[WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

Mon Aug 2 00:31:47 UTC 2004

It does seem to me, however, that if a case of a sysop alleged to be  
abusing their blocking powers came up to the arbcom, the arbcom would  
be within their rights to put that specific sysop on "blocking  
probation" similar to the revert probation Wik was on, whereby he had  
to explain all reverts. But I agree, it does not appear to be in the  
province of the arbcom to make the policy that all administrators must  
set forth in the block log a reference to a given part of the policy.  
In the case in question, I think proposed policy 3 is reasonable and  
acceptable, but 1, I think, does overstep the arbcom's bounds, as it is  
not currently in the blocking policy that the part of the policy must  
be cited.

That said, I don't think this is a case where it matters particularly -  
it's not a bad rule and all.

-Snowspinner

On Aug 1, 2004, at 7:22 PM, Finlay McWalter wrote:

> I agree entirely with Rick.  A policy is anything that affects future  
> conduct by parties unrelated to the matter before the AC.  Fred's  
> original posting read "...It would require any administrator...".  The  
> AC has no powers whatever to make requirements of the conduct of "any"  
> wikipedian.
>
> This is clearly either policy making or policy clarification, neither  
> of which the AC is constituted to do.  If a policy requires  
> clarification then only the body of the wikipedia may do so.  The AC  
> is not a court; its decisions do not constitute jurisprudence.
>
> Please don't get me wrong: I understand its members do a thankless,  
> unpleasant task, dealing calmy with those many of us would gladly see  
> (metaphorically) hang. But this is clearly policy making, and that's  
> not the AC's job.
>
> FIn
>
>
>
> Rick wrote:
>
>> OK.  I said that for the arbitration committee to try to make policy  
>> is outside the scope of their charter.  I was told that they were not  
>> making policy, they were only pointing to it.  They are trying to  
>> require sysops to point to a policy page when they block a user.   
>> When I asked where the policy is that says that a sysop has to do  
>> that, you say that this is not a policy, but what is proposed.   
>> Therefore, my original point stands.  The arbitration committee is  
>> trying to create policy, and this is outside of the scope of their  
>> charter, and therefore what they're trying to do is unacceptable.
>>  RickK
>> Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>> It has not been, but that is what is proposed.
>> Fred
>> From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking policy
>> When has it ever been policy that a sysop must point to a policy page  
>> when blocking a user?
>> RickK
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around  
>> http://mail.yahoo.com  
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> W.Finlay McWalter   [[User:Finlay McWalter]]   http://www.mcwalter.org
> "With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', You could be another Lincoln..."
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>