--- Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
As far as I know, we don't have any policy to justify blocking over personal attacks. I would suggest unblocking Adam Carr, even though his abusive remarks in this instance are uncalled for and inconsistent with his
reputation as a
fine editor. I guess everyone blows a fuse now and again.
All polices are enforceable. Just because a certain one does not specify a specific punishment for violating it, does not mean it is not enforceable. The ArbCom has banned a bunch of users for regularly violating the no personal attacks policy. ASAIK, admins can and should enforce this policy when they see it violated after a warning is given.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 07:48:45 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
As far as I know, we don't have any policy to justify blocking over personal attacks. I would suggest unblocking Adam Carr, even though his abusive remarks in this instance are uncalled for and inconsistent with his
reputation as a
fine editor. I guess everyone blows a fuse now and again.
All polices are enforceable. Just because a certain one does not specify a specific punishment for violating it, does not mean it is not enforceable. The ArbCom has banned a bunch of users for regularly violating the no personal attacks policy. ASAIK, admins can and should enforce this policy when they see it violated after a warning is given.
I'm kind of new here, but my feeling is that Adam will just take this as more evidence of animosity. I don't want to have him stop editing, because he IS a good editor, but I don't want him making personal attacks on me (or anyone else). It gets in the way of constructive discussion, quite apart from it being annoying.
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
As far as I know, we don't have any policy to justify blocking over personal attacks. I would suggest unblocking Adam Carr, even though his abusive remarks in this instance are uncalled for and inconsistent with his reputation as a fine editor. I guess everyone blows a fuse now and again.
All polices are enforceable. Just because a certain one does not specify a specific punishment for violating it, does not mean it is not enforceable. The ArbCom has banned a bunch of users for regularly violating the no personal attacks policy. ASAIK, admins can and should enforce this policy when they see it violated after a warning is given.
There is the fact that a specific vote on whether admins could block people for personal attacks failed to achieve consensus a few months ago (a real pity, in my opinion). As such, it's dicey ground.
(Note that we do have IPs being blocked for personal attacks, and accounts evidently created just for personal attacks being blocked indefinitely. But those aren't the same as a logged-in proper editor.)
- d.