Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (May 2023): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Yes: c |
|||
Line 57:
*:It's a little galling but unfortunately not entirely surprising that one of the oppose !votes just boils down to "I don't like ArbCom, therefore Jimbo must have emergency powers". Reminds me of how some RfAs get opposed due to bewildering personal issues outside the candidate's control. '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 15:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
*::He is also an ex-arbitrator, so he has some experience on the point. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 16:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
* At the petition phase of this process, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Petition_(May_2023)&diff=prev&oldid=1154261267 was skeptical] because I do believe some kind of "safety valve" or check on the Arbitration Committee is needed outside of annual elections. However, {{u|Galobtter}} made a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Petition_(May_2023)&diff=prev&oldid=1154375906 convincing argument] that the community possesses a kind of "nuclear option", if you will, in that it can overrule ArbCom or even completely dissolve ArbCom using the very same ARBPOL amendment procedure that we are using for the current discussion—I've written up a brief essay at [[User:Mz7/Nuclear option]] with a few examples of what such a "nuclear option" strategy might look like. After thinking about this, I have satisfied myself that this is indeed a sufficient "safety valve" that can replace Jimbo Wales in his current self-defined role of protecting the community from the unlikely scenario of an off-the-rails ArbCom. (In fact, I am now worried because, now that the community has discovered it has this ability, it might be emboldened to try it out in the near future on frivolous things. As I noted on [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Petition (May 2023)|the talk page of the petition phase]], the ARBPOL procedure sets an inexplicably low bar for ratification—despite having more steps, it is somehow easier to pass amendments to ARBPOL than to pass amendments to other policies.) [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 17:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
| |||