From: "Karl A. Krueger"
<kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 03:37:04AM -0500, JAY JG wrote:
I wasn't commenting about the length of the
specific block, but rather
on
the concept of blocking an editor for unrepentant
personal attacks.
That
said, editors who are sufficiently disruptive, or
who engage in endless
personal attacks, can be banned by community consensus, without need to
resort to the Arbitration Committee.
OK, I don't see consensus here -- even a few admins seem to think this
block was way out of line. So "community consensus" doesn't pass here.
Let's keep in mind that there's no basis in Wikipedia policy for using
blocks as a punishment; and neither administrators nor arbitrators have
the authority to punish. The purpose of blocking is to prevent harm to
the project, not to bring down retribution upon a person.
So ... what sort of harm is threatened in this case that requires an
immediate _four month_ block, without arbitration, and with evident lack
of consensus?
Again, I have not commented on whether the *length* of this specific block
was justified, but rather on the *concept* of blocks for personal attacks
(and these were clearly unrepentant personal attacks). Please keep these
concepts separate. There is clearly a consensus for blocking this individual
for *some* period for continually making these attacks.
Jay.