Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/David Gerard, Neutrality, Cyrius
Our social policies are not a suicide pact. --Jimbo Wales.
This echos The Constitution is a not a suicide pact, a phrase variously ascribed to Justice Robert Jackson, Justice Arthur Goldberg, and even to Justice John Marshall himself. It is a bit of an unfortunate turn of phrase, since in the minds of liberals such as myself it does not have an inspiring history, having been more frequently used as a justification to trample the Bill of Rights than as a call to judicial common sense. Most recently it has been used to defend military tribunals and torture, for example.
Be that as it may, Jimbo no doubt meant it as a call to common sense. But what does the principle mean for Wikipedia? For one, Jimbo isn't constrained by the "social policies". Nobody contests that, of course. Anybody else? Are all administrators free to override policy at need? Or only some? If only some, which? It would be nice to be able to keep out of their way, if only not to waste time protesting when they push policy aside. --BM 20:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I seconded BM in his request for arbitration. I do think he is still right in requesting clarification re admins' limits. I would like to know too. I am a new admin and am trying to find my way here. The scene was ugly and a lot of action happened clearly without any consensus. This was not necessary. Slowing down to obtain such consensus could hardly be called suicidal behaviour, rather the opposite Refdoc 21:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/David Gerard, Neutrality, Cyrius page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/David Gerard, Neutrality, Cyrius" page.
