[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikipedia-l
Subject:    Re: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] Indefinite block and desysopping
From:       "Oliver Coddington" <olivercoddington () gmail ! com>
Date:       2006-04-19 21:47:46
Message-ID: fa01f9450604191447j47a70192od523f4f982783578 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

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.

Oliver [User:Wisden17]

On 4/19/06, Patrick, Brad <bpatrick@fowlerwhite.com> wrote:
> 
> I understand that the indefinite ban was reverted by Danny and
> reinstituted by dannyisme for 48 hours.
> 
> I don't believe Eloquence should receive a death sentence either.




-----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Barrett [mailto:sean@epoptic.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:03 PM
> To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org; Patrick, Brad; jwales@wikia.com
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] Indefinite block and
> desysopping by User:Danny
> 
> 
> Thank you for your explanation.  As an Arbiter, I have some slight idea
> of how ... interesting ... situations can become, and I full support of
> the OFFICE policy as a tool to use in handling those situations.
> 
> Can you explain the reasons why Eloquence must be prohibited from ever
> editing the English Wikipedia again?  Danny is apparently using OFFICE
> to justify what looks like a lifetime ban (something even the
> Arbitration Committee cannot impose) that he refused to explain.
> 
> I can understand that the Foundation's obligations are greater than
> loyalty to any one user.  Is it the case that the Foundation cannot
> explain why this one user is being permanently banned with no
> explanation of why he must be sacrificed?
> 
> - --
> Sean Barrett     | I've had a perfectly wonderful evening.
> sean@epoptic.org | But this wasn't it. --Groucho Marx -----BEGIN PGP
> SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFERqV2MAt1wyd9d+URApaEAJ9Z8kCoKNjftKcpIeop7qk2QAuPggCfVzgT
> PtydwMTp8nFCx376DKOkdtM=
> =9ROC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in
> this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written
> to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the
> purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the
> Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to
> support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax
> transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
> 
> If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose
> of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional
> Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet
> those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time
> and additional fees involved.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are
> private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A.,
> and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely
> for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately
> by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from
> your system. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> 
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]