Very good points made, I do believe. There shouldn't be -anyone- untouchable. We should certainly forgive an occasional loss of temper, but for my part, if anyone (up to and including Jimbo) starts flaming the hell out of someone and won't quit after being warned, I'll happily block them. And if that person was indeed out of line, it would most certainly be my expectation that the block would be left alone.
Seraphimblade
On 5/1/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
One thing which both interests and concerns me:
Relatively new-ish admin, not only not in the usual cliques but to some degree unaware of them, blocks one of the principals in this tempest in a teapot for recent actions seen as uncivil. This is then responded to along the lines of just more fuel on the fire from the usual suspects.
Time out. If an uninvolved admin, who doesn't even KNOW about the cliques, feels that there were blocks warranted, maybe just maybe there's fire under all the smoke.
Naconkantari's flameout seems to have mistargeted and caused some secondary problems. But ... maybe we DO need to block everyone legitimately involved for 24 hrs next time.
Everyone outside all the cliques is treating clique insiders as too hot to handle. That's really bad. Everyone can make mistakes. If I go off on a tear and rampage around insulting people for a bit, and a random admin whacks me with a pay-attention block, I don't want friends from here or unblock-en-L unblocking me just because they know me.
Maybe if party X who has it in for party Y blocks Y, that's something worthy of closer review, but if uninvolved admin Z does it then let's let it all stand.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l