You're awfully naive, Jimbo.
Yes, I am.
Even so, I'd like to again repeat what I've been saying. The proposed
ruling does nothing to change policy, because the fact it identifies
(that if there is no proper reason given for a block, the block may be
reversed) has been true basically forever.
If anything, the rule is suggesting that if a proper reason *is* given
for a block, then the person reverting better have a good reason for
it. (The rule doesn't actually say that, but casual speaking often
implies things about converses that aren't literally said.)