Wikibooks talk:Arbitration Committee

non-admins are not eligible to be members of the Committee
Why not ? --Panic 04:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Arbitrators are enabled to impose binding restrictions, such as user blocks and page protections. The community only gives these privledges to sysops. A person who is not a sysop is not likely to understand how and when to use these tools, and a person who is qualified to become an arbiter is likely to already be qualified to become a sysop anyway. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Decisions can be enforced by request, the administrative flag is not needed in the proceedings (it could help but not having it shouldn't be the excluding factor). Many users don't want Administrative privileges (they don't need them or have the time to use them or even have lost the Arbitration flag to inertia), in any case arbitrators should not be selected by the community in general (or need their approval since decisions don't affect the community only the involved parties) but by the involved parts, how else can the decision be bounding ? --Panic 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * More important yet, reducing decisions and rulings to a specific "cast" of users is dangerous, administrators don't have special status or a representative quality to the rest of the community. --Panic 19:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your objections are noteworthy, but arbitrators need to be trusted. Becoming a sysop by vote at WB:RFA is an indication of this trust. Users who don't want administrative privledges will likely not want the additional responsibility of being arbiters either. For such people, they could likely be mediators, but not arbiters. Being an arbiter requires trust, a good knowledge of wikibooks policy, and activity in the community. All of these things are already measured by sysop elections. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well by this you are implying that administrators have a special trust status, this is not correct, if we start extending administrators functions to tasks like this, the voting that gave them the sysop flag does not apply, they were entrusted the flag to a specific set of tasks changing the tasks also changes the needed attributes of the users performing them, as an example, several administrators do preform reasonably well the normal tasks (or the specific tasks they requested the flag for), but I wouldn't particularly trust them be impartial on every discussion or more importantly regarding lets say a dispute involving another administrators.
 * Don't get me started on this part "Being an arbiter requires trust, a good knowledge of wikibooks policy, and activity in the community. All of these things are already measured by sysop elections." you did a 180dgr on that one recently and I have proven to you by now that not all administrators know what they are doing, votes for administrative flag will always pass people that shouldn't have them, there is nothing we can do about it, we can only make it more difficult, if I had the time I could prove that point to you but you understand what I'm saying.
 * By not allowing normal users to become arbitrators we change the "will likely not want the additional responsibility" to "can't have additional responsibility", and this brings us back to what I said the community should not restrict who can or not be an arbitrator only the involved parts can (the community may comment on the selection). --Panic 20:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that whether the members have to be administrators or not depends on what the scope of the committee would be. Would they simply be enforcing the community decision or would they try and represent the community decision? I do not have a problem with a group of admins deciding, based on what the community has said before hand, what to do, and obviously only admins would have the power to block other users or use other tools as required if that is determined to be the best course of action. I also think that it would be necessary to have some group that is able to make the "binding" decisions, which everyone involved in the arbitration would respect, and I think that for the most part a group of admins would fit that. The previous arbitration was an example of what happens if there is no organization. That being said, I think we must be careful to allow the community at large to have some sort of say before the arbitrators make their decision because, as Panic brought up, many users who do not care to become administrators would nonetheless likely like to have their say in the cases, and may have valuable input and I do not think it would be wise to deny them... maybe a 2-step process would be better?
 * I'm not sure I like the idea that the involved parties choose the arbitrators either because then I think it opens it up to a lot of neutrality disputes (from the opposite party); this is why at least in the U.S. the plaintiffs and defendants don't go out and choose 6 friends for the jury. They do, however, have the option to pick out the members that they dont want arbitrating, which I guess we could do but it depends on how many choices there are and what people think about modelling our legal system on that of the US. Mattb112885 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at the first line of the WB:ADMIN policy you will see the text: Administrators, or "sysops" are wikibookians who are generally well-known and trusted in the community, and who have had certain restrictions lifted at wikibooks. I am not making up the fact that administrators have a "special trust status", it's written in the policy. Furthermore, we don't vote on admins who are not so trusted at the time of the election, and I can't think of a single admin who has failed community trust in any way. I have not done any 180dgr changes on this issue, my position has always been clear and solid on this position. I have no reason to mistrust any admins, nor do I believe that any of our current admins should not be admins. You, of course, may have different opinions on the matter and I do not grudge you those opinions after your situation.
