> So let me see if I have this straight.
>
> As long as a user holds strictly to written policy, he/she may cause
> as much disruption, damage and hell as possible, and community
> consensus on a matter is secondary to ill-thought-out and often
> unenforced legalistic jargon.
>
> Does that pretty much sum it up?

No, I'd say that's exactly backwards of what's going on. I don't
really understand why you're saying those things.

I think there's a misunderstanding here, and an ironic one at that.

It has always been true that sysops could reverse blocks done by other
sysops. You could always do that, and you can do it now. What this
ruling proposes is that if a sysop blocks *and gives a proper reason*,
then the burden of proof would be on another sysop to say why they
reverted it.

This enhances the ability to block and have the blocks stick.

--Jimbo




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