Daniel Mayer wrote:
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.
If you say so. Just to be clear -- the reason I made this distinction is first, because our catalogue of policies makes this distinction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines and second, because I see a qualitative difference in the nature of the violations: violation of behavioral guidelines is about the interactions between one editor and another. Violations of content guidelines is about the relationship between one editor and an article.
There has been some pretty vigorous debate concerning the way the ArbCom investigates the behavior of the complainant and the "defendant" in ways that often efface the distinction between the two. Although a number of people object to this, I do understand why this is so -- the ArbCom by definition is arbitrating a conflict between two people.
Violations of content guidelines, however, are not by definition, and need not involve, conflicts between two users. What is at issue is not how one person treats another, but the appropriateness of the changes an editor is making to an article. These are cases where the committee would investigate only one person.
I understand Mav's reasons for wanting to keep it one committee. I do think these are valid considerations, though,
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701