To parallel the situation in the outside world, the term "precedent" may
be applicable. There are frequent complaints in the news that judges
and the courts are making policy on a wide variety of subjects. One
needs to remember that legislators tend to view issues from a more
theoretical and general point of view, while the judiciary must deal
with the real cases in front of them. It can take a long time for the
politicians and rule makers to catch up with reality. Meanwhile, I see
nothing wrong in having judicial precedents applied temporarily until
the rule makers can find time to deal with the problem.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
It is not our job, just an effect of deciding cases in
a reasonable way.
There is no way we can decide a case that does not "change" policy in that
it points to what can be expected when a matter comes up again. Phrasing the
decision in terms of all administrators when we only have 3 before us is
simply to make explicit what would otherwise be implicit. This way because
all the hullabaloo which I invited by bringing the matter to the mailing
list many have participated in discussing the matter who otherwise would not
have and we have all thought about the scope of arbitration decisions.
Fred
From: Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
I object solely on the grounds that it is not the arbcom's responsibility to
create policy. And that is what they're doing. Even if I got everything I
wanted, I would still object. But let me also say that I disagree with this
option, because it's given Guanaco the ability to suddenly go wild and
retroactively unblock EVERY SINGLE PERSON from the past whose reason for
blocking doesn't match these unapproved criteria.
RickK