Precisely. Punitive action was not called for at all in this case, what was needed was for Danny to learn that he needs to be very clear when he is undertaking OFFICE actions, and Eloquence needs to learn that Danny will not always be perfect in doing that, and that it would have been helpful to check before doing what he did.
But to start banning people etc. is completely out of place especially when the party that brought the action did not bring it with clean hands, which if we are going to start moving more into law is pretty key.
Both parties are at fault, but the extent to which etc. is open to debate. But a line simply needs to be drawn in the sand and let's move on. Remove Eloquence's block and Danny, for God's sake, use OFFICE tags in future!
Oliver [User:Wisden17]
On 4/20/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Oliver Coddington wrote:
I'd have to say any block seems to me to be out of place. Why should Eloquence be punished for Danny's actions, and lack of clarity over
whether
his action was OFFICE related or not.
It certainly seems fair that Eloquence should have perhaps used more judgement before his actions, but I still don't think they warrant any
block
or ban, indeed it is Danny's actions which are more of a problem (from
the
lack of the correct template, unclear edit summary, blocking a user indefinitely, and de-sysopping).
I understand the problems of litigation, indeed I have plenty of
experience
in this field, in the UK setting, but I still don't think such 'threats'
(I
do much prefer to call them challenges) justify what I see as abnormal action.
I think all parties will have learnt from this experience, but I think a line should be drawn under the whole thing, and any blocks removed. Otherwise you could argue that Danny should be looking at punitive
measures
as well, due to his actions I outlined above.
We have too many people who prefer a punitive solution to problems. If indeed Ruddy was the one to complain about the articles, (and it would be his right to complain) would it not have been easier to simply say that the article is temporarily blocked for that reason while the matter is being investigated? As long as the basis for punitive actions remains unexplained we can expect reactions such as have happened here.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l