Though Ive had little interest in particularly normal cases, I read a bunch of the Skyring ruling. The Arbcom decision seems a bit rash --to foff off some lucky punter for a year just for a little rudish pov-warring?
Yeah Skyring was pov-pushing, and ban on certain articles is indeed justified. But a complete ban for a full year? While others are simply "admonished"? Duffy and Carr arent exactly known for their perennial and soothing pleasantness, (Uncle Ed?) so that leaves critical thinkers like myself to wonder what the actual deal is. I suppose its just to clamp down on sockpuppetry and send a message.
Is "no wiki-stalking" even a policy? Cause thats what people seem to do all around anyway. Skyring seems to have a basis for some review of the latest ruling, though I suppose people will want him to demonstrate patience and heed to the rules. (In spite of WP:IAR, no doubt). Was something else going on there, or did he just kind of rub people the wrong way by being a pov-pushing smart alec?
SV
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I would have a hard time using this to justify the publication of someone's personal information on Wikipedia. If it were some serious alleged crime, such as death threats, perhaps that would be warranted, but evading a ban doesn't rise to the level where I would be comfortable "outing" people. At least during the period when I was on the ArbCom, when we used evidence of people's real identies or even IPs to ban sockpuppets and reincarnations, we didn't publish that evidence publicly on the wiki.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com