[WikiEN-l] need to work out clear policies on MANDATORY and OPTIONAL rules on WP

[Kelly Martin]

On 11/17/05, Tom Cadden <thomcadden at yahoo.ie> wrote:
> Incorrect. As it makes clear, it is governing appropiate editing styles, and used to prevent inappropriate editing style. 'Good reason', which is a term used in official reasoning on Wikipedia and elsewhere, sets a high bench mark which means 'an convincing and conclusive argument that in this one case an exception may need to be made'. It which does not cover arguments like 'we I like this', and 'I think this probably will at some stage in the future become the most used term, therefore we should push it here'. That is just POVing and is not remotely near the standard 'good reason' requires.

Look, I wrote the snippet from that ArbCom ruling I quoted a few
moments ago.  And I assure you that the above explication is not what
I had in mind when I wrote it.  Nor do I think my fellow Arbitrators
felt the same about it when they voted to include it in the ruling.

Kelly