On 18/06/2008, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
ArbCom says as a matter of ideology that it doesn't make policy
Correct.
and is not obliged to follow precedent,
Correct.
but in this case they seem to have made policy,
No, the policy on BLP is unchanged, and is at the community's disposal.
Well, first off, as has been pointed out by SlimVirgin on the proposed decision talk page (sorry, can't link right now) - part of this decision contradicts the BLP policy; that is the section in BLP where even involved admins can take action, whereas this decision indicates that involved admins *may not* take action. (Incidentally, I agree with the decision on that point, it is better for uninvolved admins to step in.)
But it is not the BLP policy that is changed. Blocking, page protection, reversion and deletion have always been part of that policy and remain so. What has changed is the opportunity for admins to unilaterally create sanctions.
What this decision changes is the Administrator policy. There is nothing in [[WP:ADMIN]] that permits or encourages administrators to unilaterally establish sanctions other than blocks, and blocks are reviewable and can be overturned by any other administrator. They do not require a "clear consensus" to be overturned.
Even if our policies are descriptive and not prescriptive, the Arbcom remedy is policy *de novo*. The description of the existing policy up until Arbcom closed this case is that 1) admin or other editor identifies problem; 2) sanctions are proposed and discussed in a public forum in which interested editors and admins may comment; 3) there is a determination of consensus; 4) action is taken (or not taken) on the basis of the consensus. Other activities can be going on at the same time; an editor may be blocked, material may be reverted/deleted/oversighted from an article, a page may be protected. Please note also that not even this Arbcom remedy authorises action specific to articles, only to editors.
The closest parallels are those remedies that have been made to cover a small number of problematic topics, and there has already been one arbitration case resulting in a desysopping related to that. Yesterday, I read over an article where editing restrictions have been imposed unilaterally by an administrator that are so poorly formulated that they will practically guarantee a POV article, and one of the few really talented editors who's been willing to work on similar contentious articles (with considerable success, I will add) has essentially been told to edit to the restrictions or go away. Incidentally, it involves BLP information. Running good editors skilled at bringing problematic articles up to NPOV off of such articles is not to anyone's benefit.
Risker