[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:       2006-04-20 0:05:37
Message-ID: fa01f9450604191705j5a70cb69of02729857593a9cb () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Precisely. Punitive action was not called for at all in this case, what was
needed was for Danny to learn that he needs to be very clear when he is
undertaking OFFICE actions, and Eloquence needs to learn that Danny will not
always be perfect in doing that, and that it would have been helpful to
check before doing what he did.

But to start banning people etc. is completely out of place especially when
the party that brought the action did not bring it with clean hands, which
if we are going to start moving more into law is pretty key.

Both parties are at fault, but the extent to which etc. is open to debate.
But a line simply needs to be drawn in the sand and let's move on. Remove
Eloquence's block and Danny, for God's sake, use OFFICE tags in future!

Oliver [User:Wisden17]

On 4/20/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]