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. 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.
-Snowspinner
On Aug 1, 2004, at 7:22 PM, Finlay McWalter wrote:
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 <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
It has not been, but that is what is proposed.
Fred
From: Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
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(a)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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l