rather than referring to other texts or using unnecessary terms like "an identical process". I think this is what's actually meant:

"This proposed policy requires formal ratification through a community referendum and enters into force upon receiving majority support with at least one hundred editors voting in favor of adoption. Until and unless it passes, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect."

"Amendments to this policy [likewise] require formal ratification through a community referendum and enter into force upon receiving majority support with at least one hundred editors voting in favor of adoption. Proposed amendments may be submitted to the community for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. Until any changes are ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect."

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that the present version of the Ratification and amendment section is unclear or ambiguous. AGK [•] 19:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-public matters

In response to Protonk's question, this is the kind of issue that comes to mind:

• Previously good standing user W (600 edits, rollback) is facing a long term block/ban for misuse of rollback and heated threats followed by evasion socking in a dispute which has already seen them evade a 1 month block to respond to an accuser. They have in fact just lost their job and had a breakdown while that was going on, and want it taken into account for leniency, but don't want any of the personal matters publicly known.

• User X is being sent love notes daily by a user, she doesn't want to say so publicly because of the Streisand effect, but it's resumed despite a a past low profile and minimally described block done by a privately contacted admin and the Foundation is clearly not going to get involved on this low level and leaves it to the community. Another admin has explained that community consensus won't allow them to make a block unless they are prepared to publicly provide evidence beyond vague claims to back it.

• User Y, in a Christian family and having a strong sense of social equality, edits on religion and LGBT topics among others with a commendably neutral viewpoint. He stopped editing a topic after getting a wiki-email from an opposing editor saying they know who he is and hinting they will "out" his LGBT-positive contributions to his (religious) social circle via Facebook. He wants to ask advice and feels someone ought to judge if any action is needed, but doesn't want to push the guy towards outing him now it's all gone calm, so a public comment or evidence is out of the question.

• User Z is on an external mailing list where 3 users have been engaged in avid discussion and 2 of them are canvassing on a topic area with instructions how to sway consensus. The emails provide some personal information that appears to identify one of the abusive accounts. He wants someone to have a heads-up and deal with it but is inexperienced himself.

Which users handle these and decide on a possible block or unblock? That's the kind of thing that "matters unsuitable for public discussion" covers - all the miscellaneous "not bad enough for law enforcement or courts, not going to get WMF attention, but needs users trusted by the community to handle matters off-wiki and in private, to deal with them" cases. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In case W, I don't see why this information should be considered anywhere, in public or private. We have no verification about his job. More fundamentally, the block applied is supposed to be protective, not punitive: it doesn't matter what the editor's damage is, only what he does. The proper remedy for such situations is to make the blocking process less humiliating for all blocked editors, e.g. by not having visible Scarlet Letters on blocked user pages; the block log and ANI archive is more than enough.

In case X, someone would have to be able to intercept the email at Wikipedia to know who is actually telling the truth. Can ArbCom do this? Otherwise you can only choose to take one person's word that the messages are being sent over the other's that they are not, based on some prejudice.

In case Y, it is clear that a fresh account is needed - to begin with, to ask this general advice privately without having to trust that the private ArbCom proceedings won't end up on Wikileaks. Multiple accounts, properly used, are Wikipedia's sovereign solution for privacy issues.

In case Z, Wikipedia is becoming imperialistic. We're supposed to know about communications on private e-mail lists? What sanction can be taken against users here for what might be posted on the list? Are you going to punish people only if they use the same name (probably their real name)? It's overreaching.

In general I think that the more such secret consideration is curtailed, the more honest Wikipedia will be, and the less it will be swayed in improper ways. Wnt (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Admissibility of evidence

The "Admissibility of evidence" section makes no sense. The way I am reading this, checkuser evidence must either be disclosed publicly (a horrific invasion of privacy) or the committee must individually on a case-by-case basis make a determination to allow it. That's a pointless addition of process. For that matter, you have essentially given a blank check to a stalker to repost things that have been oversighted. The policy needs stronger language demanding that revisions not available to the public only be permitted to be entered into evidence publicly if doing so does not violate a user's privacy. --B (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I read that the way you do. The section enumerates three things which are always admissible, and two which requires a determination. The last paragraph (which I suppose is the one you are worried about) simply states that any evidence can be submitted privately, but anything that can be public should: i.e.: things should only be private if there is a compelling reason to do so. Checkuser data and supressed revisions are just a good example of something for which there is a compelling reason. — Coren ^(talk) 01:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Others (Comment by TheBlueWizard)

I don't want to create a new subsection, but I don't see any suitable place for my comments, as I am not so knowledgeable about the policy, and I thus consider myself neutral regarding the amendment(s). Nonetheless, I want to say something: Suppose Jimmy Wales dies today. Then the clause(s) involving his name will obviously have to be changed, and of course these would have to go through the approval process again. I would suggest changing "Jimmy Wales" to "President of Wikimedia (currently Jimmy Wales)" or something like that. In the past, specific names would be OK for an organization akin to a treehouse club, but Wikipedia is obviously too big for that now. Also, I notice that it doesn't seem to mention the minimal number (I believe that would be called a quorum...right?) of arbitrators required in order to function. I could be missing something, or maybe that's actually not a part of this process??? Anyway, that's my two cents. --TheBlueWizard (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Moved from ratification page. Risker (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy's role in the English Wikipedia is a unique one as its (co-)founder. He isn't "President of Wikimedia" or anything like that. If, heaven forbid, he were to pass away any time soon, I doubt any single person would take on his position in dispute resolution. The role would most likely just be retired. Jimmy has stated that in the event of his death or incapacity the ArbCom may decide how to amend policies that rely on him, subject to ratification by the community. the wub "?!" 19:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Jimmy's role, I think the wub is probably right. If he were to become unavailable for any reason, it's unlikely we would select a particular person to take his place; I am sure there would be some discussion of whether the community (not the Committee!) should create some other mechanism to perform some of his functions.

Regarding a quorum, the smallest number of arbitrators who can be active to finish a full-fledged arbitration case, under the current policies and procedures, is four, because it requires "net four" votes both to accept a case and to close the case. At the end of 2006 (when I was a newish editor and well before I joined the Committee), I remember a few weeks when this was actually an obstacle to the committee's functioning, because there had been a few resignations during the year and there were only a handful of active arbitrator, some of whom were busy with real life and inactive on-wiki. At present, though, there are 18 arbitrators and all but two or three of us have active at any given time this year, so I don't imagine this will be an issue anytime soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The only bit about Jimbo I can see says "Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions." If he should die, that will not be a problem - people can still appeal to, and hope for an amendment by, a corpse if they so wish ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing: greater purpose

The "Scope and responsibilities" section nonwithstanding, I am disappointed that there is no section about greater principles, be it "justice" or "good of the project", or "protection of editors", or something like that. As it is, it is just another building block for the letter above spirit attitude... Sure, it is a technical improvement over the past policy, but is it a step in the right direction? No, it is just some nicer quality paving... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A mission or statement of purpose? Sounds useful.. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of arbitrators

If the "Conduct of arbitrators" section had been in force in 2009, would FT2, as being in repeated and gross violation of points 1 and 2, have been suspended/removed by the Committee? Without necessitating any input from the community? Or would a frustrated community member such as myself still have had to block him to get any action? FT2, reply if you like (you seem to be replying to most of the questions on both talk and project page here), but please be aware that it's preferably not you I'm asking. I'd like to hear from an arbitrator, ideally one who was active both then and now, so they have some knowledge of the case and the RFAR proposal (of me, not FT2) which followed.[1]

If the answer to my first sentence is "yes", I approve of the "Conduct" section, and it's high time we had one. Integrity is the first — nay, in a sense, it's the only — thing we must demand from an arbitrator. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

Yes, it would have made that particular episode much easier to handle.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Roger Davies. Risker (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what was going on with that, but I'm more concerned that FT2 has done extensive policy rewrites including things I don't agree with, which I don't think were really discussed at the time of the change - e.g. the "Scarlet Letter" policy for userpages and overthrowing the GNG, allowing a special notability guideline to throw away articles. I haven't even tried to change these back because I feel like it would be a hopeless battle to "change consensus". I hope that the statement against making policy by fiat will tend to encourage more equality in the amount of resistance people encounter when trying to change policy in the future. Wnt (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

FT2 is neither an arbitrator nor speaks on behalf of the committee. Even if he were, individual arbitrators have no more authority when proposing draft policy than any other editor, though the nature of the arbitrator role means they may sometimes be more familiar with aspects of particular policies and how those aspects intersect with other policies.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies, Roger and Risker (and would any arb like to apologize to Bishzilla for the inappropriate admonishment she got way back then?) I too was surprised to see Wnt going off at a tangent here. I hope nobody is under the impression that FT2 is an arbitrator. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

