Ray Saintonge wrote:
actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
There are some minor issues, but I can't see
anything overly serious,
particularly considering that 172 has had two massive articles
(relating to these topics, too) featured in this period, which
suggests to me that he is making an effort to reform.
Desysopping does not mean he can't continue to edit articles, although
it may lessen his powers to enforce his severe authorial
territorialism through vendettas.
What might be an interesting approach when accusations are made would be
to have the promoter of a failed accusation serve the same fate that he
sought to have applied on the accused. Thus if he seeks to have someone
de-sysopped and fails he would be de-sysopped; if seeks to have the
person banned for a month and fails he would be banned for a month. etc.
It might put an end to all the whining. ;-)
Ec
Not to put too fine a point on this, but this would intimidate real
victims. That's why they don't apply this in real life. I think the best
example of this is the RFC that was (and still is, for some reason)
filed on myself. Personally, I think it was silly, but nonetheless I
support the creation of it if enough people endorsed it. They did.
However about 15 other people OPPOSED the creation of the RFC. Does this
mean that the creator of the RFC should be penalised? No.
Incidently, I do know that filing an RFC on a user is not meant to be a
"punishment" against that user, rather a request for people to, well,
*comment* on that user, but this is as close an example I can come to.
The only exception I can see is when you get a user like CheeseDreams,
who filed so many RFCs and ArbCom requests that it became a farce and
eventually harassment. In this case, however, the ArbCom pretty much
made her a vexation litigant.
TBSDY