Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:12, 13 June 2011

Revision as of 13:55, 13 June 2011

Line 366:

#::::::I note with dismay that my concerns seem to have been well-founded. With respect to a current request for arbitration, three arbitrators so far (Jclemens, Kirill and Newyorkbrad) have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=434038134#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.283.2F2.2F2.2F2.29 voted to accept a case] apparently with a view to making a policy and/or content decision, that is, to influence to which extent Wikipedia should cover an internet smear campaign against a living person. That's a textbook content decision that needs to be made by community consensus. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 11:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

#::::::: Not everyone sees things in the such black and white terms nor makes such bold claims based on such slight evidence. What's more, at this stage of a proceeding, likely outcomes are anyone's guess.<p>Perhaps far more to the point, under the existing (old) policy which remains in force until this one is ratified, under the "exception" provision in the scope clause, there is nothing whatsover to prevent ArbCom making a content decision.<p>In fact, the protections against this are in the ''new proposed policy'', which says that the [[#Policy and precedent|''arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat.... The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated.'']]<p>It seems to me that you are criticising the committee for things which are explicitly permissible under the old policy, while simultaneously seeking to block the reforms that would remedy them. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 13:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

#Per Sandstein, and per the continued inclusion of Jimbo as the final appeal, as opposed to the WMF as a whole. And since Roger will undoubtedly respond to this oppose the way he has just about every other: please do not waste my time by creating a false dichotomy. While this new policy improves on the existing one overall, opposing aspects of the new does not constitute a reaffirmation of the old. Given the amount of power ArbCom holds, getting it ''right'' should be held paramount to getting it ''done''. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 13:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)