[WikiEN-l] ArbCom Legislation

[Ray Saintonge]

Sam Blacketer wrote:
> On 6/17/08, Wily D <wilydoppelganger at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> I'm really unsure on what I think.  ArbCom introducing new policy?
>> That's probably bad.
>>     
> It is headed 'special enforcement' rather than 'special policy', and I think
> the distinction is more than merely terminological. The policy basis is
> WP:BLP which has been in place for some time and has wide acceptance; I
> agree it would be wrong for Arbcom to change that policy.
>   

This seems like a lot of semantic play between "enforcement" and 
"policy". The right to enforce needs to be supported by specific 
enforcement policy, and enforcement policy needs to be in addition to 
the wrong defined in the rule.  Enforcement policy is not implicit to 
the description of a wrong.
>  But how the community will respond is still up in the air and needs
>   
>> voices.  Recall that even though the ArbCom introduced the
>> contraversial MONGO remedy, eventually the community pushed back until
>> it could no longer be applied farther than the original policy had
>> allowed.  So if a lot of people are upset (and I've never seen so much
>> talk of open revolt), it probably is possible for the community to
>> collectively put this into a different, more well thought out form.
>>     
> I believe this new provision will be workable, and with administrators
> acting responsibly, will benefit the encyclopaedia. If we find this doesn't
> happen then we will have to have a look again. However, I would be
> disappointed if there is an organised campaign of resistance aimed at trying
> to overturn the ruling ("open revolt"), more because that's just not the way
> we do things.
>
>   
It's a common assumption that administrators will act responsibly, but 
that has not consistently been borne out by the facts. To say that we 
will have the opportunity to look at it again is either naïve or a POV 
push.  Nobody is trying to overthrow a ruling as it related to the 
parties involved in that particular case.  Most of us do not follow 
Arbcom cases, and to not participate in their petty details, so it would 
be grossly improper to have such a ruling extrapolated onto everyone else.

Ec