> This is not a policy can change which can be implemented by the
>arbitration committee, and to attempt to do so is a violation of their
>charter and their powers.
I'm not sure how it is a policy change at all.
Under "enforcement" it says "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."
It is already the case that any wikipedia administrator may reverse
blocks in almost all cases. (The exception that I can think of would
be a reversal of a block in contradiction of a decision of either the
Arbitration Committee or me personally, which has never happened and
seems rather likely to cause quite an ugly scene if it ever did.)
But if, say random sysop A blocks annoying user B, and then random
sysop C unblocks the same person, and gives as reason on A's talk page
that although B was being annoying, it was not sufficient for a
unilateral block, that's nothing new.
It's perfectly fine for the arbitration committee to say so, because
it's already existing 'law'.
It would be different if the ArbCom was claiming that any admin who
doesn't give a proper reason would be blocked or whatever. *That*
would be an unconstitutional expansion of power which of course I would
use my 'reserve powers' as 'monarch' to overrule.
WikiEN-l mailing list