It's definitely not crystal clear. What they are doing is pretty subtle. Xed was also going too far. That confuses things.
Fred
On Dec 24, 2005, at 10:36 AM, Blackcap wrote:
I'm reluctant to post on this one, as I don't know that much about the case. The first proposal you mention I strongly disagree with; currently it has two in support and two opposing, so I don't know if it'll pass. The second, though, I think is problematic, but more O.K. Note that it doesn't say: "citing NPOV and sources is inappropriate." The key words are "Masking of POV edits under the guise...is inappropriate." That I agree with. Pretending to be NPOV and being POV is a problem.
The thing I have a problem with on that one is that it sounds a bit like the ArbCom is deciding what's NPOV and what's not as a decree (note that I haven't read the full case, so I will retract that statement readily and immediately if that's not what's happening). I don't know, though, maybe it was just crystal clear POV-pushing.