On the issue of apologies, I'll give the same reply that I gave to Peter Damian (in a personal capacity yadda yadda): I'll certainly concede that a lot of former Arbcom members have acted badly in the past, but I don't think it's the place for the present committee to be issuing apologies. There isn't a monolithic beast called "The Committee" which just happens to suck in various people from time to time; there's a collection of individuals, which changes radically each year. You can have a Queen-in-Ireland style "personal expression of regret" if you want, but a formal apology for something in which I wasn't involved in the slightest would be as insincere—and as pointless—as when Tony Blair took it on himself to apologise for the slave trade or the potato famine. – iridescent 21:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No big deal in any case. I just thought I'd open an opportunity for a few people (you know who you are) who were arbs then and are still arbs now to give a thought to their actions at the time. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

I never got my apology. But watching that FT2 being slapped about is good enough for me. Besides, Bradspeak apologies bore the living fuck out of me, and have the value of what I think of FT2's moral fiber. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, any editor is welcome to discuss changes to wording on policy pages, and make changes after discussion and consensus is reached on talk pages. All editors are equal in this respect, so if you are concerned a significant change has been made without consensus then you have every right to query that change on the policy talk page or other venue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But sometimes changes are pushed through with a large number of edits, tweaks, and overly-optimistic claims of consensus, effectively overwhelming any mere editor who tries to question them. Jehochman ^Talk 03:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Interim elections

In exceptional circumstances, the Committee may call interim elections, in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections, if it determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators.

This is more a question than anything (the proposal, over all, seems unremarkable), but does this part envision the creation of new seats or the election of new people to existing seats? If there's been a resignation then that's obvious, but "inactivity" typically doesn't result in an actual empty seat, just the appearance of one ;). In the past of course new seats were created whenever, which was fine, but there seems to be a movement toward codifying practices so some clarification on this point might not be amiss (just so there's no accusation of misunderstandings later). Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the worrisome scenario is the combination of both: there have been enough resignations that inactivity of (some of) those who are left becomes truly problematic; in that case filling the vacant seats should suffice to shore things over. Honestly, if there are no vacant seats that could be filled and there is so much inactivity that the committee cannot work then the problem is a bigger one than a simple interim election could fix. — Coren ^(talk) 18:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The committee is the best judge of its own capabilities to meet workload, and inactive arbitrators don't have voting rights, so the majority vote decision on interim elections seems like an effective mechanism to me. The issue of what constitutes an empty seat is a thornier one; the elections have treated resigned seats as vacant and inactive seats as filled, but we have also seen resigned arbitrators re-assume their seats without re-election. An open question left unresolved by this iteration of the policy, and one which is likely to come back to bite us in the ass in future. Skomorokh 19:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going to ask which arbitrators have resigned in the past and then resumed their seats, and then I remembered who those arbitrators were/are. FWIW, I think arbitrators needing a break should go inactive, and arbitrators that resign in a huff or on a point of principle should not be able to resume their position, regardless of what happened in the past. There is an exception to this, however, to which I don't have an answer. I agree with Skomorokh that this needs looking at, but as something to be put on the agenda for the next round of changes. Incidentally, while so many people are being drawn to this topic and discussion, would this time of year be a good one to have the discussions about ArbCom elections that the community always plans to have just after the preceding one, then postpones to later, and then has a few weeks or days before the actual elections? Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Scope and responsibilities comment

Just my 2 cents worth since many ppl are making brief comments on this while they vote. I think ArbCom is a necessary safety valve for when our attempts at community consensus decisionmaking fail. This happens primarily in the cases described in the scope and responsibilities section, in particular intractable conduct disputes and issues where non-public information is at issue. However, it can also occur in intractable policy disputes, as has been the case around BLPs, etc. So, I would welcome ArbCom to have within its scope policy making in cases of last resort, since I value the endproduct (Wikipedia, the encyclopedia [nearly] anyone can edit) more than the underlying experiment in the scalability of consensus-driven decisionmaking processes. I recognize that the bar for policy involvement needs to be higher than for conduct involvement, and also that others will disagree... Martinp (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)