I understand that the indefinite ban was reverted by Danny and reinstituted by dannyisme for 48 hours.
I don't believe Eloquence should receive a death sentence either.
-----Original Message----- From: Sean Barrett [mailto:sean@epoptic.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:03 PM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org; Patrick, Brad; jwales@wikia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny
Thank you for your explanation. As an Arbiter, I have some slight idea of how ... interesting ... situations can become, and I full support of the OFFICE policy as a tool to use in handling those situations.
Can you explain the reasons why Eloquence must be prohibited from ever editing the English Wikipedia again? Danny is apparently using OFFICE to justify what looks like a lifetime ban (something even the Arbitration Committee cannot impose) that he refused to explain.
I can understand that the Foundation's obligations are greater than loyalty to any one user. Is it the case that the Foundation cannot explain why this one user is being permanently banned with no explanation of why he must be sacrificed?
- -- Sean Barrett | I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. sean@epoptic.org | But this wasn't it. --Groucho Marx -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFERqV2MAt1wyd9d+URApaEAJ9Z8kCoKNjftKcpIeop7qk2QAuPggCfVzgT PtydwMTp8nFCx376DKOkdtM= =9ROC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
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.
Oliver [User:Wisden17]
On 4/19/06, Patrick, Brad bpatrick@fowlerwhite.com wrote:
I understand that the indefinite ban was reverted by Danny and reinstituted by dannyisme for 48 hours.
I don't believe Eloquence should receive a death sentence either.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Barrett [mailto:sean@epoptic.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:03 PM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org; Patrick, Brad; jwales@wikia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny
Thank you for your explanation. As an Arbiter, I have some slight idea of how ... interesting ... situations can become, and I full support of the OFFICE policy as a tool to use in handling those situations.
Can you explain the reasons why Eloquence must be prohibited from ever editing the English Wikipedia again? Danny is apparently using OFFICE to justify what looks like a lifetime ban (something even the Arbitration Committee cannot impose) that he refused to explain.
I can understand that the Foundation's obligations are greater than loyalty to any one user. Is it the case that the Foundation cannot explain why this one user is being permanently banned with no explanation of why he must be sacrificed?
Sean Barrett | I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. sean@epoptic.org | But this wasn't it. --Groucho Marx -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFERqV2MAt1wyd9d+URApaEAJ9Z8kCoKNjftKcpIeop7qk2QAuPggCfVzgT PtydwMTp8nFCx376DKOkdtM= =9ROC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
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
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
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org