[WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

Mon Aug 2 00:42:03 UTC 2004

Phil Sandifer wrote:

> 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. 

Absolutely.  That specific sysop is subject to arbitration, and the AC 
needs to have sufficient flexibility such that its rulings on that case 
can be reasonably be expected to be effective.

> 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.

Probably not, but we shouldn't set a precedent of asking the AC to rule 
on things that should properly fall to the wiki as a whole (that 
business about asking the AC to decide whether "troll" in the username 
was acceptable being another bad precedent, an unfair position in which 
to put the already overworked AC).  Where it's a matter of 
interpretation (as in fairness this seems to be) whether something is 
within or without the AC's pervue, we should failsafe to "not".

Urgh, past my bedtime ;(
FIn

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
W.Finlay McWalter   [[User:Finlay McWalter]]   http://www.mcwalter.org
"With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', You could be another Lincoln..."