 * Normal users can have additional responsibilities if they show that they are trustworthy, good wikibookians, and if they accept their nominations. All other types of electons, bureaucrat and checkuser elections require the candidate to already be a sysop. You cannot be a checkuser if you are not previously a sysop. In a similar manner, Wikipedia typically requires that all arbiters are admins or bureaucrats. Of course, we don't have to do things like wikipedia does, but it is a model. Arbiters are likely to have more decision-making power then any bureaucrat or checkuser, and i see no reason why the requirements on them should be any less. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The issues aren't sequential, they are parallel to each other, yes, that is a rule of who should be an administrator (I have already pointed out several administrators that don't fill that description), trust is not a general definition, there are levels of trust and limits to the performance one can reach in distinct tasks, is more or less the problem of a vice-president to be by the force of circumstances made president, the legitimacy of the vote in that particular case is higher but serves to show the problem in your logic. (as for the 180º I'm referring to divergent posts you made on the vote for Administrator flags, if you don't recall you words I can provide links, but do you disagree that "are generally well-known and trusted" is not the same as "must be well-known and trusted"? that those criteria change in time? (that they erode or are boosted by the users actions)
 * The checkuser flag is not the same (in regards to this discussion) I would have the same trouble in giving that flag by default to all administrators (without a vote).
 * The bottom line is why must only administrators be able to perform as arbiters ? I have pointed out several problems with that limitation and up to now you have not provided a strong enough reason to be so, if the disputing users can chose freely a better judgment/service can be reached as a further example is having someone outside of wikibooks as an arbiter (requiring that only administrators perform the task would prevent it) --Panic 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not addressing the rational of having stated on the policy that arbiters should only be agreed upon by the involved parties but there are several factors that would justify that also (it may depend on the number of arbiters or the level of the dispute) but forcing an arbitration and implementing the decisions against the agreement of those involved is the same as not providing a fair and just arbitration, to make it compulsive, would only lead to more troubles and would void the arbitration objectives, ultimately an arbitration can only occur if requested. --Panic 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've answered your questions already. admins are trusted members of the community, and if you feel that an admin is not trusted, then nominate them for de-adminship. Barring such a nomination, the admins are considered to be trusted, and i dont think it is your decision whether we continue that trend or not. your mistrust in the system, is an extraordinary situation, and i think it is a mistake to be shaping policy about admins because of personal grudges about particular admins. If you feel that a current admin has failed in his position, nominate them for de-adminship. If you don't make a nomination, then you should really stop making your comments and accusations about them.
 * I have never made divergent posts on WB:RFA, and if you post links, i will post my clarifications. Any divergence you see in my posts are likely to be a misunderstanding, not a change in opinion.
 * There are many reasons why arbiters should be sysops, and I have mentioned them all already:
 * Arbiters need to use admin tools
 * Admins are voted to be trusted, and versed in policy
 * Arbiters must know policy, because they have to enforce it. Admins are voted based on knowledge of policy.
 * people who want to be admins typically can be, so it isn't much of a hurdle.
 * People who do not want the responsibility of being an admin won't want the responsibility of being an arbiter (because arbiters likely have more responsibility, along with time-limits, etc).
 * Don't ask again what the reasons are, here is the list. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I'm making you lose your calm but this is a compartmentalized discussion, I'm not addressing the adminship status only your rational that only they can perform as arbiters.
 * As for you posts on WB:RFA I will make a post on you talk page as it deals with you personal views and don't have a direct impact on this discussion.
 * On the points:
 * Arbiters do not need admin tools, even the implementation of the decision may not require them.
 * Agree, but there are users that can also be trusted and versed on policy that aren't Admins.
 * If an Arbitration is initiated on the bases of a policy dispute I don't see what an Arbitration would address, an arbitration can't be used to create or refine policies. If a direct violation of policy is found the policy is used no further discussion is needed.
 * I also don't believe that the administrative flag should be given only on request (I will address it in the proper forum), the flag should be only given to users willing or needing to perform administrative tasks, it shouldn't be used as a ranking or status token.
 * Disagree, this is you personal filling, translating it to policy would indeed make it impossible.
 * This is only an attempt to reach consensus on this very distinct point as it is I'm strongly opposed to that requirement and would oppose the policy. --Panic 23:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not losing my calm.
 * User blocks or page protections can be specified by arbiters, and arbitration is binding. That means that an arbiter can require that administrative tools should be used. The only people qualified to specify that admin tools should be used, and the only people qualified to make those decisions about the tools are admins. Therefore, an arbiter must be an admin, Q.E.D.
