Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Procedure for changing this policy

"It didn't Happen"
I'm not sure how to respond to this edit - - since it's pretty clear that the RfC did happen, as did progress on putting policy changes in the recent arbcom votes, as did the draft policy changes, all of which exist as wikipedia project pages with edit histories. This seems a very odd claim to say those events did not happen, and were not part of a history of attempts to change the arbitration policy. --Barberio (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The RFC happened, but the RFC did not change policy nor is it a normal process for changing policy. Policy changes were proposed but not a part of the recent arbcom election, nor is it a normal process for changing policy.  Draft policy changes exist, but have not been implemented.  This page details that Arbitration Policy is set by Jimbo or the Committee.  All of the events you mention have not changed this, and I don't see how it makes sense to document them on this page.  --InkSplotch (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are subtly incorrect. This page currently details two past failed attempts to change policy by community ratification.
 * I also note that your revert removed qualifying information about the source of the "Jimbo" quote, and that this has not been established to be formal policy. --Barberio (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Both attempts were initiated by Arbitrators, which I would take to suggest means "by ArbCom" which follows the policy as currently stated. --InkSplotch (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Without conceding that initives to change arbitration policy have to originate from a member of the ArbCom, the current draft for a new Arbitration Policy was initiated by User:newyorkbrad, and it would certainly be confusing not to put the origin of that Draft's contents. --Barberio (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Unindenting) It took some hunting around, but I found NYB's proposal here. If it's a failed proposal, I could see archiving mention of it here, like the previous two attempts. I'd like to think it's not entirely dead. Have you asked NYB directly on his talk page about the status of it? --InkSplotch (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would help if you read the page's history or talk page, or the content you deleted from this page, or what you were replying to on the arbitration talk page? One or more of those might detail what is going on with that draft right now. --Barberio (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have, indeed. I hadn't gone through your own contributions, though, but now it looks like you're using it as leverage in seeking action on your request to reconsider the BLP Special Enforcement remedy.  I was hoping for something more than that.  --InkSplotch (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, the two are substantially interlinked. The new policy would give ArbCom no power of ownership over policy pages. And I will be perfectly happy to admit I'm lobbying against "Policy Changes by Arbitration Fiat" as well as other changes to current ArbCom behaviour, but I do so knowing that I have the endorsement of other editors.
 * So why exactly did you decided you *had* to erase the RfC and Policy change drafting from this page? --Barberio (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm done here. The "link" you mention is in your head, modifying this policy right now to suit your world view is inappropriate, and your methods for trying to achieve change are worse.  The link you point to one section of the RFC just shows me how narrow minded you were in that whole discussion.  Still, I'm tired of trying to reason with you and I'm not going to fight you.  You want to carry on this crusade, go right ahead.  --InkSplotch (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, then I'll revert the page back in a while unless you change your mind. I don't appreciate the "I'm not going to present any counter arguments, but I'm going to say your wrong and delusional, then stomp out after yelling 'OKAY YOU WIN'." kind of thing. --Barberio (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've listed my counter arguments, you're the one ignoring them, that's why I'm done. --InkSplotch (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I welcome your input, but I don't think you've provided any counter arguments beyond "No, you're wrong" or "You were narrow minded/ignorant/threatening/delusional" or "That didn't happen". --Barberio (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Unindenting) And I feel you've failed to provide any compelling arguments either. I've explained why I feel you're wrong here and elsewhere. So have other people. You don't want to listen or consider it, fine. Do what you feel like, and go ahead and archive this discussion. --InkSplotch (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)