Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
You know, a new committee with clear procedural rules will itself begin generating clearer ideas about how to deal with disagreements over what constitutes original research, too,
There is no need for a new committee. The existing ArbCom just needs to be more aggressive at enforcing content policies and guidelines. We did not tackle these issues at first due to the fact that we did not have clear community support and many feared giving us that power. The mood now has changed and I think the community has a great deal more trust in the ArbCom and the ArbCom itself is better-prepared to deal with this type of issue.
It has nothing to do with trusting the ArbCom. Disciplinary issues need to be kept separate from content issues. Otherwise the content will develop the appearance of being decided by a cabal. The disciplinary role is necessary, and dealing with problem characters often requires harsh measures. That mentality can too easily creep into other decisions.
Content issues need to retain fluidity and permanent negotiability. Saying that the ArbCom made a decision six months age about the content is a drop dead argument that prevents any participation by those who were not a part of the original debate.
Ec