[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case about to close

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

"John Lee" wrote

> And judges don't make law. Let's be honest, Charles - judges say they don't
> make law, the arbcom says it doesn't make policy. In reality, both do. It's
> just that the law isn't codified as a separate law - it is enshrined in the
> precedent set. 

AC cases are one-offs. They really are. They are supposed to fix up situations by a mixture of equity and safeguarding the Wikipedia mission. There is no precedent set by a remedy. Principles are pieces of reasoning drawing on written policy and other things, and are mainly there to connect general understandings with the bottom line.

>If this were not so, the Supreme Court of the US would
> probably not be as powerful as it is today, and we wouldn't even have this
> case (after all, proponents of BADSITES-ish policies often cite a particular
> arbcom case when arguing their point).

I'm not American so I don't think along the same lines at all. Judge-made law can be incorporated into legislation, or swept away by it. But in any case Arbitration should attempt to do one job at a time well, not several but badly. And can't please everyone.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam