Hephaestos wrote:
Now that account banning is installed on en: I plan
to avail of it.
User:BuddhaInside has been trolling the 'pedia for
over two weeks
now,
with no end in sight.
<snip>
I don't take using an account ban lightly, so this
is your chance to
either talk me out of it or yank my admin privileges
beforehand. I
intend to ban this account after another day or so.
Sanne said
I'm not going to comment on whether BuddhaInside
should be banned, but I do oppose it being done in
this way. We should only use the ban button to
enforce hard bans (cautiously!) or cases of simple
vandalism (If
BuddhaInside's contributions are vandalism, then they
can only be described
as *complicated* vandalism)
Please don't do this Hephaestos, I think it would
set
a dangerous precedent.
I don't think you (or I) should make this decision.
Regards,
sannse
I think this is precisely what I told Heph in the
relevant talk page. I am embarassed by the process.
Either it is Jimbo to decide as before, and the
process should be that Heph is just the hand of Jimbo
decision. In this case, we fail in the goal which was
also to remove a bottle neck, since we still rely on
Jimbo, but we are not in a hurry. I understood that
banning user name was mostly intended for Michael
multiple names management. Not for more complicated
case as this one.
Or we are big boys and girls and handle this
ourselves. In this case, it should be done by
classical discussion and consensus, just as is fit in
this wiki.
On the discussion page, most of what is discussed
about is the blanking of this buddha talk page. And
there are clearly no consensus that this is a reason
for hard ban.
I ask Heph to set a nice list of "wrongness" with
links to support his decision. But...
As I told him, is it the right way that people wanting
banning of something provide arguments and proofs for
banning. Or is the right way that people opposing a
banning have to provide arguments and proofs for it
not to happen ? Or both ? Or is the answer just "let's
ask Jimbo ?" (poor Jimbo :-))
I fear very much, that just because people were given
technological tools to fight against very very very
problematic users such as Michael, we will go solving
issues that are not dramatic by just quietly saying
"If no one speaks against, in 24 hours, I hit the
button". And accumulate in a short time, far more
banning than there ever was since the beginning of the
project, under the benevolent rule of Jimbo (was that
enough ? :-)).
I understand very much Heph tiredness. The best point
in his decision is that it allows us to realise a new
tool was provided, but that no discussion occurred
upon how using it (except for pure hard Michael
vandalism).
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com