Phil Sandifer wrote:
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.
Absolutely. That specific sysop is subject to arbitration, and the AC
needs to have sufficient flexibility such that its rulings on that case
can be reasonably be expected to be effective.
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.
Probably not, but we shouldn't set a precedent of asking the AC to rule
on things that should properly fall to the wiki as a whole (that
business about asking the AC to decide whether "troll" in the username
was acceptable being another bad precedent, an unfair position in which
to put the already overworked AC). Where it's a matter of
interpretation (as in fairness this seems to be) whether something is
within or without the AC's pervue, we should failsafe to "not".
Urgh, past my bedtime ;(
FIn
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
W.Finlay McWalter [[User:Finlay McWalter]]
http://www.mcwalter.org
"With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', You could be another Lincoln..."