[WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking without following policy

[Anthere]

Errrr, I think Maveric, Angela, Tim Starling, Eloquence and Uninvited 
Company, to cite just a few, will have a good laugh when they read I am 
part of an angry mob trying to ban 142.

That sure has peps ;-)

Okay.
Let's go on privately then.

Is there any news of the AC on this point ?


Mark Richards wrote:
> 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/