Oliver Coddington wrote:
I'd have to say any block seems to me to be out of
place. Why should
Eloquence be punished for Danny's actions, and lack of clarity over whether
his action was OFFICE related or not.
It certainly seems fair that Eloquence should have perhaps used more
judgement before his actions, but I still don't think they warrant any block
or ban, indeed it is Danny's actions which are more of a problem (from the
lack of the correct template, unclear edit summary, blocking a user
indefinitely, and de-sysopping).
I understand the problems of litigation, indeed I have plenty of experience
in this field, in the UK setting, but I still don't think such 'threats' (I
do much prefer to call them challenges) justify what I see as abnormal
action.
I think all parties will have learnt from this experience, but I think a
line should be drawn under the whole thing, and any blocks removed.
Otherwise you could argue that Danny should be looking at punitive measures
as well, due to his actions I outlined above.
We have too many people who prefer a punitive solution to problems. If
indeed Ruddy was the one to complain about the articles, (and it would
be his right to complain) would it not have been easier to simply say
that the article is temporarily blocked for that reason while the matter
is being investigated? As long as the basis for punitive actions
remains unexplained we can expect reactions such as have happened here.
Ec