[WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking without following policy

[Anthere]

I have no opinion with regards to LT.

I know some people I trust, do not think JRR is 142.

Two cases

* if JRR is 142 : then the argument he should be banned for being a 
reincarnation fits with the policy.

* if JRR is NOT 142 : then JRR activity is only meant to irritate people 
in the community. That is a pure trolling issue. And this, deserve
**either banning
**or dropping the whole topic, stopping discussing it, as should be done 
with any good troll.


I trust Heph (even if I know that he is a bit hot on the ban button 
sometimes :-)), I know not Guanaco much (but I think he is totally 
acting within the rules, so he must not feel the community does not 
support him, he is acting well). And I also feel like you have a point.

I read your mail, but unfortunately must go for the day.
I suggest that we see what is the feedback of other people on this 
issue. Certainly, we can find a common ground between all of you.

Ant



Mark Richards wrote:
> Help me out here - why are you sure that LT is the
> same as 142? Is there any evidence at all, or do you
> not need any?
> Mark
> 
> --- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>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 
>>>
> === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/