 * Those people, if they are truely trusted and versed in policy can then easily become admins.
 * Policy is intentially vague on a number of points, and it is up to the judgement of wikibookians as to how to interpret it. Arbiters will make binding interpretations of this sort, when required. For this reason it's important for arbiters to know and understand policy, not just the words of policy (which can be vague), but also the spirit of the policy, which is frequently not written down.
 * Administrative flag is not given on request, but people who are well-qualified typically receive the necessary votes. People who are not qualified, do not. Typically, people who are "qualified" have been active in cleanup and help work.
 * You cannot be both A and not A. You cannot both avoid responsibility, and at the same time want more responsibility. It's not my opinion, it's a logical fallacy.
 * You can be opposed to this policy for any reason, i doubt a policy like this will ever make everybody happy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * reset

Well at least we can try to make is as fair and complete as possible :) --Panic 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) That can basically be solved (and I think is already stated) on the text, that will make any admin requested to do so to perform the needed tasks. (better yet it will make them public knowledge and reduce the probability for abuses)
 * 2) Not all users chose to be admins (take me for example)
 * 3) Disagree, if we are aiming to make policies intentionally vage we are indeed doing a bad service to Wikibooks, the vagueness of polices should not enable personal judgments of any user about another, the only reason to leave something vage on a policy is error or inability to address all the points (that is why the policies can be redrafted) or to make it general any loophole as in normal law should not be used to validate disciplinary actions, that only leads to abuse. (That is why we shouldn't have to many policies and be as general as possible)
 * 4) I have already addressed this with you.
 * 5) Don't agree also, you can be a fireman but not a policeman, responsibility or capacity to address issues can't be generalized in such a way.


 * Just to address the issue at hand here, about the unique status of admins. As originally conceived, the position of being an administrator was not really supposed to "be a big deal" (to quote the all-knowing Jimbo here).  It was conceived as merely somebody who has been participating long enough that we could acknowledge that they would not be able to harm the project through vandalism or other such patent nonsense.  And it was made a community recognition tool for "promotion" mainly to keep these same vandals from using automated process that would try and cheat the system.  Vandalism attacks that exploit the semi-protection system are an example of this sort of vandal gaming.
 * Unfortunately, the status of becoming an admin has achieved some sort of aura that I simply can't account for here. And the standards that are applied to somebody to become an admin are seemingly constantly raised.  I know this seems a little hypocritical her, because I have voted down some people who have applied for adminship in even the recent past for lack of experience.  I have especially gone hard after those individuals who seemingly want to have adminship on every possible project and are glory seekers.  The rationale of "I'm an admin on project en.wiki???" is not only useless as an argument now, it is a reason to reject the request.  If that is their only qualification, they really aren't a member of the community.
 * And I'll admit, more and more is being dumped upon admins as more tools become available with the MediaWiki software, and this is one of the aspects that does go into why the standards are being raised. This, together with the growing prominence of the Wikimedia projects where substantial changes to major pages will have a huge impact on outside perception of the project, causes a stronger view that only users who are very trusted ought to become admins.  So much so that I have even argued that some in-between stage ought to be made that is sort of a sub-admin, doing things like recent changes patrol (having the ability for a rapid revert), or being able to edit protected pages.  The proposal was shot down completely on en.wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be recommended here.
 * As far as having otherwise unique status with this Arbitration Committee, I think it would be essentially one and the same with at least the current group of admins if Wikibooks users were to try and choose who would be members of this committee through an independent process. As a means to suggest who might be reasonable to consider for membership of this group of arbitors, the current group of admins is easy and doesn't require a whole other set of voting.  But I can also consider some individuals who have turned down adminship in the past that I may want to support for this very independent role.  The requirements for serving as an arbitor certainly could be different than those of being an administrator, and any decisions by these arbitors should be carried out by any admin once a decision is made.  It takes two very different sets of skills here and I don't think they are necessarily a one to one match.
 * There needs to be more than one arbitor, even on any one given "case" or situation. That above all else was my folly when I tried to deal with you Panic.  Once the arbitration started, I had no other solid defenders of what I was trying to accomplish and quite a few people who were against what I was doing.  I didn't expect the opposition to come from the individuals who fought against me and deliberately reversed my actions, nor did I expect the blatant wheel warring that resulted either.  The only way I felt I could have kept it going was to engage is a wholesale out right wheel war, and I wasn't prepared to do that, so I backed off instead.  If multiple individuals were involved from the beginning, I would have been able to have these individuals step in and "take over" if there were complaints about taking too much time to make a decision.  It also helps out in general for people to discuss complicated issues at length without feeling pressured to make a decision by one of the parties directly involved.  Or at least be able to tell those trying to force a decision to "back off and let us get our thoughts together."  By myself, I was unable to do that.
