The arbitration dispute: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir]] has the potential to affect all Wikipedia administrators (sysops). Please see the proposed decision at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir/Proposed decision]]. It would require any administrator who blocks a user to set forth at least a reference to the section of [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] on which they rely in order for the block to be presumed valid and not subject to immediate reversal. Reasons like "troll", or "disruptive" would not be acceptable.
Please place comments on the talk page of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir/Proposed decision]]
Fred
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.
RickK
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: The arbitration dispute: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir]] has the potential to affect all Wikipedia administrators (sysops). Please see the proposed decision at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir/Proposed decision]]. It would require any administrator who blocks a user to set forth at least a reference to the section of [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] on which they rely in order for the block to be presumed valid and not subject to immediate reversal. Reasons like "troll", or "disruptive" would not be acceptable.
Please place comments on the talk page of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir/Proposed decision]]
Fred
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
RickK wrote:
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.
RickK
On the contrary, it is a policy that is already in place and is frequently being ignored. The arbitration committee pointing this out and telling all of us to stick to the rules is *exactly* what they are there for.
But perhaps this discusison can continue on [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir/Proposed decision]] as Fred requested
--sannse
Please point to ONE page on Wikipedia in which there is a requirement that a sysop point to a particular policy page when blocking a user.
RickK
sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote: RickK wrote:
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.
RickK
On the contrary, it is a policy that is already in place and is frequently being ignored. The arbitration committee pointing this out and telling all of us to stick to the rules is *exactly* what they are there for.
But perhaps this discusison can continue on [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir/Proposed decision]] as Fred requested
--sannse
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
The change of policy is to block for a reason other than those in [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. Enforceing it is not a change of policy.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:02:11 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking policy
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.
RickK
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: The arbitration dispute: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir]] has the potential to affect all Wikipedia administrators (sysops). Please see the proposed decision at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir/Proposed decision]]. It would require any administrator who blocks a user to set forth at least a reference to the section of [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] on which they rely in order for the block to be presumed valid and not subject to immediate reversal. Reasons like "troll", or "disruptive" would not be acceptable.
Please place comments on the talk page of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir/Proposed decision]]
Fred
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/10/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new _mail/static/efficiency.html - Send 10MB messages! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rick wrote:
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.
--Jimbo
When has it ever been policy that a sysop must point to a policy page when blocking a user?
RickK
"Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote: Rick wrote:
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.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
It has not been, but that is what is proposed.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@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
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@ctelco.net wrote: It has not been, but that is what is proposed.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@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@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
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@ctelco.net wrote: It has not been, but that is what is proposed.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@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@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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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@ctelco.net wrote: It has not been, but that is what is proposed. Fred From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@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@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@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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
This "rule" requires sysops to have to have all of the policy pages available at hand. Fine. Then give me a table of contents.
RickK
Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net 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. 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 wrote: It has not been, but that is what is proposed. Fred From: Rick Reply-To: English Wikipedia Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia 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@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@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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
A Wikipedia administrator needs to be thoroughly familiar with those parts of Wikipedia policy they chose to deploy. Many of us never block anybody. Those who do need to know what is permitted and what is not. That is laid out on the page [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. What the arbitration committee is trying to do is to craft a remedy for those instances where administrators are making up their own policy, perhaps to some extent in reliance on community consensus but nevertheless expanding their actions beyond those set forth in blocking policy. Certain parts of that policy are somewhat ambiguous but it is a limited policy which permits blocks only in certain cases. Not in every case where it "feels right" or in every case where "something has to be done".
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 23:04:58 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
This "rule" requires sysops to have to have all of the policy pages available at hand. Fine. Then give me a table of contents.
RickK
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?
-Hephaestos
A Wikipedia administrator needs to be thoroughly familiar with those parts of Wikipedia policy they chose to deploy. Many of us never block anybody. Those who do need to know what is permitted and what is not. That is laid out on the page [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. What the arbitration committee is trying to do is to craft a remedy for those instances where administrators are making up their own policy, perhaps to some extent in reliance on community consensus but nevertheless expanding their actions beyond those set forth in blocking policy. Certain parts of that policy are somewhat ambiguous but it is a limited policy which permits blocks only in certain cases. Not in every case where it "feels right" or in every case where "something has to be done".
