--- "steven l. rubenstein"
<rubenste(a)ohiou.edu> wrote:
My position is this: even if the ArbCom functions
flawlessly, I would still
argue for a second committee to handle conflicts over content. My main
reason is that no committee should have too much power. This is a
structural issue -- I am not questioning the integrity of the members of
the ArbCom, I just believe that if we are going to institutionalize certain
powers in this largely anarchic community, then a separation of powers is a
good idea. This is my main reason, but I do agree with 172 that the kind
of judgement called for in a committee dealing with content issues is
different from that called for in a committee dealing with behavioral
issues. Each committee might appeal to different editors who might serve
as members; the learning curve would be different, and so on.
Violation of our content guidelines and policies are also behavioral issues
concerning users. That is the type of thing that the ArbCom can and *is*
already taking care of. We just have been focusing on violations of
non-content-related policies and guidelines for most of the committee's
existence since those issues are easier to deal with. That is changing due to
the increased amount of skill and confidence we have in dealing with issues in
general.
It's not a matter of power, it is a matter of needless duplication. Most cases
involve some accusation of breaking content guidelines. It would be absurd to
put a person through the current ArbCom for one set of offences, and through
this proposed committee for another.
I don't think that what Steven and 172 are getting at is the question of
behaviour or offenses. If that were the case I would be more inclined
to agree with you. Let's suppose that the ArbCom is seized of an issue
involving content, and they make some decision about the parties
involved. There may even be all around agreement that they have made
the right decision about these people, but we still have the article to
deal with. The NPOV rating of the article must remain independent of
the participating contributors, because it is what must remain after the
warring editors are all gone.
Ec