 * Above all else, I hope the need for arbitration is something that is a very rare event on Wikibooks, and when it is done it should be taken as the serious event that it implies. Those who become arbitors should also get the full support of the rest of the community and be allowed to carry out whatever actions may be necessary and not fight them on every point that comes along.  --Rob Horning 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would fully support Panic's proposal. The arbitrator needn't be an administrator and in fact in many cases an ordinary person would be better at the task.  Any decisions from the arbitration can be enforced by an administrator when the outcome is known.  How exactly is an administrator well-known and trusted?  We don't know who anyone is. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 23:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That was the point I was defending and attempting to get a consensus on, in any case if User:Whiteknight blocks the arbitration policy on only that point I will concede that having only administrators as arbiters is better than have the policy blocked, even if I think we will weaken the policy by requiring it to be so, that was what I was attempting to obtain from anyone opposing such freedom and fair distribution of functions.
 * User:Robert Horning raises yet another point, what should be the minimum number of arbiters, I was set to defend that it could be only one, but in light of the points raised I will modify my view, but what would be a perfect number 2, 3+, even numbers can lead to tie about the decission, one can include in the policy a vote by majority from the community or something on those lines but that again (as events have shown) will only give voice to the active minority and permit a public trail without rules (like misrepresenting facts, or social engineering) that can lead to unfair result. I will start a new thread on that topic. --Panic 00:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

minimum number of arbiters
What should be the best number and what to do if a tie or a block (depending on how we validate the decission) is the result of the arbitration. --Panic 00:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One idea is to let the parties vote and if the votes are opposed they can be disregarded that would mean a more acceptable resolution to problems on reinforce the spirit of consensus. This also leads to the numbers of the users involved on a dispute will arbitration only address 1 vs 1 conflicts ? --Panic 00:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the best idea would be to pick 3 or 5 arbiters from the pool of available arbiters for each case. These few arbiters could be selected by the two parties based on mutual agreement as to which arbiters are the least biased. I dont envision a standing committee of fixed size so much as I envision a pool of available arbiters, from whom an committee can be formed specially for each case. The benefit to this approach is that it prevents any one group of arbiters from being too "powerful", and it also prevents arbiters who might be biased from participating in particular cases. To prevent ties, we would likely want to pick 3 or 5 (an odd number). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that arbiters shouldn't be a static pool or a standing committee.
 * As for how they reach the decission I'm still torn, the idea above on having the targets of the decission express their votes is very appealing but would only work under consensus (the definition I use in the strict meaning), probably using some of the proposed restrictions I advance on my essay, would address any problems on using it as a method here. --Panic 01:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to talk about your "strict meaning" of consensus, you would likely cause less confusion if you said "100% agreement".
 * I think once the arbiters are selected, it can be left up to the arbiters how they come to a decision. I dont care whether the arbiters vote and follow the majority, or if they compromise and come to a joint decision. If arbiters are experianced wikibookians, i think they can figure out how to come to a conclusion. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See, "100% agreement" == unanimity, not consensus :), and I'm the one having difficulties writing English here...
 * On the decission, that can lead to problems or the aggravation of them, but it's a possibility. --Panic 01:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Seperate arbitration boards
I don't understand the need to have two isolated and distinct arbitration boards, one for content and the other for personality disputes. If one (the Editorial board) was already well established and functioning with a strong history, I might feel a bit different. But that isn't the case here.

If there is in the future such a huge demand on the arbiters that they are feeling overwhelmed, perhaps a separation of responsibilities might be in line. At the same time, I can see areas of responsibility overlapping and that becoming a point of contention between the two bodies, especially when such overlap is not necessary.

I know that Whiteknight has put quite a bit of effort into these proposals, and I don't want to disparage what he has put in here in this regard. I also think there is a role that a content advisory group could offer that would be of significant benefit for helping with content development, and could offer support as a mediation body as well. But I do believe that an arbitration body like this one really should be the "ultimate" authority even on content disputes, as any such major dispute would ultimately also involve personalities and other sorts of complaints that would go way beyond the realm of trying to decide who should have the last say with content. --Rob Horning 01:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Originaly the intent was to have two separate boards, but recently that idea has been abandoned. Unfortunately, following the discussions on these issues can be difficult as we end up discussing these kinds of things on a variety of talk pages.
