Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
A natural consequence of allowing the Arbitration Committee seriously consider contents would be ArbCom elections based on such issues as where one stands in the Israel/Palestine conflict.
This is one way to construe 172's suggestions -- but it is not the only way. I certainly do not believe that the solution to conflicts over content can come down to "you are right, you are wrong." Surely there are other ways. here is one: a committee that would specialize in enforcing policies concerning content, e.g. NPOV, No original research (which is not, as Charles Matthews suggested, subordinate to NPOV, or it shouldn't be. They are equally important; neither one trumps the other).
This is clearly different from ArbCom which as members of ArbCom have made abundantly clear deals only with conflicts between two or more users, and matters of behavior, not content. Although two users can and often do come into conflict over NPOV or NOR, this is categorically different from the kinds of conflicts ArbCom deals with. ArbCom deals with violations of certain policies (specifically behavioral) caused by a conflict between users. What I and I think 172 and SlimVirgin are talking about is conflicts between users caused by violations of other policies (concerning content).
Obviously in order to intervene in a conflict over NPOV or No original research a committee would have to be very attentive to content. But I am sure that no matter what one's beliefs about Jesus, Zionism, or fascism, experienced editors can reach an agreement over what does or doesn't constitute NPOV or original research.
This might not resolve all of the issues 172 and SlimVirgin raise, but I think it would go far to address some of them.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701