Ray Saintonge wrote
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
David Boothroyd wrote
In February, blocked wrongly for a non-existent 3RR, at 1 AM in the middle of an edit that had taken an hour, I self unblocked. I was a very naughty boy and I was punished by being blocked again, but everyone seemed to think that was closed.
Then, months later a completely unrelated issue in which I was tangentially involved goes to ArbCom and results in this issue being dragged up again.
Yes, you can have forgiving, and you can have transparent, but you may not be able to have both at once.
Why not?
'Forgive and forget', as in some sort of statute of limitations for old stuff, is not really compatible with everyone being able to see older edits, and say 'there's a track record a mile wide here'.
Perhaps that the solution should be to disallow any evidence more than six months old except in some predetermined kinds of cases.
Except in cases where, for example, a user returns and wreaks the same havoc as before. You want another policy drafted about this? Or can you perhaps assume this fact of past-sell-by-date is normally taken into account?
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information