I don't object to either oversight or arbitration (in fact I think both are necessary), but the format here is truly appalling. For one thing, the "plaintiff/defendant" structure is unnecessarily hostile, made even more so because it's really unclear who the plaintiffs and defendants are. Are we reviewing my block? Panic's behavior? If (as it seems) we are reviewing Panic's behavior, it seems a bit strange to name me as the "plaintiff": I'm not involved in an editorial dispute with Panic... my role has been as a mediator and later arbitrator of a dispute that's been going on for years without any previous arbitration of constructive mediation.
Worse, this has devolved into what looks more like an inquisition than anything else.
What we will suffer in the long term is an even stronger reticence on the part of administrators to get involved in content disputes (I for one will certainly say "no" next time around). This particular dispute had gone on unaddressed for far longer than it should have been, and while this arbitration might end up bringing a resolution to this particular issue, it's going to make it a lot harder to address the next one.
--- Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@hotmail.com wrote:
I agree with Dragontamer (although I'm sure everybody already knows my opinions on this matter). A user was blocked for misbehavior, and he complained about it. I can't imagine any user (besides a vandal) getting blocked and not complaining. This doesnt mean that every instance needs to become some kind of arbitration nightmare. What I don't see, besides Panic's plea, is a reason to review or even overturn SBJohnny's decision. People who make bold decisions to benefit the project should be rewarded, and I dont think we should be introducing unnecessary oversight into our system.
--Andrew Whitworth (Whiteknight)
*Sigh* it was only a matter of time. Get a bunch of
people working
together, and people will suddenly not want to work
together for
whatever reason :-/
I have not looked at the current issue (in fact,
this is the first
time I have heard of it. But I feel that in this
specific case,
community consensus may be a bad thing. Eventually,
there may be
groups of users vs other groups of users. Maybe
Jimbo or some other
person would have to step in there.
Oy, this is a whole new can-o-worms in Wikibooks
policy...
--Dragontamer _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikimedia.org
_________________________________________________________________
Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! Get it now
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get...
Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com