<DIV>You're awfully naive, Jimbo.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>RickK<BR><BR><B><I>"Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales@wikia.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">> So let me see if I have this straight.<BR>> <BR>> As long as a user holds strictly to written policy, he/she may cause <BR>> as much disruption, damage and hell as possible, and community <BR>> consensus on a matter is secondary to ill-thought-out and often <BR>> unenforced legalistic jargon.<BR>> <BR>> Does that pretty much sum it up?<BR><BR>No, I'd say that's exactly backwards of what's going on. I don't<BR>really understand why you're saying those things.<BR><BR>I think there's a misunderstanding here, and an ironic one at that.<BR><BR>It has always been true that sysops could reverse blocks done by other<BR>sysops. You could always do that, and you can do it now. What this<BR>ruling proposes is that if a sysop blocks *and gives a proper reason*,<BR>then the burden of proof would be on another sysop to say why they<BR>reverted it.<BR><BR>This enhances the
ability to block and have the blocks stick.<BR><BR>--Jimbo<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org<BR>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p>
<hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/100/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/efficiency.html">New and Improved Yahoo! Mail</a> - 100MB free storage!