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.
--- Rick <giantsrick13(a)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
"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
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!>
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!