[WikiEN-l] ArbCom Legislation

[Charles Matthews]

David Goodman wrote:
> This is a proposal that will encourage administrators to not act
> responsibly, by destroying the principle that an administrative action
> can be overturned by another administrator. Any one of the 1100 or so
> active administrators can delete material, tc. etc. and no one can
> overturn it without a definite  community consensus. any one of the
> 1100 can be as  arbitrary as he pleases, and get away with it unless
> the community is willing to actually actively oppose him.  
I think that's actually not the position. If admin A, in any matter, 
claims to be acting in enforcement of ArbCom rulings, then the following 
apply:

(1) The ArbCom will look sympathetically on those actions by A, starting 
from the position that they are indeed intended as enforcement;
(2) If the actions exceed what is proportionate or wise for enforcement, 
the ArbCom is very likely to tell A so.

Under (2), the main point, as we saw in the CAMERA case discussion, is 
that overly enthusiastic enforcement is not likely to be treated as (on 
the face of it) abuse of admin powers. The actions taken may be judged 
wrong-headed, but in a general AGF way, the point is that whether or not 
A's actions are appropriate to the case can be sorted out, as a matter 
of interpretation of enforcement. So we have these provisional conclusions:

(3) Such enforcement actions by A can be reversed as a result of discussion;
(4) There doesn't have to be a case to change matters, just an opinion 
taken from Arbitrators.

The plus here is that there shouldn't be a "wheel war" feeling about 
reversals. The involvement of the ArbCom is now written in - what was in 
the past the "admin community"'s type of decision is now more likely to 
be taken with the ArbCom holding the ring.

If I'm right about this, the situation is nothing like as black as it 
has been painted. A little accumulated "case law" should be enough for a 
workable system.

Charles