[WikiEN-l] ArbCom Legislation

[Charles Matthews]

Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> ArbCom says as a matter of ideology that it doesn't make policy
Correct.
>  and 
> is not obliged to follow precedent, 
Correct.
> but in this case they seem to 
> have made policy,
No, the policy on BLP is unchanged, and is at the community's disposal.
>  and done so in a highly stealthy manner 
Not at 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.
> seemingly 
> 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 
> enforced.
>   
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 
> start them).  
To "have had" a case assumes rather that the ArbCom picks its cases, 
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 remedy.
>   

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.

Charles