 * The editorial board (as the proposal currently stands) won't deal with disputes whatsoever, because content disputes should be handled by Decision making, or WB:RFC. The editorial board will deal with content, distribution, and publishing of books. I've spelled out precisely what the editorial board will do HERE.
 * I agree that if we are talking about arbitration that it should be all or nothing. Once an arbitration decision has been made, it should not be open to appeal or overturning. On wikipedia, Jimbo held a veto over the arbitration committee, but he has famously never used that power. This leads me to believe that it's not a common occurrence and we would do just as well to completely forbid it. My point has always been that if arbitration is not the "final word" in a dispute, that there was no point to have it at all. We should also make it clear that arbitration is a final resourt, and the arbitration committee should be very encouraged to turn down cases that haven't exhaused all other solutions.
 * By the way, thanks for acknowledging my input on this, sometimes it feels like nobody reads the crap I write around here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ultimately the WMF board of trustees would hold a very similar authority Jimbo had, but like you mentioned here, it is very, very unlikely that they would ever get involved with a dispute unless the arbiters got so out of hand that basic pillars were being violated and encouraged to be violated by the arbiters. Using the example (that I am familiar with) of the U.S. Supreme Court, they only hear about 30 cases a year (+/- 20).  You can send up an appeal, but it is very unlikely they will accept all but the most preceedent setting cases.  I think in regards to the WMF board, they might only review about 5-10 arbitrations at all for all Wikimedia projects, all things considered.  Nor should they ever have to get to that level for most situation like that.  Too bad that the WMF hasn't made any formal policy on that point, but it doesn't really matter anyway.
 * I would like to see something done that would involve stewards, but again, this is not something to even be covered by this policy. That would be something that would be decided by the WMF as a multi-project arbitration review group.  And again, they would only be investigating those arbitration matters that seemed to have gone amok.  If such a group is formed, the "community concensus" would more than likely take place on Meta for policies and involve people from nearly all major Wikimedia projects.  They would also only "hear" a very limited number of arbitration cases and still largely defer to decisions made by the individual projects.  So as a pratical matter, this ought to be considered the final resolution to the matter, and certainly action could be taken even if the process is "in appeal".  --Rob Horning 03:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary and unhelpful
This policy in unnecessary and unhelpful. We've only had a single incident where such a policy was needed. If we're lucky, there won't be another for a few years, at which point committee members may well have moved on. Furthermore, without more experience, we should not be too hasty to create a policy on it just in case it ever happens again. Maybe an essay will be more fitting.

Finally, we shouldn't make it too easy to fall back on this. I see no reason why we shouldn't leave a lot of pressure on editors to make nice. Arbitration should be an absolute exception. Creating any sort of process where people can sign up is just asking for trouble. OK, no-one is proposing a sign-up sheet, but you get the idea.

I've trimmed down Arbitration and think it's OK to keep it around. Most of the content that I cut was something that everyone can agree with and come up with on their own. If we are to pick arbiters, we should pick intelligent people who don't need guides like these, but are able to take matters into their own hands and steer the community through the troubles.

Intelligence is not one of the hall-marks of committees. --Swift (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reject this proposal?
