[Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption

[Ray Saintonge]

Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed Volunteer Council to
>>  have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason
>>  to oppose strongly your idea.
>>     
> May you read my emails again and find where I said so? I proposed
> forming of Meta ArbCom, as well as I mentioned that VC may act as a
> *temporary* Meta ArbCom because we need some body to start to deal
> with sediments of problems before it is too late.
>   
There is no agreement that Wikicouncil will at any time act as a 
"temporary Meta Arbcom".Doing so would compromise any value that such a 
Council may have.  It is conceivable that Wikicouncil could participate 
in establishing such a body, but that task has a fairly low priority in 
my mind.  Once established, the members of such a Meta Arbcom, should 
not also be members of Wikicouncil.
>> I and Ray referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be
>> promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from
>> English Wikipedia Arbcom?
>>     
> If some body/group/community makes some unreasonable decision (en.wp
> ArbCom is not the first, not the last; jp.wp community decision for
> your block is much more problematic because it was, AFAIK,
> *community's* decision, not ArbCom's decision) -- there are ways for
> working on making them more reasonable. However, without Meta ArbCom
> and/or VC we don't have a regular method for that.
>
> The other option is to give global power to local ArbComs. If one
> ArbCom is not reasonable, other ArbComs will notice that...
One important factor in this is what one considers to be the role of any 
Arbcom.  My view of the Arbcom, based on its earliest incarnations, is 
that it has some kind of appellate jurisdiction. It does not itself 
initiate disciplinary action; that remains the role of a project's own 
community.  This has nothing to do with VC.

Ec