[WikiEN-l] Oversight log

Fri Jun 23 16:51:16 UTC 2006

On 6/23/06, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
It still hasn't been explained why the
> Arbitrators were selected as the main repositories of these powers.
> Does the removal of revisions crop up frequently in arbitrations
> undertaken by the ArbCom? Or has the ArbCom somehow morphed into
> something more than an Arbitration Committee, to be some sort of
> Content Management Committee?
>
> The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines 'arbitrator' as "an
> independent person or body officially appointed to settle a dispute".
>
> Also, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]] says nothing about the
> ArbCom having any role beyond resolving disputes.

If anyone can suggest a bunch of people who as a body have sufficient
respect and trust among the community who could replace the ArbCom in
this role, I for one would be completely happy to pass it up.  I agree
that the Arbitration Committee should be primarily about resolving
disputes.  What is /de facto/ true, however, is that the Committee is
a collection of editors whom Jimbo knows and trusts and therefore, to
some degree, some expansion of the remit is bound to occur.

It's not great, no, and in an ideal world it would not be to the
Arbitration Committee that these powers were granted.  I have no great
desire for them.  Yet purely from a practical standpoint (i.e. only so
many hours in a developer-day), the delegation of these powers to
editors is necessary, and the Arbitration Committee is the only
current body that can fill the role needed.

-- 
Sam