Eclecticology wrote in part:
Delirium wrote:
In my view, the arbitration committee should really only be taking over powers previously reserved by Jimbo, which are basically to make decisions on banning and procedural matters. He's never reserved a right to dictate resolutions to content disputes, and I don't think the new committee should either.
We have a number of contributors who are otherwise very good contributors, but who tend to go off the deep end when dealing with certain subjects. Depending on how the meta-data discussion ends up it could be possible to block a user from editing a range of articles. Thus a person who loses perspective over the Middle East conflict could be barred from editing any article that are classified with the words "Israel" and "Palestine". Arbitrators would still primarily deal with disciplinary matters. (I don't know about the procedural) They could still have a wide range of solutions available.
Note this distinction:
"The arbitration committee rules that [[User:X]] is hereby banned."
may be softened to:
"The arbitration committee rules that [[User:X]] is hereby banned from all articles relating directly to politics of the State of Israel."
which is rather unlike
"The arbitration committee rules that [[User:X]]'s edits to [[Palestine]] are wrong and [[User:Y]]'s version is the one that we will keep."
I believe that Ec is arguing for #2 (the ban of limited extent), while Mark is arguing against #3 (the direct ruling on content). So there should be no conflict here.
And inasmuch as the arbitration committee is known to have #1 available, I also would support allowing #2 but not allowing #3.
-- Toby