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 23:04:58 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
This "rule" requires sysops to have to have all of the policy pages available at hand. Fine. Then give me a table of contents.
RickK
Except if a user holds strictly to written policy they really can't do a lot of stuff that results in disruption, damage and hell. Community consensus would result in changed written policy to replace such parts of written policy that are "ill-thought-out and often unenforced legalistic jargon". Other than that you seem to have summed it up pretty well.
In other words, heroism is not necessary on your part to "save" Wikipedia. Just steady pressure on those who as you put it, "cause as much disruption, damage and hell as possible".
Fred
From: John Robinson john@freeq.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 12:20:36 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
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?
-Hephaestos
Except if a user holds strictly to written policy they really can't do a lot of stuff that results in disruption, damage and hell. Community consensus would result in changed written policy to replace such parts of written policy that are "ill-thought-out and often unenforced legalistic jargon". Other than that you seem to have summed it up pretty well.
In practice, community consensus results in "proposals" which remain forever in limbo because the objections of those who would be sanctioned under those proposals are given as much weight as those of honest users.
In other words, heroism is not necessary on your part to "save" Wikipedia. Just steady pressure on those who as you put it, "cause as much disruption, damage and hell as possible".
I'd hardly classify doing what the Arbitration Committee has neglected for months to do as "heroism" but whatever.
-Hephaestos
Surely you don't object to your objections being taken seriously?
Fred
From: John Robinson john@freeq.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 13:50:12 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
the objections of those who would be sanctioned under those proposals are given as much weight as those of [other] users.
Surely you don't object to your objections being taken seriously?
In light of the fact that the Arbitration Committee is quite willing to censure me and others for having the audacity to do the job they refuse to do, over any objections we may have, I don't think they are being taken seriously.
On the other hand, if I were to change my handle to GreezyTroll and start spewing nonsense about "cabal" and "GFDL corpus", and inserting "faggot" into every other article, I think my objections would be taken quite seriously. In the name of "fairness" or somesuch.
Sorry, but I will continue to do what needs to be done, and I hope, Heph, that you will, too.
Why should we, when our help is so clearly not wanted?
- Hephaestos
I think that it would be fair to say that people acting outside the community established guidelines is not wanted, whatever the motivations. Mark
--- John Robinson john@freeq.com wrote:
Surely you don't object to your objections being
taken seriously?
In light of the fact that the Arbitration Committee is quite willing to censure me and others for having the audacity to do the job they refuse to do, over any objections we may have, I don't think they are being taken seriously.
On the other hand, if I were to change my handle to GreezyTroll and start spewing nonsense about "cabal" and "GFDL corpus", and inserting "faggot" into every other article, I think my objections would be taken quite seriously. In the name of "fairness" or somesuch.
Sorry, but I will continue to do what needs to be
done, and I hope, Heph,
that you will, too.
Why should we, when our help is so clearly not wanted?
- Hephaestos>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Yep. The vandals have won. Guanaco is repeatedly unblocking a vandal who used an offensive term because I didn't give him a warning. To me, entering the term "faggot" into an article would be sufficient grounds for blocking, but to Guanaco, we're supposed to allow it because it was the first time. Well, great, how many articles do we need to have the word "faggot" in because it was just the first time? How many pages do we need to have vandalized because a sysop isn't allowed to do his or her job?
Sorry, but I will continue to do what needs to be done, and I hope, Heph, that you will, too.
RickK
John Robinson john@freeq.com wrote: 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?
-Hephaestos
A Wikipedia administrator needs to be thoroughly familiar with those parts of Wikipedia policy they chose to deploy. Many of us never block anybody. Those who do need to know what is permitted and what is not. That is laid out on the page [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. What the arbitration committee is trying to do is to craft a remedy for those instances where administrators are making up their own policy, perhaps to some extent in reliance on community consensus but nevertheless expanding their actions beyond those set forth in blocking policy. Certain parts of that policy are somewhat ambiguous but it is a limited policy which permits blocks only in certain cases. Not in every case where it "feels right" or in every case where "something has to be done".
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 23:04:58 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
This "rule" requires sysops to have to have all of the policy pages available at hand. Fine. Then give me a table of contents. RickK
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Point of information. I can see the block log but not where this guy is unblocked. Where do you look for that?
