Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Draft policy RfC

A bit of a mess

As far as RfC's go, this strikes me as a bit of a mess. People should have been asked to support/oppose each proposal individually, or have a section to comment on each proposal. At the minute, it's going to be extremely difficult to get anything from it - with only a few people commenting so far, it's already hard to parse - I suspect it's putting a lot of people off commenting. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but the problem isn't fatal, and trying to do anything about it now (given that people have made their comments in the form they have) would make matters even worse. --Kotniski (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue it is fatal in the sense of the RfC - Meaningful results aren't going to come from this. There's a pitiful turnout so far, which blatantly shows people have been put off. Ever trying to call what comes of this consensus is going to be met with staunch opposition. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, this isn't an issue which is uppermost in many people's minds. I don't think the turnout is bad considering the specialized nature of the issues.--Kotniski (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration affects the whole community. You will literally need hundreds of opinions to suggest calling it a consensus, and that's if any results can be worked out. So far, we have a handful of users commenting - the turnout isn't bad, it's appalling and I can tell you that the format isn't helping things in the slightest. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true if this was about the principles of arbitration, but it's not, it just about details of the process, and the vast majority of editors are fortunate enough to have had no experience of that process. Hundreds of uninformed opinions would be no use at all here.--Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]