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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.