It is not our job, just an effect of deciding cases in a reasonable way. There is no way we can decide a case that does not "change" policy in that it points to what can be expected when a matter comes up again. Phrasing the decision in terms of all administrators when we only have 3 before us is simply to make explicit what would otherwise be implicit. This way because all the hullabaloo which I invited by bringing the matter to the mailing list many have participated in discussing the matter who otherwise would not have and we have all thought about the scope of arbitration decisions.
Fred
From: Rick <giantsrick13@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
I object solely on the grounds that it is not the arbcom's responsibility to create policy. And that is what they're doing. Even if I got everything I wanted, I would still object. But let me also say that I disagree with this option, because it's given Guanaco the ability to suddenly go wild and retroactively unblock EVERY SINGLE PERSON from the past whose reason for blocking doesn't match these unapproved criteria.
RickK
"Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
> The language now reads, "When a Wikipedia administrator discovers an
> instance where a block was made without appropriate reference to the
> Wikipedia:Blocking policy, they may reverse the block but should post a note
> on the offending Wikipedia administrators talk page explaining why the block
> was reversed."
Rick wrote:
> Still unacceptable. The Arbcom is still making policy which has not been agreed to by the wikipedia as a whole.
>
> RickK
What do you see as being a policy change in this?
Administrators have always been able to reverse a block which was made
without appropriate reference to the Blocking policy, because admins
have always been able to reverse blocks for any reason at all.
If anything, Rick, I should think you would strongly support this
language, because it *hints* (but doesn't say) that if a proper reason
*is* given, then admins *may not* reverse a block. That is a policy
that I suspect you would support, but it would be policy-making by the
committee if they literally said it.
--Jimbo
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/10/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/efficiency.html> - Send 10MB messages!
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l