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