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
Yep. The vandals have won. Guanaco is repeatedly unblocking a vandal who used an offensive term because I didn't give him a warning. To me, entering the term "faggot" into an article would be sufficient grounds for blocking, but to Guanaco, we're supposed to allow it because it was the first time. Well, great, how many articles do we need to have the word "faggot" in because it was just the first time? How many pages do we need to have vandalized because a sysop isn't allowed to do his or her job?
Sorry, but I will continue to do what needs to be done, and I hope, Heph, that you will, too.
RickK
John Robinson john@freeq.com wrote: 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?
-Hephaestos
A Wikipedia administrator needs to be thoroughly familiar with those parts of Wikipedia policy they chose to deploy. Many of us never block anybody. Those who do need to know what is permitted and what is not. That is laid out on the page [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. What the arbitration committee is trying to do is to craft a remedy for those instances where administrators are making up their own policy, perhaps to some extent in reliance on community consensus but nevertheless expanding their actions beyond those set forth in blocking policy. Certain parts of that policy are somewhat ambiguous but it is a limited policy which permits blocks only in certain cases. Not in every case where it "feels right" or in every case where "something has to be done".
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 23:04:58 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
This "rule" requires sysops to have to have all of the policy pages available at hand. Fine. Then give me a table of contents. RickK
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/10/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new _mail/static/efficiency.html - Send 10MB messages! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Aren't unblocks also shown in the Block log? Not the Specialpages list of blocked addresses, but the log itself. ~~~~
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:Point of information. I can see the block log but not where this guy is unblocked. Where do you look for that?
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:57:17 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
Yep. The vandals have won. Guanaco is repeatedly unblocking a vandal who used an offensive term because I didn't give him a warning. To me, entering the term "faggot" into an article would be sufficient grounds for blocking, but to Guanaco, we're supposed to allow it because it was the first time. Well, great, how many articles do we need to have the word "faggot" in because it was just the first time? How many pages do we need to have vandalized because a sysop isn't allowed to do his or her job?
Sorry, but I will continue to do what needs to be done, and I hope, Heph, that you will, too.
RickK
John Robinson john@freeq.com wrote: 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?
-Hephaestos
A Wikipedia administrator needs to be thoroughly familiar with those parts of Wikipedia policy they chose to deploy. Many of us never block anybody. Those who do need to know what is permitted and what is not. That is laid out on the page [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. What the arbitration committee is trying to do is to craft a remedy for those instances where administrators are making up their own policy, perhaps to some extent in reliance on community consensus but nevertheless expanding their actions beyond those set forth in blocking policy. Certain parts of that policy are somewhat ambiguous but it is a limited policy which permits blocks only in certain cases. Not in every case where it "feels right" or in every case where "something has to be done".
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 23:04:58 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
This "rule" requires sysops to have to have all of the policy pages available at hand. Fine. Then give me a table of contents. RickK
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/10/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/efficiency.html - Send 10MB messages! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
I keep encountering a database error when attempting to edit Wikipedia pages (though not all pages -- I can edit the village pump just fine. But when I try to edit [[Current Events]] and [[George W. Bush]] I get:
"Database error From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A database query syntax error has occurred. This could be because of an illegal search query (see Searching Wikipedia), or it may indicate a bug in the software."
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
A server error, I would imagine. I tried editing [[Peyton Place (soap opera)]] with a gigantic edit and I got that. Then all the stuff I typed was lost. I'm not bothering on that article for a while.
-Mike H
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
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
Then I'm still confused, because according to Fred Bauder's reply to that post I "summed it up pretty well."
Although I admit I like your version better; I've never had a block reversed when the person doing the reversing actually told me on my talk page that they had done so.
- Hephaestos
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
Jimbo has added a great deal to this discussion. As he points out the proposed formulation provides what in securities law is called a "safe harbor". That is, if certain, pro forma rules are followed, namely citing some provision of blocking policy, which in your good faith opinion applies, you stand blameless, absent a complaint from the person blocked or some other administrator that the representation you made was not proper, not supported by the facts or in bad faith.
That would have to go through the whole laborious dispute resolution process before it would come home to roost.
Fred
From: John Robinson john@freeq.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 08:30:55 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
Then I'm still confused, because according to Fred Bauder's reply to that post I "summed it up pretty well."
Although I admit I like your version better; I've never had a block reversed when the person doing the reversing actually told me on my talk page that they had done so.
