Daniel Mayer (maveric149(a)yahoo.com) [050621 02:50]:
If we (the ArbCom) ding the good editor for violating
a behavioral policy and
leave the bad editor alone just because we either did not understand the
content policy violation or because we are gun-shy from enforcing those
policies except in the most blatant of cases, then we have failed in our
primary goal; to provide an environment where good editors can create the best
encyclopedia possible.
That's why I want the ArbCom to have the ability to consult subject-area
advisory panels when needed.
We can do that already. However, I foresee only disasters with content
arbitration, and it not decreasing POV pushing at all - but giving POV
pushers more system to game. I point to the present case as an example.
- d.