Stephen Bain wrote:
I should note that these specific behaviours are ones which have a pretty strongly established definition already, as behaviours which would be blockable if performed on-wiki. These few arbitration cases are really just making a logical extension from the existing approach to on-wiki behaviour.
And this is one good reason why Arbcom cases need not (and, arguably, should not) set policy: it's unnecessary.
If the existing rules adequately support the decision, you don't need new rules. If, on the other hand, you insist that every decision and precedent needs to be enshrined in brand-new policy, you end up with classic instruction creep...