I think this policy is simply unnecessary (see also Swift's comment above.) The current Wikibooks community is very small: Not counting users who only work on their books and aren't really involved with the community, we have: Adrignola (of course), Mike.lifeguard, Jomegat, Thenub, Chazz, Pi zero, Darklama, Duplode, Panic, 33rogers, QuiteUnusual, Swift, and... ok, the list may be incomplete so feel free to add yourself here if I missed you, but anyway it isn't a particularly large community. The reason why there is an ArbCom on Wikipedia is because it has a really large community, and lots of sub-communities under that, which results in a huge number of disputes. Wikibooks? Most books are either abandonned or maintained by only one user (Thenub, for example, is probably the only significant maintainer of Maths), which makes serious disputes very rare. And when there is one, the entire community listed above can participate in it, as there are approximately as many people in the Wikbooks community than there are checkusers in WP! Therefore this proposal is unnecessary and should be rejected. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Without getting at all into the merits or demerits of the proposal, I'd like to point out that, so it seems to me, what you're naming isn't the Wikibooks community. It's what one might call the project-wide cell of the Wikibooks community (or, perhaps, of the Wikibooks population, which doesn't imply the overall coherence of a community): the people who concern themselves with issues that span the entire project.  I don't nearly know my way around the ways of ferreting out statistics on such things, but my impression has been that a book, or sometimes a small and well-defined group of books, tends to be sufficiently large, and at the same time sufficiently focused, that it will contain the attention of its contributor(s), supposing that it has any, and they will form a sort of cell.  So I imagine the population of Wikibooks as a largely partitioned thing, made up of these cells.  With some overlap here and there, of course.  There are just a few of us who are involved on a regular basis in the project-wide stuff, with some of those also associating with one or more particular books.  Actually ferreting out these statistics, to see how well my theory holds up, would be interesting (also, one fears, time-consuming); but here's one I do happen to know about:  Special:ActiveUsers shows, as of just now, 619 registered users who have edited Wikibooks in the past month.  Contrasted with, um, 370 registered users who have edited Wikinews in the past month.  Oh, and another with some degree of relevance &mdash; the [ list of editors], which if I counted right has 184 names.  Wikibooks has rather less project-wide participation per capita than does Wikinews (which consequently tends to feel like a bigger place than Wikibooks), but it's not really that small.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wikibooks-Wikinews comparison is an approximately 1:1.8 ratio, with reference to the number of users that actually made a significant number of edits. However, as a newbie wikinewsie, I feel that the rules of Wikinews are very strict - of the 6 published articles I wrote none of them passed the first review - and besides, Wikinews has to race against the clock, while Wikibooks doesn't. So, on Wikibooks, users can sit down, have a cup of coffee, and discuss calmly. This is not possible in Wikinews as things have to be real fast, at least IMO, as news becomes olds very soon. (A classic Cantonese joke BTW.) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (Heh. You've got the measure of Wikinews.  They're in a hurry.  Plainspoken because they don't have time for courtesies, and they simply don't do long thoughtful discussions because they don't have time for that, either (though they sometimes have short thoughtful discussions).  The lack of long thoughtful discussions makes it important to have an arbitration committee to fall back on, a concern that does not apply here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi zero (discuss • contribs)


 * While I know some of the history of why this proposal came about, and understand the motivation surrounding the proposal, I agree it should be rejected. --dark lama  13:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reject. No need for a committee and if there was one it would have to arbitrate about once every three years. QU TalkQu 14:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reject too. The nature of Wikibooks (specially the partitioned character Pi zero mentioned) means that large-scale conflicts are extremely rare, so we do not need this level of bureaucracy. For emergencies and other extraordinary circumstances the simpler procedures Swift referred to in Arbitration should be enough. --Duplode (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reject. Wikinews has a committee of six; for only a modestly larger committee than that, we could define the membership to be all active admins.  More overhead than we need here.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think once again Kayau, has put forward an unnecessary proposal. I don't see any positive outcome for promoting the rejection of a proposal. The status of a rejected proposal will remain mostly the same. There are a lot of proposal that haven't as yet reached a stage that the proponents felt as good enough to put them forward for approval, it doesn't seem as useful for someone that hasn't an invested interest in them to shortcut the process in this way especially since Kayau didn't first express his opposing position in a more positive and constructive meaner or contributed to fix the proposal.
 * Even if no positive outcome is expected there is a gain of visibility due to the process. I fully agree with Pi zero, in past discussions we have refereed to this active groups as the active majority (and subsets as active minority), since some processes of decision in the past have been decided by a majority vote and at times this active majority dangerously sees itself as the full community.
 * This proposal was needed at a time that consensus was not always seeked and is still somewhat pertinent for example in cases like the User:Thekohser (see the talk page), personally I think that blocking the user from writing on his talk-page was uncalled for and refuses him the ability to pursue an unblock, note that the previous unblock request was not initiated by the user.
