[WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

Mon Aug 2 06:07:14 UTC 2004

Still unacceptable.  The Arbcom is still making policy which has not been agreed to by the wikipedia as a whole.

RickK

Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> 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."

Fred

> From: Finlay McWalter 
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 01:22:23 +0100
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
> 
> 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 wrote:
>> It has not been, but that is what is proposed.
>> 
>> Fred
>> 
>> From: Rick 
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
>> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
>> To: English Wikipedia 
>> 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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040801/7e266a9d/attachment.htm 