Ryulong might be going to arbitration Options

[LamontStormstar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...tration#Ryulong

Ryulong might be going to arbitration

[georgeieboy]

it is looking like ryulong is gonna get what he requires. Fucked off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...long_desysopped

[Milton Roe]

it is looking like ryulong is gonna get what he requires. Fucked off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...long_desysopped

Rlevse is talking about taking away Ryulong's rollback privilege for 6 months. Oh, the inhumanity! Is there no revenge too great! It's cruel. It's unusual. It's really..... wierd.

Speaking of weirdnesses, here is ArbComm Love Potion #9:

Blocking
9) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocking may only be used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and not to punish users; that is, blocking is preventative, not punitive. Blocks should be made only if other means --such as warnings-- are not likely to be effective. Even when reversed, blocks that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.

Support:
FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

===================================

If Arbcom does not make policy, what is all the wanking above, about? What is there to "support" or "oppose," if the principle is already written down someplace (which I believe it is) and Arbcom can't change it? Why not just refer to it by title and statute or something? And say they're putting it down because they think it applies to a violation of it by User:NumbNuts, or something. Which I think is actually the point of the above, but I cannot be sure, because it's written in Wikipedian-- a language I'm not fluent in, and which Bablefish won't handle.

[Sarcasticidealist]

If Arbcom does not make policy, what is all the wanking above, about? What is there to "support" or "oppose," if the principle is already written down someplace (which I believe it is) and Arbcom can't change it?

You incorrectly assume that i. policy is written down some place, and ii. things that are written down on policy pages are actually policy. That's not the Wikipedia Way ™. The Wikipedia Way ™ is sort of like the Common Law back before there was any kind of a body of precedent: Arb Comm doesn't make policy, the policy already exists. Arb Comm merely identifies it.

Besides that, the purpose of specifically articulating a universally agreed upon policy is that the principles and the finding of facts together are supposed to create kind of an implied syllogism: "It is against policy to block carelessly. Admin X has blocked carelessly. Therefore, Admin X has violated policy."

[Milton Roe]

You incorrectly assume that i. policy is written down some place, and ii. things that are written down on policy pages are actually policy. That's not the Wikipedia Way ™. The Wikipedia Way ™ is sort of like the Common Law back before there was any kind of a body of precedent: Arb Comm doesn't make policy, the policy already exists. Arb Comm merely identifies it.

Ah. Like the English constitution and the idea of Natural Rights. With a bit of starchamber, witch trials, heresy trials, and treason trials thrown in for spice.

If Wikipedia is due to recreate all the history of human progress in government, where do you put them about now? I'd say England about .... 1640. No revolution yet, and not yet any attempt of Jimbo and the WMF to take it all back, and be Lord Protector and Commonwealth. Sigh. A lot of good stuff still to go!

Besides that, the purpose of specifically articulating a universally agreed upon policy is that the principles and the finding of facts together are supposed to create kind of an implied syllogism: "It is against policy to block carelessly. Admin X has blocked carelessly. Therefore, Admin X has violated policy."

Yes, that's what I figured. Every ArbCom sets down enthymemes, using one or more semi-new premises taken (by consensus of the moment by the people elected at the moment) from an unwritten code, which keeps changing.

Wheeee.

[Jon Awbrey]

If Wikipedia is due to recreate all the history of human progress in government, where do you put them about now? I'd say England about … 1640. No revolution yet, and not attempt of Jimbo and the WMF to take it all back and be Lord Protector and Commonwealth. Sigh. A lot of good stuff still to go!

Speaking of enthymemes, you make the highly questionable assumption that Wikipediot ontogeny is recapitulating, not decapitulating phylogeny.

Jon