- Hephaestos
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
You're awfully naive, Jimbo.
RickK
"Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
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
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
You're awfully naive, Jimbo.
That's an awfully rude statement, Rick.
--mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
You're awfully naive, Jimbo.
That's an awfully rude statement, Rick.
That's an awfully redundant statement, Mav.
Tough.
RickK
Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote: --- Rick wrote:
You're awfully naive, Jimbo.
That's an awfully rude statement, Rick.
--mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
You're awfully naive, Jimbo.
That's an awfully rude statement, Rick.
No, I don't think so. I am naive and optimistic and trusting. These are good traits that can sometimes go bad.
Rick's a little heated up here, I guess, but really what interests me is substantive discussions of policy and how it ought to change. Rick has brought up an issue of "meta policy", that is to say, can the arbitration committee issue rulings that change policy?
It's not an easy question to answer, I think. In general of course the answer is "no" -- the community sets policy, and the arbcom adjudicates disputes within the framework of policy.
But as with questions of whether judges in wider society can (or should) change policy, it's not so easy often to draw the line between "following the law" and "making the law". This is particularly true when there are issues of interpretation and application.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
But as with questions of whether judges in wider society can (or should) change policy, it's not so easy often to draw the line between "following the law" and "making the law". This is particularly true when there are issues of interpretation and application.
Exactly. Judges become seized of a case and MUST make a decision based on the facts and the available law. Politicians have the luxury of waiting until the stars are right before they do something.
Ec
Actually the Arbitration committee at Wikipedia has at time accepted cases but failed to come to a decision. No one has objected to that outcome. (Actually courts have ways of shedding cases too).
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 11:44:25 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
But as with questions of whether judges in wider society can (or should) change policy, it's not so easy often to draw the line between "following the law" and "making the law". This is particularly true when there are issues of interpretation and application.
Exactly. Judges become seized of a case and MUST make a decision based on the facts and the available law. Politicians have the luxury of waiting until the stars are right before they do something.
Ec
Ahem.
RickK
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: Actually the Arbitration committee at Wikipedia has at time accepted cases but failed to come to a decision. No one has objected to that outcome. (Actually courts have ways of shedding cases too).
Fred
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Rick wrote:
You're awfully naive, Jimbo.
Yes, I am.
Even so, I'd like to again repeat what I've been saying. The proposed ruling does nothing to change policy, because the fact it identifies (that if there is no proper reason given for a block, the block may be reversed) has been true basically forever.
If anything, the rule is suggesting that if a proper reason *is* given for a block, then the person reverting better have a good reason for it. (The rule doesn't actually say that, but casual speaking often implies things about converses that aren't literally said.)
--Jimbo
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 was reversed."
Fred
From: Finlay McWalter finlay_wikipedia_94ac@mcwalter.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 01:22:23 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
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@ctelco.net wrote: It has not been, but that is what is proposed.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@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@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@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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 was reversed."
On a sidenote, do we have page that properly defines "should" and "must" (etc.)? I know it sounds pedantic, but [[RFC]]s have just such a section, which makes knowing what to do in borderline circumstances a good deal clearer.
FIn
Still unacceptable. The Arbcom is still making policy which has not been agreed to by the wikipedia as a whole.
RickK
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net 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 was reversed."
Fred
From: Finlay McWalter Reply-To: English Wikipedia Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 01:22:23 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
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 wrote: It has not been, but that is what is proposed.
Fred
From: Rick Reply-To: English Wikipedia Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:09:19 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia 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@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@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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Rick wrote:
Still unacceptable. The Arbcom is still making policy which has not been agreed to by the wikipedia as a whole.
Incorrect. Fred was editing that page as a Wikipedian. Other Wikipedians may also edit it; the blocking policy page is not an arbitration committee page, but a Wikipedia community page, edited by the community at large. If you disagree with its wording, I suggest you comment on its talk page. That's how policy is made here, after all.
-Mark
Then I'm thoroughly confused. What page are we talking about? The only page I've been discussing, and the only one I've known about, was the arbcom decision page.
RickK
Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote: Rick wrote:
Still unacceptable. The Arbcom is still making policy which has not been agreed to by the wikipedia as a whole.
Incorrect. Fred was editing that page as a Wikipedian. Other Wikipedians may also edit it; the blocking policy page is not an arbitration committee page, but a Wikipedia community page, edited by the community at large. If you disagree with its wording, I suggest you comment on its talk page. That's how policy is made here, after all.
