[WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking without following policy

[Anthere]

Mark,


There is very wide acceptance that JRR is a reincarnation of a 
previously banned user. That previous user was not banned for a funny 
name, neither for content reasons, but for behavioral reasons.
Though it can't be proved, I think the reincarnation is of wide-clarity 
to most of those who know the previously banned user.

Afaik, the question had been asked to the user if he was a reincarnation 
(that step sounds really funny to me :-)).
Evidence with regards to reincarnation has been posted on the AC request.
So, I think the claim saying that these two steps have not been followed 
is bogus.

''Where it is becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of 
an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be 
blocked.''

Banning policy allow a sysop or a group of sysop to ban such a 
reincarnation. So, they are within their bounds of action as well.

I do not think the banning can be said unilateral as well, as several 
sysops have banned him, or supporting his ban.


If you wish, we may discuss again of all this, but honestly, I think 
evidence is sufficient and policy is allowing this.

I hope you will trust me on this, because I say it, adding that I am not 
happy of this ban. I do not have the same opinion than the community 
with regards to banning this user, but I also see that my opinion on the 
topic is a very seriously minor opinion.

So, I prefer to look at the big picture :-)

------

Now, the question is (and that is a very good question) : should sysops 
take such decisions, or should they wait for the AC to decide for them ?

As I said above, I think the policy leaves room for a group of sysops to 
act temporarily, before the AC does.

Is it good ?
*yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants are getting upset to see 
reincarnations waiting for 2 months before "judgment" by the AC. It is 
no good that participants become angry. In real life, there is similar 
provision.... when someone is said to have done something deeply wrong 
and is considered a potential threat to the society, he may be put in 
jail before the judgment is made. He should be put in jail only if there 
is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents damage to the society, 
while giving time to judge fairly.
If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to the wrongly-blocked 
person, and re-consider how we are looking for evidence for next cases.

*yes, it is also good because power should be in the hand of people 
first. Those doing the daily work. This is the wiki way.



Is it bad ?
*yes, it may be bad, if decisions are taken
**without enough evidence
**without clear community support
**Without respect for openness and diversity of opinion

Should we not respect these three points, then, there would be a danger.

I think the first point was amply provided in this case. If you are not 
convinced, ask Uninvited Company (sigh).

The second point is perhaps a little less obvious. If you are not 
convinced, why not starting a poll ? There is a policy supporting ban of 
reincarnation. You are not certain it is a reincarnation ? You are not 
sure the community is certain it is a reincarnation ? Well, ask people 
what they think then.

The third point is probably the more tricky one. I am not always certain 
we are entirely fair toward diversity of opinion. The last political 
debates are not really convincing me we are respecting this very well 
all the time. But that is the toughest point, and I have no reason to 
think it is better handled by AC than by whole community. We all have 
our personal bias, and only the addition of our bias will make a 
balance. In this, I trust editors on the whole to achieve balance.


Heph and Guanaco agreed to wait for your feedback, so they did not 
revert again the block. This was very nice of them. I think it is quite 
bad to enter a blocking reversion war.
Now, please, consider the three points :
* do you need more information to convince you that enough evidence was 
provided ?
* do you need more information to convince you that the block is 
generally approved, as a temporary measure to wait for AC to deliver his 
judgment ?

And
* do you think a centralised committee decision making is the only way, 
or do you think groups of trusted sysops may act temporarily while 
waiting for justice decision of AC ?

Anthere




Mark Richards wrote:
> Can someone please take a look at Request for review
> of admin actions and give me a reality check? It seems
> to me that Hephaestos and Guanaco are repeatedly
> blocking user Leo Trollstoy because s/he annoys them.
> They are claiming that s/he is the same as a
> previously banned user, but refusing to follow the
> procedure in 'reincarnations' of asking the user and
> then presenting evidence, insisting on the right to
> ban the user.
> I don't think the name is funny, but the AC has not
> yet ruled on this issue, and it seems to undermine the
> committee and the policy to allow this sort of
> behavior. It gives ammunition to those who claim that
> admins are unacountable and out of control.
> I do not propose letting vandals and trolls run amock,
> but it is important to retain some procedure and not
> have admins simply banning users that annoy them.
> Mark
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/