Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/13/05, Kelly Martin
<kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/13/05, Anthony DiPierro
<wikispam(a)inbox.org> wrote:
As an arbitrator you'll make sure that such a
blatant disregard of Wikipedia
policy doesn't stick, right? If not, thank God you're only there until the
end of the year.
It's not my job to seek out and destroy any who violates written
policy. If, in fact, the written policy is not being followed because
the consensus of the community is to ignore the written policy, then
the written policy isn't actually policy, now, is it?
So, in other words, you'll selectively enforce whatever policies you feel
like enforcing? If not, then what exactly *is* your job?
There obviously isn't a consensus in the community to ignore the written
policy in this case, so that's irrelevant.
I don't see it as that simple. There is the question of when does
something change from a proposal to a policy. It is far too easy for
incremental changes to policy to go unnoticed until they have become
contrary to original intention. They only become noticed when someone
tries to enforce them.
I'm certainly not going to try to impose, as an
Arbitrator, my opinion
as to what deletion policy should be. That would
be a gross abuse of
power.
Well that's a good start, and it's really all that's necessary. You
don't
have to force the recreation by ruling, you just have to not sanction
someone else who does.
It would indeed be wrong for him to impose what he thinks policy should
be, but he still has to determine what policy is. That can be a matter
of interpretation. He can also look into whether the policy adoption
policy was followed to determine whether the policy is valid.
Ec