Daniel Mayer (maveric149@yahoo.com) [050621 02:50]:
If we (the ArbCom) ding the good editor for violating a behavioral policy and leave the bad editor alone just because we either did not understand the content policy violation or because we are gun-shy from enforcing those policies except in the most blatant of cases, then we have failed in our primary goal; to provide an environment where good editors can create the best encyclopedia possible. That's why I want the ArbCom to have the ability to consult subject-area advisory panels when needed.
We can do that already. However, I foresee only disasters with content arbitration, and it not decreasing POV pushing at all - but giving POV pushers more system to game. I point to the present case as an example.
- d.