The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closing Statement: Requests for comment which review Arbcom, project bureaucracy/governance and use of private checkuser information are an important meta task that we undertake in public. Typically these meta RFCs attract a lot of participation and strong views. Unfortunately this one has only had input from ~50 contributors, including seven arbitrators, one functionary, and user:Philippe (WMF). This RFC was started at the end of January 2012, and has run for two months instead of the usual one month duration, in part because a lot of new proposals were added as the RFC began its second month.
The scope of this RFC was intended to be broad, including any actions taken by ArbCom, however the only incident which has been the focus of this RFC is the ScottyBerg block by ArbCom.
In this RFC are some proposals to continue discussion at the Village Pump, or initiate other RFCs. Most of these proposals saw both support and opposition, however the numbers in each camp are low, so those wanting to initiate new, more focused, discussions should persue that after considering the opposing views.
The one meta view which has some support, and little opposition, was
| “ | Arbcom should get out of the policing business and back in the court of last resort business. | ” |
As the vast majority of this RFC has been about ScottyBerg, and there is no strongly held views in this RFC regarding Arbcom, I am renaming this RFC to reflect that it is an RFC about the ScottyBerg block.
Thanks to all who participated. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search