Erik,
While technically correct, I think your ban was unwise.
RK did indeed blank some personal pages, the C-J talk page, and wrongly accused Martin of using an alias.
However, I don't think he should be singled out for punishment - especially with so little discussion beforehand.
My impression is that several users ganged up on RK and goaded him into a "bannable offense".
I feel bad, because I think that I sparked this bonfire by protecting the C-J talk page. Now, that same fire has been used to burn RK alive.
I would like to: *un-ban RK *request that everyone avoid posting on [[talk:RK]]
Ed Poor
Erik Moeller wrote:
I oppose unbanning him until he retracts his "Nazipedia" remarks.
I don't think we should invent new bannable offenses, we should not invent those bannable offenses *after* the offenses have occurred, and we should not initiate punishment *before* the acts have occurred.
I have ended the temporary ban on RK.
Axel
Axel Boldt wrote:
I have ended the temporary ban on RK.
Well, I haven't caught up with email yet, but let's leave it at that.
We can decide later whether this sort of temporary ban is a good idea or not. The consensus appears to be leaning away from it.
But we can certainly cut Erik some slack, because he's a good person, you know, so whatever the consensus ends up being, he's going to respect it. Let's not confuse problematic situations with problematic people. This situation is problematic, and Erik's decision is of some concern, but Erik is not problematic at all, in my opinion.
--Jimbo
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:39:42 -0400, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com gave utterance to the following:
I would like to: *un-ban RK *request that everyone avoid posting on [[talk:RK]]
Ed, won't the latter action reinforce RK's misguided impression that his talk page is sacred and for his use only, the thing which seemed to trigger his flying off the handle?
His acceptance that user talk pages are intended for Wikipedians to leave each other messages is probably one of the keys to resolving this.
Richard Grevers wrote:
Ed, won't the latter action reinforce RK's misguided impression that his talk page is sacred and for his use only, the thing which seemed to trigger his flying off the handle?
I don't necessarily think so. I think in a dispute of any kind, we should try to give the other person what they want to whatever extent possible, rather than trying to teach them a lesson of some kind.
His acceptance that user talk pages are intended for Wikipedians to leave each other messages is probably one of the keys to resolving this.
Sure, but he's more likely to accept that if we stand back from it a bit, don't you think?
RK might be too mad to ever come back, in which case we can move from talking about this to talking about just what we can do in the future to try to prevent such strife.
--Jimbo
The refusal to maintain a Talk page was one of the problems which led to the contretemps which eventually caused BuddhaInside to be banned.
RickK
Richard Grevers lists@dramatic.co.nz wrote: On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:39:42 -0400, Poor, Edmund W gave utterance to the following:
I would like to: *un-ban RK *request that everyone avoid posting on [[talk:RK]]
Ed, won't the latter action reinforce RK's misguided impression that his talk page is sacred and for his use only, the thing which seemed to trigger his flying off the handle?
His acceptance that user talk pages are intended for Wikipedians to leave each other messages is probably one of the keys to resolving this.