Risker wrote:
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.)
Yes, it is certainly desirable that this inconsistency be addressed. Preferably in the terms that any admin can fix up a BLP issue if the urgency is sufficient, but that normally an uninvolved admin should take over. I think this represents best practice.
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.
If what the ArbCom says is fundamentally at odds with the policy the community wants, the ArbCom surely has to give way. In an imperfect world of nearly 50 "official policies", the ArbCom has to make some practical sense out of the whole. In a way, we have to do the opposite of wikilawyering: not cherry-pick the bits we like out of the detailed wording, but to make the various "nutshell" ideas cohere. It is clear from the detailed comments made by Arbs on the case decision that some saw drawbacks, and others felt we should go this way, and reconsider if it all didn't work out well. WP:ADMIN is just what it always was.
My own view: I'm not a great fan of "noticeboards". If the page attached to this BLP enforcement approach fails to do what is hoped, we shouldn't junk the whole idea, but have it regulated by a charter. In other words, from noticeboard to a more considered process. No question that such a charter would be a policy page that the community as a whole should put together. Notice that the ArbCom itself _cannot_ draft such a charter.
Over to all of us, really. There is a bigger picture, too. That would be worth discussing.
Charles