Re: Correction: Nobody was banned
Well, just so you know, there is a significant definitional and procedural difference between removal and banning. You may not observe that distinction, but others do, and I wanted to avoid people being mislead. That is, even a listadmin going mildly postal and causing me to receive a "You have been unsubscribed from mailing list foo" notice implies I can immediately resubscribe. Either action or both (removal or banning) might be seen as wrongful in a given community and set of circumstances, but one is orders of magnitude more severe than the other.
I see the difference now, but before this point, I never knew of an instance where someone was removed and NOT banned, because (as the mods would say), what would be the point of removing someone if they could simply come right back.
I see now that this is a different situation, but it is my first experience where someone has been removed and NOT banned.
In the mailing list thread (which you did not see) two or three of the batshit-crazy crowd made a point of comparing Karsten's (unjustified) removal of MikeH (intending to remove MikeV) to the pattern of list misadminstration at LUGOD (Linux User Group of Davis). However, all of those commentators were fully aware that Peter Salzman of LUGOD bans (not removes) people, and does so behind the backs of the group. Karsten did neither (and pretty much immediately regretted what he did do, despite annoyance and fatigue) -- yet several bozos went straight for the cheap shot, anyway.
Unfortunately, people get mad a lot, and they react when they are mad. This causes them to do things that they might not normally do when not mad, and also causes them to regret those actions later. The problem isn't that people get mad and do unjustified things, the problem is the people who do these things and never backtrack and apologize, or never right the wrongs. Karsten does not seem to be one of those people, from what I see here. But even those that compared him to something probably considered much worse, were reacting from anger and whatever else drove them, and deep inside they probably DO know there is a major difference between what the one Admin did and what Karsten did.
Correction: He upset four people who chain-reaction-complained in a typical mob-like action. One of the (remaining) listadmins (Rob) claimed this noisy clique constituted the voice of "democracy", and claimed it was wrongful for any listadmin to not honour the wishes of same. I pointed out the fallaciousness of both the premise and the conclusion: Four noisy complainers is not a mandate on a list with (at a guess) 50 members, and no volunteer listadmin is obliged, ethically or otherwise, to comply with screwball requests, even if they are popular.
So here is where I'm confused I guess. I was under the impression from in here that there was more than one admin governing the mailing list, which would make it only logical that he ask the others before doing anything? Am I wrong there, was he the only one?
And despite 4 people not being a majority, you have to take (in my opinion), into consideration the wishes of the people you govern... otherwise you become simply a dictator. So I agree with several people here that Karsten should have asked the list members or run the idea by them, or whatever, and also that he should not have removed someone without consulting the other admins...if there were other admins on the list.
Er, no. You should be able to read the entire mess via the Web archive, if so moved.
Well for some reason, it isn't working.... :( I wanted to read it to be as fully informed as the rest who have, but I can't seem to find the link to let me read it all in order and such.
Nightowl >8#
