On 4/20/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/20/06, Sean Barrett <sean@epoptic.org> wrote:
> >
> > Death Phoenix stated for the record:
> >
> > > Since Danny didn't apply the WP:OFFICE tag, does that warrant an immediate
> > > desysoping and indefinite ban? I've seen such measures only after an
> <
> > Minor correction: even the ArbComm cannot impose an indefinite ban.
Both the ban and the desysopping were indefensible. Editors should
not be punished for violating nonexistent policies.
Desysopping on more than one project was unprecedented and outrageous.
It is perfectly legitimate to have legal reasons for actions to remain
secret. It is not legitimate to pretend that such reasons don't exist
-- and then punish editors because they really do.
> > Don't let the issue here get buried under discussion of OFFICE. The
> > issue is that Danny, while apparently acting as a common or garden
> > variety admin, -- and not just without discussion, but rather while
> > /actively refusing to discuss/ -- imposed a lifetime ban from Wikipedia.
Right. This is not an OFFICE issue, except insofar as that was the
source of a misunderstanding. This is an issue of misuse of authority
and refusal to communicate, once the misunderstanding had taken place.
--
++SJ
> > Indefinite block.
> >
> > While /actively refusing to discuss/.
> >
>
> Precisely. Trying to defend Danny's desysopping and ban by crying
> wheel-war is just wikilawyering in my opinion.
>
> --Oskar
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> On 4/20/06, Sean Barrett <sean@epoptic.org> wrote:
> >
> > Death Phoenix stated for the record:
> >
> > > Since Danny didn't apply the WP:OFFICE tag, does that warrant an immediate
> > > desysoping and indefinite ban? I've seen such measures only after an
> <
> > Minor correction: even the ArbComm cannot impose an indefinite ban.
Both the ban and the desysopping were indefensible. Editors should
not be punished for violating nonexistent policies.
Desysopping on more than one project was unprecedented and outrageous.
It is perfectly legitimate to have legal reasons for actions to remain
secret. It is not legitimate to pretend that such reasons don't exist
-- and then punish editors because they really do.
> > Don't let the issue here get buried under discussion of OFFICE. The
> > issue is that Danny, while apparently acting as a common or garden
> > variety admin, -- and not just without discussion, but rather while
> > /actively refusing to discuss/ -- imposed a lifetime ban from Wikipedia.
Right. This is not an OFFICE issue, except insofar as that was the
source of a misunderstanding. This is an issue of misuse of authority
and refusal to communicate, once the misunderstanding had taken place.
--
++SJ
> > Indefinite block.
> >
> > While /actively refusing to discuss/.
> >
>
> Precisely. Trying to defend Danny's desysopping and ban by crying
> wheel-war is just wikilawyering in my opinion.
>
> --Oskar
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l