User talk:EricBarbour

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "On behalf of this user, I request that this out-of-policy block be undone. Blocking is not punishment, no matter how much we might hate someone for something they did. This is one of those times were we need to be emotionally detached in regards to administrative actions, so that personal matters do not influence those actions. Consensus on this issue has been to not block people based on off-wiki activity. And several others have already noted that the personal information that was relieved was not secretive, and easily accessible by other people. We don't bend the rules just because we don't like some people. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "I've been looking over the ANI post for the past hour now, and I feel I'm now in the position to decline this unblock. As far as I know, Eric posted material regarding another editor of en.wp on Wikipedia Review (the material has now been permanently removed to my knowledge) and I also believe that Eric requested (or at least he did) removed the offending content. Cordesat states in his comment to this thread that Eric communicated and came to some form of mutuality and it was decided to not take any further action. I've not been here for a very long time and my knowledge of policy may not extend to the same lengths as some others, but I feel that an unblock is not the 'correct' thing to do at this moment in time because of the severity of the actions Eric conducted, despite the fact that the information may have been available elsewhere on the internet or that agreements with the user involved may have prevailed. If you are unblocked however, I would agree that a long, but reduced blocked (to an appropriate length, whatever that may be, could probably be made clear at ANI in the following period of time) is pertinent and relevant to your particular recent past. Although this move is not reflected in policy (at least to not what I can find) I agree that this block was implemented correctly, with due cause and due attention, so I am not willing to unblock. I'd also like to point out that this measure was prevantative in my opinion, and further action (which you may have taken) could have caused even more disruption that this block is already having. Rudget (review) 12:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.