Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
ArbCom says as a matter of ideology that it
doesn't make policy
is not obliged to follow precedent,
but in this case they seem to
have made policy,
No, the policy on BLP is unchanged, and is at the community's
and done so in a highly stealthy manner
all. I'll give you "undemocratic", but then as we know Wikipedia
is not a democracy. I'll even give you "opportunistic" - but then the
ArbCom only gets to state its views when it has a case to arbitrate, and
its "remedies" are not limited to the scope of the one case.
designed to be placed in force with as little community comment or
notice as possible.
Oh yeah? We seem to be discussing it.
They perhaps hoped that it would remain beneath
the radar in the usual drama venues until it began to be quietly
Translation, please. What exactly has changed? What is "it" here?
Can't be that BLP policy enforcement is a novelty. "It" seems to be the
parameters of enforcement. But I suppose most of those with the best
interests of the mission at heart and involved in enforcement of BLP
have figured this out a while ago. I'm sure OTRS volunteers have.
Against those determined to use our pages to smear people, it happens
that tough measures may be required.
A more above-board manner of adopting such a remedy,
if the ArbCom
were insistent on doing it, would be to have had a case specifically
on the subject of BLP enforcement and its failures, with parties who
were involved in BLP controversies and had a live dispute in that
area (the function of ArbCom, after all, is to resolve disputes, not
To "have had" a case assumes rather that the ArbCom picks
which it does only in the limited sense of rejecting proposed cases.
Most serious BLP trouble now goes to OTRS and the WMF counsel, you know.
And you frame this as if BLP troubles are typically between two editors
here - this is far from being the case.
Then, the community would know that a sanction in that
area was being proposed and could present relevant evidence for or
against it. Instead, the actual case has (as far as I could see) not
a single piece of evidence on its evidence page that relates to the subject of this
Enforcement laid out in remedies is usually not directly connected with
evidence submitted in an Arbitration case relating to the findings of
fact, and I don't know why you think it should be.
I can see you don't like it, but I don't think you have the mechanisms
straight at all.