-Mark
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net 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 was reversed."
Rick wrote:
Still unacceptable. The Arbcom is still making policy which has not been agreed to by the wikipedia as a whole.
RickK
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.
--Jimbo
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 criteria.
RickK
"Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@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 was reversed."
Rick wrote:
Still unacceptable. The Arbcom is still making policy which has not been agreed to by the wikipedia as a whole.
RickK
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.
--Jimbo
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
It seems reasonable that a block should, at the very least, have some basis in community approved guidelines. Pointing to this in the block comment doesn't seem unduly harsh. Mark
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
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 criteria.
RickK
"Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@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
was reversed."
Rick wrote:
Still unacceptable. The Arbcom is still making
policy which has not been agreed to by the wikipedia as a whole.
RickK
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.
--Jimbo
Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
You're not responding to the point that this is a policy change being implemented by the arbitration committee without the power to do so.
RickK
Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote: It seems reasonable that a block should, at the very least, have some basis in community approved guidelines. Pointing to this in the block comment doesn't seem unduly harsh. Mark
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
It's not a policy change, any admin can block anyone, any admin can unblock them. To avoid misunderstandings, you should point out, when you block someone, the piece of the guidelines that justify the block, otherwise, someone will simply unblock it, assuming there is no good reason. See Ed Poors cogent explanation. Mark
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
You're not responding to the point that this is a policy change being implemented by the arbitration committee without the power to do so.
RickK
Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote: It seems reasonable that a block should, at the very least, have some basis in community approved guidelines. Pointing to this in the block comment doesn't seem unduly harsh. Mark
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other
providers!> _______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
It is not our job, just an effect of deciding cases in a reasonable way. There is no way we can decide a case that does not "change" policy in that it points to what can be expected when a matter comes up again. Phrasing the decision in terms of all administrators when we only have 3 before us is simply to make explicit what would otherwise be implicit. This way because all the hullabaloo which I invited by bringing the matter to the mailing list many have participated in discussing the matter who otherwise would not have and we have all thought about the scope of arbitration decisions.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
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 criteria.
RickK
"Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@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 was reversed."
Rick wrote:
Still unacceptable. The Arbcom is still making policy which has not been
agreed to by the wikipedia as a whole.
RickK
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.
--Jimbo
Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/10/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new _mail/static/efficiency.html - Send 10MB messages! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
To parallel the situation in the outside world, the term "precedent" may be applicable. There are frequent complaints in the news that judges and the courts are making policy on a wide variety of subjects. One needs to remember that legislators tend to view issues from a more theoretical and general point of view, while the judiciary must deal with the real cases in front of them. It can take a long time for the politicians and rule makers to catch up with reality. Meanwhile, I see nothing wrong in having judicial precedents applied temporarily until the rule makers can find time to deal with the problem.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
It is not our job, just an effect of deciding cases in a reasonable way. There is no way we can decide a case that does not "change" policy in that it points to what can be expected when a matter comes up again. Phrasing the decision in terms of all administrators when we only have 3 before us is simply to make explicit what would otherwise be implicit. This way because all the hullabaloo which I invited by bringing the matter to the mailing list many have participated in discussing the matter who otherwise would not have and we have all thought about the scope of arbitration decisions.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:53:56 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy
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 criteria.
RickK
Rick wrote:
I object solely on the grounds that it is not the arbcom's responsibility to create policy.
I don't yet see what you think is new about this.
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 criteria.
Guanaco, or any other sysop, has always had the ability to do this.
--Jimbo
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 was reversed."
This has always been true, of course. I think this wording is leading people to think that this is some new advocacy for reversing blocks.
--Jimbo
--- Finlay McWalter finlay_wikipedia_94ac@mcwalter.net wrote:
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.
What the hell is it if it is not a court? It certainly is not a police force. Yet it takes in evidence from opposing sides, mulls that evidence over, develops a ruling, and issues it.
Sounds like a court to me.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Finlay McWalter finlay_wikipedia_94ac@mcwalter.net wrote:
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.
What the hell is it if it is not a court? It certainly is not a police force. Yet it takes in evidence from opposing sides, mulls that evidence over, develops a ruling, and issues it.
Sounds like a court to me.
I think the term is "quasi judicial body".
Ec