Martin Harper wrote:
Previously we ruled that Wik must not revert without
giving a valid
reason. In this case, we may rule that certain admins must not block
without giving a valid reason.
I am curious as to why people would object to the
latter ruling on a
matter of principle, when I did not hear similar objections in the
earlier case of Wik. Perhaps someone could explain the difference to
me?
If a particular ruling purports to make a new rule for all sysops,
including those who are not parties to a dispute, then it is a type of
rulemaking which exceeds the existing powers of the arbitration
committee.
If a particular ruling restricts a particular sysop, based on
particular findings in a particular case, then this does not exceed
the existing powers of the arbitration committee.
It is my position, though, that the language in the proposed ruling
doesn't change anything at all. It says that if no reason is given,
then any sysop may revert the block. But that's already true. In
fact, it's true that any sysop can revert *any* block for *any* reason
at all (or for no reason).
If there's any hint of a policy change there, it is the implicit
suggestion about the converse.
--Jimbo