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