Sam Blacketer wrote:
On 6/17/08, Wily D <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm really unsure on what I think. ArbCom
introducing new policy?
That's probably bad.
It is headed 'special enforcement' rather than 'special
policy', and I think
the distinction is more than merely terminological. The policy basis is
WP:BLP which has been in place for some time and has wide acceptance; I
agree it would be wrong for Arbcom to change that policy.
This seems like a lot of semantic play between "enforcement" and
"policy". The right to enforce needs to be supported by specific
enforcement policy, and enforcement policy needs to be in addition to
the wrong defined in the rule. Enforcement policy is not implicit to
the description of a wrong.
But how the community will respond is still up in the
air and needs
voices. Recall that even though the ArbCom
introduced the
contraversial MONGO remedy, eventually the community pushed back until
it could no longer be applied farther than the original policy had
allowed. So if a lot of people are upset (and I've never seen so much
talk of open revolt), it probably is possible for the community to
collectively put this into a different, more well thought out form.
I believe this new provision will be workable, and with administrators
acting responsibly, will benefit the encyclopaedia. If we find this doesn't
happen then we will have to have a look again. However, I would be
disappointed if there is an organised campaign of resistance aimed at trying
to overturn the ruling ("open revolt"), more because that's just not the
way
we do things.
It's a common assumption that administrators will act responsibly, but
that has not consistently been borne out by the facts. To say that we
will have the opportunity to look at it again is either naïve or a POV
push. Nobody is trying to overthrow a ruling as it related to the
parties involved in that particular case. Most of us do not follow
Arbcom cases, and to not participate in their petty details, so it would
be grossly improper to have such a ruling extrapolated onto everyone else.
Ec