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@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@Wikipedia.org
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/