 * In any case I see the proposal as having merit but less relevant today, but this discussion becomes pointless as no one is acting to see it approved... --Panic (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I could see leaving it as a draft proposal or rejecting it, with the former simply leaving it open for if the community ever grows large enough to need it. There are plenty of draft proposals that have been in limbo for some time. That said, we definitely don't need it at this point. – Adrignola talk contribs 21:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is particularly healthy to have obviously inactive drafts hanging around forever in limbo, and feel that stating clearly why the current community is not interested in them is productive. As for practical matters, maybe all we need is a softer version of rejected, stating something like "This proposal was declared inactive by community consensus in June 2010. It is kept for future reference, should the issues it addresses need to be reconsidered." --Duplode (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two points of contradiction on that view. The proponents never advanced the proposal for adoption, in this respect Kayau broke common practice by proposing the rejection of a non-proposal (this was and still is a project for a proposal) and as a non proponent (not working to improve and adopt it) placing him clearly as a non supporter, this action should then be considered void.
 * The other point is the value of a state of rejection. That state is only reached as proposal are presented for adoption (not for rejection), and the only outcome that can be gathered from it is that at that particular time the community felt that the proposed text had no merit and wouldn't benefit the project as it was presented, in a small time-frame this would signify that a readdressing of the proposal would only be valid after significant changes and in a log run when due to changes in general attitude, the proponents see that the time is right for a possible adoption (similar to the last aborted RfD by Kayau). This doesn't invalidate targeting the staled proposal for RfD, but that goes in accordance to the deletion policy, since this types of texts aren't text books, special considerations are required to determine what would indeed merit a RfD in these cases, this can easily be done by asking the proponents if they feel the proposal project (rejected or not) is still useful. I doubt that you will find a proposal orphan of proponents (but all will assuredly have objectors). Consider also the next lines.
 * Policy and guidelines proposals have another significance (not all non-textbook content on Wikibooks has an equal state). They reflect the views of minorities until adopted, as such they merit some extra protection. Most significant changes and improvements to the Wikibooks project will spawn from those texts in a more consensual way. It is good to have such concepts available to build consensus and test opinions and it also reduces the need to rehash issues from 0. --Panic (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I must insist that the proposal should be rejected. Again I shall warn about my lack of age and English skills, as well as my being still rather new to Wikibooks. In my opinion, the word 'draft' implies that the proposal shall be either rejected or approved in the near future. (This is certainly the case in Wikipedia.) If a proposal with little chance of going through is put into the 'draft' category, then eventually the 'draft' category will be filled up, and it is hard to distinguish between those who are generally not accepted at the time, and those who have a potential of being adopted soon. This causes confusion. Another thing is that just because a proposal is rejected does NOT mean that it cannot be reopened for discussion again. As long as a Wikibookian thinks it is time that the proposal be reconsidered, then I see no reason why the community cannot discuss again and adopt it. You also mentioned the RfD for colouring book. I admit that I was wrong about that. You also mentioned that they 'reflect the views of minorities until adopted, as such they merit some extra protection.' That sounds rather like an essay. w:Wikipedia:Quotations, for example, was an essay at the beginning, but it was nominated as a policy. If a remember correctly it was rejected.
 * This draft proposes that a new committee be started in Wikibooks. That makes is different from other proposals (eg. style guides etc.) However, if the new committee is not even likely to be formed, why would one want a set of rules to be proposed for it? If this proposal is not marked as a 'proposal', it may as well become a essay, though it has to be made clearer that only some users want this to happen, and state clearly a point.
 * Finally, a question: (though my comment may be considered having the head of a tiger and the tail of a snake to use a Chinese phrase) Panic, you have stated several reasons against my proposal that this draft should be rejected. However, what is your standpoint? Do you think that this policy should be adopted? This should be addressed as well, IMO. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 10:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My position is that the draft is not ready to be proposed (as can be seen in by earlier discussions, there is no consensus). I see the creation of an arbitration process extremely important (even if I'm not convinced of a need for a standing committee) I would prefer an open and ad-hoc process with the agreement of the participants on the dispute. But I recognize that having a pool of Wikibookians available to help other reach agreements can be important, since most people will probably shy away from any antagonistic contest (be pushed over or abandon the project if consensus fails) or be forced/lead to escalate the issue.
 * I also agree with the comments made recently, that at present there is no need for the process, except for the example I gave above (that I disagree on how it took place, and the final result but I think it was up to that Wikibookian to protest). Things have evolved on Wikibooks in spirit and rules (the block policy), people have also changed and hopefully learned from past mistakes, but in time it may become again a necessity to deal with issues that split the active majority in a way that consensus has to be reached by the arbitration solution. --Panic (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is to reject; when the page is ready to be proposed again, due to refactoring or a change in climate, the tag can be changed to "draft" once again. – Adrignola talk contribs 12:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)