[WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking without following policy

[Mark Richards]

You may feel that the policy is silly, the AC is too
slow, and that you don't need evidence, but I can't go
along with thet. I don't see any evidence of LT being
a banned user, no-one has provided any. No one has
asked him/her, and no one has provided evidence that
any of their edits are problematic. You are acting
like an angry mob, and I can't go along with that.
Mark R

--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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/ 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> 
=== message truncated ===



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/