On Monday 14 October 2002 06:16 pm, wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com wrote:
Given the fact this is not the first time he ignores rules and insults others (the examples of JHK and Montréalais were posted earlier), I _strongly_ feel that he should be banned for 24 hours, or at least be summoned to discuss things at the mailinglist here. As I said before, he made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it allright to ignore all rules and insult other, good-willing, Wikipedians.
Jeronimo
I say a 24 hour block would be a good place to start. Jimbo doesn't seem to be monitoring the list right now so he is probably the bottleneck. So I don't know if he would support even a temporary block at this point.
If this were a voting situation then I vote for the 24 hour block. But I'm not sure if this is such a situation. We did form a new policy to more strictly enforce our etiquette policy, no? Does this mean an individual Admin can decide, needs to have confirmation by one other, two others, the whole list, Jimbo, what?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
I say a 24 hour block would be a good place to start. Jimbo doesn't seem to be monitoring the list right now so he is probably the bottleneck. So I don't know if he would support even a temporary block at this point.
I was out for the weekend, but I'm back now. Also, I was hiding from the DW issue, hoping that it would sort itself out without me. :-)
If this were a voting situation then I vote for the 24 hour block. But I'm not sure if this is such a situation. We did form a new policy to more strictly enforce our etiquette policy, no? Does this mean an individual Admin can decide, needs to have confirmation by one other, two others, the whole list, Jimbo, what?
I don't think any policies have changed, actually. And in terms of blocking ips, we're only supposed to block outright vandalism, unless after a long and agonizing process, I issue an edict otherwise. Someday we might loosen this, or institutionalize it rather than keep it with me, or even abolish it (doubtful, because it does seem to be necessary in some rare instances).
What I really very strongly want to avoid is the use of banning in content fights. This doesn't sound like that kind of case -- the problem here is insults, not the content fight. But banning people for mere insults is a bad idea. (Banning them for repeated, longterm, extraordinary failure to co-operate, including failure through a pattern of insults, is not such a bad idea.)
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org