On 4/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 22/04/07, Cascadia <cascadia(a)privatenoc.com>
wrote:
"David Gerard"
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote in
message news:fbad4e140704220818n7330f43cya6890397a0d06f22@mail.gmail.com...
> On 22/04/07, Cascadia <cascadia(a)privatenoc.com>
> wrote:
>> - Be too nice to the newbie, shoot the
veteran: I know Todd said this,
>> but
>> it happens too much- We're so afraid of biting people that we'll throw
>> the
>> book at a seasoned editor.
> e.g. when you demanded Ryulong resign from
adminship for blocking your
> sockpuppet.
If an admin is going to hold the position, they
need to be on top of things
much better. Personally, if I was an admin, after such a total screw up, I
would have resigned and reapplied in a few months. Why? Because it would be
admiting I had completely screwed up, and that I was willing to own up to
the mistake and take full responsibility for my actions.
Except for the detail that it wasn't anything like a "total screw up."
Second accounts are barely tolerated at best, not a "right."
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hey, here's part of something we need to realize, in that positive
culture you're envisioning:
EVERYONE SCREWS UP.
That's just a fact of life. Even highly-trained professionals make the
occasional error. We should certainly expect that from a crew of,
well, effectively amateurs.
If someone messed up an edit and broke a page's formatting, you
wouldn't call for them to be banned from editing. (I sure hope!) You'd
bring it to their attention or fix it. By the same token,
administrators will make the occasional mistake too. That doesn't mean
they're terrible people, or even careless. It means they're human.
Now, that being said, there's a difference between an error and
genuine abuse. Ryulong's actions didn't rise to the level of abuse by
any stretch of the imagination. (I'm not sure I'd even necessarily
call them an error.) In that case, there was some tension (and still
is) between an allowed use of sockpuppets (to maintain privacy), and a
prohibited one (to avoid community scrutiny). For all we knew, it
could easily have been the same person who made -all- those accounts.
There's no way to have the first clue if what any of them said are
true. That's why "anonymous" socks are frowned upon.
That being said, given the sensitivity of the situation, I wish
Ryulong would have discussed a bit before issuing the blocks. But
that's a -minor- error if it is one at all. And part of building a
good community is to accept that others -will- have a different
viewpoint than you, and unless someone is being egregiously abusive,
destructive, or totally refusing to explain themselves at all-learn to
accept a good rationale even when you don't totally agree with it. The
other guy thinks he's just as right as you think you are.
Seraphimblade
--
Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.