Ray Saintonge wrote
charles.r.matthews(a)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