Wikipedia talk: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 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.


 * I like that :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 14:37, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * When a Wikipedia administrator discovers an instance where a block was made without appropriate reference to the Wikipedia:Blocking policy, that administrator has the responsibility to reverse the block and post a note on the offending Wikipedia administrators talk page requesting an explanation of the administrators action.


 * So if a sysop is found to have read the block log and not reversed an inappropriate block, they could be desysopped for that? Seriously? How on earth is such a thing enforceable? What's the point of this statement? Angela. 17:33, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Negatively sanctioning an administrator who doesn't reverse a block is not contemplated. After all, how would anyone know? It just gives a green light to those who chose to unblock and tells them to check with whoever made the original block. However, feel free to rephrase. Fred Bauder 17:46, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * My point was that you were claiming they had the responsibility to do that rather than just saying they could if they wanted to. The current wording seems much better. Angela. 21:14, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Blocking policy is not under the perview of the arbitration committee, and for them to try to set policy as the result of an arbitration decision is beyond the scope of the committee's charter. RickK 22:03, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * The idea has merit but should not be determined by a small set of arbitrators. Why isn't this presented to the community for vote? -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  00:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * In effect it is being presented to the community, both on the mailing list and here. The enforcement of abstract but valid Wikipedia policy necessarily involves this sort of searching for an acceptable enforcement policy. The alternative is to say, well it may be policy, but there is no enforcement mechanism, and each violation must either be accepted or else submitted to dispute resolution. Fred Bauder 00:36, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * "In effect"? How about notifying the average user?  This is a lost place but for the most hard core Wikipedian.  My issue is the expectation of a change in admin policy that is being backwards-engineered by a small arbitration panel.  You are removing actions the average user depends on without the process of public discussion.  This isn't a secret meeting but the equivalent of not announcing a policy discussion to the public.  Surprised when no one who isn't in the know comes?  Interested parties didn't know about it.  What I am suggesting is that the arbitration panel decision pages are the wrong place to make policy.  Decision pages would be good for suggesting a policy change that would move to the public pages for those who have no idea who Lir is.  Where is the vote on this policy change, btw? I'd like to add mine. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:02, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, the average user isn't a sysop, and the average sysop doesn't use blocks much, and when they do they normally explain why ("vandalism"). So this is only going to effect a few people, realistically. I'm unclear how we are "removing actions the average user depends on" - does the average user depend on sysops blocking accounts without explaining why they are blocked? Or, does the average user depend on sysops blocking accounts in ways that go against policy? If that second one is true, I think that's a problem with the policy... and arbcome doesn't decide the policy, we just enforce it.


 * On which note, we've been asked to enforce a blocking policy. We could enforce that by desysoping the three sysops mentioned, but that seems heavy-handed. Requiring sysops to explain their blocks, on the other hand, is light-handed, but will probably be much more effective. This is not the first time we've made such a ruling - if you recall, we required Wik to explain his reverts. Still, a ruling on all sysops is more general than a ruling specifically to Wik, so I can see there's a difference in extent. Martin 20:31, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's throw out the average user and talk about one user. I barely know who Lir is and have little idea of any trouble he has made.  I had no reason to read a proposed decision against him.  How are admins to know about this unannounced new policy change?  Why should something they do be invalidated because you failed to give them guidance?  This should be a discussion on administrator policy pages, not here.  Here there should be a recommendation to add it to those policies.  That would take the discussion to where it belongs.  (Don't read anything into this that I'm not writing.  I would vote for such a recommended change. It just doesn't belong here.) -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with protecting users who have unpopular opinions. I see a problem with disruptive editors. There's a clear difference between the two, and if the Wikipedia community can't discern it, I'm left with no other choice than to just assume the Wikipedia community is stupid. And if there's not something put in place to get these people off of here, my leave of absence will be permanent. I'm not working free for an encyclopedia written by stupid people. - Hephaestos|&#167; 02:13, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Blocking of disruptive users is a proposed policy, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption Fred Bauder 02:46, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah I saw that. It was proposed 9 April. I voted for it. What's its status? - Hephaestos|&#167; 02:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Where did my vote go, for that matter? April, I guess. April 1 I guess. Trolling, I guess. Get the point yet? - Hephaestos|&#167; 03:50, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * There was no vote on blocking disruptive users, IIRC. You are probably thinking of the vote on blocking people with inappropriate usernames, which I started and which currently resides at Wikipedia talk:Username. Martin 17:59, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The difference between that policy and the others on that page seems to be that "Trolls of Navarone" marked it as proposed and left the others alone. Is that the only difference between "policy" and "proposed policy"? - Nunh-huh 03:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Not at all. For example, since before I came to Wikipedia, blocking has been one way we deal with persistent vandals. Thus, it is longstanding policy, and policy by virtue of age and precedent. By contrast, alowing admins to block users for being "trolls" or for being "disruptive" was a recent proposal, and realistically required a demonstration (of whatever kind) of general consensus support to be more than a proposal. Various "trolling polls" in recent days may have provided this support - or maybe not. Judging what is and is not actual policy is not a trivial business, which is one of the factors making the lives of the arbcom harder. Martin 17:33, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure as to the current status of the disruptive clause. The "trolls" took an interest in the question as whether they could be banned simply for having "troll" in their name was at issue. There are several editors who have been of interest to the arbitration committee, such as Wik, who could fairly be said to be disruptive, but that was not used in their cases. Fred Bauder 12:01, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

brief interlude

 * I've clarified it so that only new user accounts such as User:Mellow (a sockpuppet created to vote on Lir's RfA) can be blocked. It also now prohibits reblocking if the block is disputed. Guanaco 16:50, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Disputed by how many people? If it's disputed by one admin, I don't see that as a reason to disallow a reblock. If there is a consensus that someone shouldn't be reblocked then that's a different matter, but the policy shouldn't allow one admin to enforce their own view that no one should ever be blocked. Angela. 21:14, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Does any admin actually have that view? Martin 22:26, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Anyway, it could still be used to enforce other idiosyncratic views held by one sysop even if it wasn't as extreme as believing no one should be blocked. Angela. 07:37, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * A good point. In any case we are talking about making and clarifying policy here, which isn't an arbitration matter. Martin 18:34, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

back on topic
My recollection of conversations around the time (eg on IRC) was that it was deemed failed - insufficient support generally (and for parallel proposals, such as allowing easier blocks of usernames), specific objections by a troll and an anti-authoritarian, and a lack of specific support (few comments). It probably could have been, had it been advertised more heavily, but everyone involved had other priorities at the time - wasn't seen as worth the effort.

Guanaco's attempt today to edit it for wider acceptability and make it official probably has a better chance of success - I'll be interested to see how it pans out - but I don't think it can be considered retrospective. Martin 16:55, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've added #3, which I think addresses the concerns here. I don't think #1 really is a problem, but I think #3 will be just as effective in enforcing, without being as controversial. Martin 20:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Though Raul654 doesn't like it, I see. Can please some of the people some of the time... ;-) Martin 15:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)