5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 308:
Line 308: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Blocking User:TK
:::*10:25, 10 June 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Bugler from (none) to Block, edit and Upload
:::*10:25, 10 June 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Bugler from (none) to Block, edit and Upload
:::So, while we are discussing these rules: did SiemerD's post require immediate action? Was he a vandal?--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:55, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::So, while we are discussing these rules: did SiemerD's post require immediate action? Was he a vandal?--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 17:55, 17 November 2008 (EST)
===Response===
There are multiple issues at work here: whether or not I had the right to block TK, and whether or not the block was justified.
It has been clearly shown that, due to a grandfather clause, I was within the rules in blocking an editor for something other than vandalism. (And despite SiemerD's swipe, I don't think Jallen or Tim intentionally neglected to mention the grandfather clause; I didn't know of it myself). However, it is always true that a sysop can undo a block of a regular editor, even if that editor had the rights to make the block
Learn together claims "it's important to point out that no one is saying that TK's statement was appropriate"; this is mostly true ''de juro'' on my talk page. (However I think Ed Poor echoed TK's sentiments on the talk page, thus agreeing that TK's statment was not inappropriate; but nobody on this talk page ''de juro'' stated that TK's actions were ok). However, anyone involved ''de facto'' agreed that TK's actions were ok, by not exercising their own authority to reblock him. Had anyone placed the offence of his statement above their reticence of blocking a well-connected user, they would have had no problem reblocking him, or at least publicly asking if he should have been reblocked. As it is, he was not blocked, and no one (again, except Ed Poor, who seems to have endorsed TK's statement) made a statement either way as to whether it was a blocking offense.
Perhaps I should explain the history of this case (most if not all relevant proof can be found at [[template talk:liberalism]]):
*BrianCo created the template in February
*In April, TK started adding the template in a manner inconsistant with other templates of it's type
*It was discussed in April, and decided that TK's use of the template was wrong
*TK leaves for ~7 months
*When TK returns, he almost immediately continues his previous actions
*When pointed to the April discussion, he claims that he was the one who wanted the template, therefore he could use it however he wanted (this argument was not brought up in April)
*Other users (really, just me) tried to argue that it doesn't matter that TK created the template, but eventually gave in to the futillity of the argument, and started adding the template to pages based on the fact that TK, as creator of the template, dictated its use
*BrianCo, the person who actually built the template, points out that TK could not have asked for the template, since he had not edited for a month before or after the template was created.
*TK, out of left field and out of arguments, accuses BrianCo of being a sock, and questions the validity of a motorcycle accident which could have taken BrianCo's life.
Is such a response approprite or proportionate? Is this how we are to treat our fellow editors? Bugler calls respected editors maggots and long-time sysops idiots, and nobody cares. But there's a mile difference between calling someone an idiot and taking a jovial attitude on such a serious issue. What if TK had said "ha ha ha, yeah right like I believe you were raped" or "say, how's your murdered wife doing these days?" or "hey, sorry to hear about the miscarriage, good thing the kid never existed!" I can't, in good Christian conscience, allow someone to run around saying such hurtful, unwarranted, unproven and unChristian statements. Unlike the many users and sysops who know of and are ignoring this argument, I can't sit on the fence. This is a serious enough issue that I jumped off with both feet. And I hope that one day there is an issue strong enough to move others to take a stand as well, but I'm afraid to see what that issue is, when this issue is not it.
[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)
PS: Since this whole discussion is about properly enforcing the rules, I think it should be mentioned that it's very clear that they are only being enforced "fairly" when it is in the interest of the ruling sysop. As BRichtigen pointed out, Bugler does not have the authority to block SiemerD for 90/10 (and clearly, a 1 edit 90/10 is ludicrous anyway; are we to block editors who use the [[sandbox]] before they make real edits? I should think not) and yet nobody has decided to unblock SiemerD or punish Bugler. In fact, Bugler is the winner in this case: he won the block, and he was able to make racist remarks about ''two'' senior sysops without real penalty; proving again to himself (and everyone watching) that he clearly can do whatever he wants to, without recourse.