I object solely on the grounds that it is not the arbcom's responsibility to create
policy. And that is what they're doing. Even if I got everything I wanted, I would
still object. But let me also say that I disagree with this option, because it's
given Guanaco the ability to suddenly go wild and retroactively unblock EVERY SINGLE
PERSON from the past whose reason for blocking doesn't match these unapproved
"Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
Fred Bauder 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
Still unacceptable. The Arbcom is still making policy
which has not been agreed to by the wikipedia as a whole.
What do you see as being a policy change in this?
Administrators have always been able to reverse a block which was made
without appropriate reference to the Blocking policy, because admins
have always been able to reverse blocks for any reason at all.
If anything, Rick, I should think you would strongly support this
language, because it *hints* (but doesn't say) that if a proper reason
*is* given, then admins *may not* reverse a block. That is a policy
that I suspect you would support, but it would be policy-making by the
committee if they literally said it.
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!