I have no opinion with regards to LT.
I know some people I trust, do not think JRR is 142.
Two cases
* if JRR is 142 : then the argument he should be banned for being a reincarnation fits with the policy.
* if JRR is NOT 142 : then JRR activity is only meant to irritate people in the community. That is a pure trolling issue. And this, deserve **either banning **or dropping the whole topic, stopping discussing it, as should be done with any good troll.
I trust Heph (even if I know that he is a bit hot on the ban button sometimes :-)), I know not Guanaco much (but I think he is totally acting within the rules, so he must not feel the community does not support him, he is acting well). And I also feel like you have a point.
I read your mail, but unfortunately must go for the day. I suggest that we see what is the feedback of other people on this issue. Certainly, we can find a common ground between all of you.
Ant
Mark Richards wrote:
Help me out here - why are you sure that LT is the same as 142? Is there any evidence at all, or do you not need any? Mark
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Errrr, I think Maveric, Angela, Tim Starling, Eloquence and Uninvited Company, to cite just a few, will have a good laugh when they read I am part of an angry mob trying to ban 142.
That sure has peps ;-)
Okay. Let's go on privately then.
Is there any news of the AC on this point ?
Mark Richards wrote:
You may feel that the policy is silly, the AC is
too
slow, and that you don't need evidence, but I
can't go
along with thet. I don't see any evidence of LT
being
a banned user, no-one has provided any. No one has asked him/her, and no one has provided evidence
that
any of their edits are problematic. You are acting like an angry mob, and I can't go along with that. Mark R
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Mark,
There is very wide acceptance that JRR is a reincarnation of a previously banned user. That previous user was not banned for a funny name, neither for content reasons, but for behavioral reasons. Though it can't be proved, I think the
reincarnation
is of wide-clarity to most of those who know the previously banned user.
Afaik, the question had been asked to the user if
he
was a reincarnation (that step sounds really funny to me :-)). Evidence with regards to reincarnation has been posted on the AC request. So, I think the claim saying that these two steps have not been followed is bogus.
''Where it is becomes clear that a user account is
a
"reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be blocked.''
Banning policy allow a sysop or a group of sysop
to
ban such a reincarnation. So, they are within their bounds of action as well.
I do not think the banning can be said unilateral
as
well, as several sysops have banned him, or supporting his ban.
If you wish, we may discuss again of all this, but honestly, I think evidence is sufficient and policy is allowing
this.
I hope you will trust me on this, because I say
it,
adding that I am not happy of this ban. I do not have the same opinion than the community with regards to banning this user, but I also see that my opinion on the topic is a very seriously minor opinion.
So, I prefer to look at the big picture :-)
Now, the question is (and that is a very good question) : should sysops take such decisions, or should they wait for the
AC
to decide for them ?
As I said above, I think the policy leaves room
for
a group of sysops to act temporarily, before the AC does.
Is it good ? *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants
are
getting upset to see reincarnations waiting for 2 months before "judgment" by the AC. It is no good that participants become angry. In real life, there is similar provision.... when someone is said to have done something deeply wrong and is considered a potential threat to the
society,
he may be put in jail before the judgment is made. He should be put in jail only if there is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents damage to the society, while giving time to judge fairly. If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to the wrongly-blocked person, and re-consider how we are looking for evidence for next cases.
*yes, it is also good because power should be in
the
hand of people first. Those doing the daily work. This is the
wiki
way.
Is it bad ? *yes, it may be bad, if decisions are taken **without enough evidence **without clear community support **Without respect for openness and diversity of opinion
Should we not respect these three points, then, there would be a danger.
I think the first point was amply provided in this case. If you are not convinced, ask Uninvited Company (sigh).
The second point is perhaps a little less obvious. If you are not convinced, why not starting a poll ? There is a policy supporting ban of reincarnation. You are not certain it is a reincarnation ? You are not sure the community is certain it is a
reincarnation
? Well, ask people what they think then.
The third point is probably the more tricky one. I am not always certain we are entirely fair toward diversity of opinion. The last political debates are not really convincing me we are respecting this very well all the time. But that is the toughest point, and
I
have no reason to think it is better handled by AC than by whole community. We all have our personal bias, and only the addition of our
bias
will make a balance. In this, I trust editors on the whole to achieve balance.
Heph and Guanaco agreed to wait for your feedback, so they did not revert again the block. This was very nice of
them.
I think it is quite bad to enter a blocking reversion war. Now, please, consider the three points :
- do you need more information to convince you
that
enough evidence was provided ?
- do you need more information to convince you
that
the block is generally approved, as a temporary measure to wait for AC to deliver his judgment ?
And
- do you think a centralised committee decision
making is the only way, or do you think groups of trusted sysops may act temporarily while
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/