--- Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that we have a whole bunch of cases that are currently being heard by the arbitration committee - such as the climate change dispute, which *do* need to be dealt with, but why I - and others - believe shouldn't be dealt with by a system of paroles, bans, limitations and punishment. What Unfocused suggests is effectively just the status quo - which, in my book, is going to see good editors leave because we end up having to limit their editing rights instead of solving the blasted dispute, once it has gone on for long enough.
Exactly. All I want are groups of people that the ArbCom can consult to help it determine just who is and is not following our content-related policies like NPOV and NOR. Going back to an old example; I simply don't know enough about advanced mathematics to know if a person is pushing a POV in that area or is engaging in original research except in the most blatant of cases. It would help arbitration a great deal if the ArbCom could ask a panel of non-involved and vetted users who *could* tell one way or the other.
Thus my idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC#Alternat...
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com