Ray Saintonge wrote
> charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> >David Boothroyd wrote
> >
> >
> >>In February, blocked wrongly for a
> >>non-existent 3RR, at 1 AM in the middle of an edit that had taken
> >>an hour, I self unblocked. I was a very naughty boy and I was
> >>punished by being blocked again, but everyone seemed to think that
> >>was closed.
> >>
> >>Then, months later a completely unrelated issue in which I was
> >>tangentially involved goes to ArbCom and results in this issue being
> >>dragged up again.
> >Yes, you can have forgiving, and you can have transparent, but you may not be able to have both at once.
> Why not?
'Forgive and forget', as in some sort of statute of limitations for old stuff, is not really compatible with everyone being able to see older edits, and say 'there's a track record a mile wide here'.
> Perhaps that the solution should be to disallow any evidence more than
> six months old except in some predetermined kinds of cases.
Except in cases where, for example, a user returns and wreaks the same havoc as before. You want another policy drafted about this? Or can you perhaps assume this fact of past-sell-by-date is normally taken into account?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Note: this was an offlist mail to me, which has been sent back to the whole list. Black mark for etiquette on that.
I advise everyone against answering private mails from this poster.
Well, and what you say is absolutely not what you wrote to the list, then. You will gain no respect at all from exaggerating and then shifting position when challenged.
Charles
>
> From: "Parker Peters" <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/10/06 Fri PM 04:59:18 BST
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Quitting Wikipedia and wanted you to know why.
>
> No.
>
> I am asserting that polices, while they may have been well intentioned, have
> the net effect of being a bureaucratic nightmare that makes it a virtual
> impossibility that any course of action against an admin by a non-admin will
> succeed.
>
> That policies which were designed to safeguard admins from deliberate
> harassment have become twisted into opposition of any investigation of admin
> conduct whatsoever.
>
> I'm forwarding this to en-l because I want these words to be clear to
> everyone.
>
> Cheers,
> Parker.
>
> On 10/6/06, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > You are asserting that
> >
> > Every policy
> >
> > (not some but all)
> >
> > is designed
> >
> > (i.e. deliberately set up)
> >
> >
> > to make it impossible
> >
> > (not inconvenient, time consuming, legalistic)
> >
> > for an aggrieved user to make any protest against abuse.
> >
> > (you say _any protest_, not just an effective protest leading to action).
> >
> > Well, that's hooey. Anyone can start an RfC. Show me an admin who sits on
> > an RfC and I'll take action on that myself.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> > Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Fleshlight and its representatives have contacted us, asking that they
have sole discretion over the content of the page, because any edits
could ruin its advertising value. This is a non-notable product. The
page was created solely for promotional purposes. It is now gone. Danny
01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=fleshlight&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=…
seems "notable", verifiable, whatever. But our hands are tied by the
office shit. Any company can now contact Danny, convince him that they
are "non-notable", and get salted.
On 6 Oct 2006 at 18:40, Stephen Streater <sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2006, at 15:56, Parker Peters wrote:
>
> > Yes, it does bother me that I did this, and yes, this is partially
> > why I'm
> > leaving, or at least taking a decently long wikibreak.
>
> "I'm leaving" is now turning into "taking a wikibreak".
> Here's the truth: There's no escape from Wikipedia!
You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Stephen Streater wrote
> Well, if people refuse to fit in, they'll probably
> be happier not swimming against the tide the
> whole time anyway.
Certain favours are hardest to do for the people who most need them ...
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Stephen Streater wrote
> Isn't it better to try to improve an Admin
> rather than just deadmin them, at least
> to start with? Deadmin should be a much
> rarer process.
>
> Even Admins respond to feedback.
There are two basic cases: knows what was done wrong and will not change attitude; still can't work out what was wrong with what was done. Applying IAR one gets a Grand Unified Theory of why someone should be an ex-sysop: use of discretion carries no conviction.
Some exceptions, but basically you're told first, probably several times.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"Jeff Raymond" wrote
> I'm much more likely to vote support on a candidate with a long
> history, but some questions about, if I know that if they abuse the tools
> or continually do the wrong thing, I can work to get them removed. That's
> not the case currently.
I don't find this a very reassuring argument.
Admins must, in the first place, be trusted people. That's pretty basic. The various criteria, hoops to jump through, questionaires, cavils about 'admin material' and scruples about how and in what spaces people edit (ugh) are secondary. I would prefer to see more people promoted, who just add good content. Those, typically, will have the smarts to understand policy and its uses. I do not want to see more people who are subject to reservations on their discretion become admin. Wait a few months and take a second view, yes.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
No.
I am asserting that polices, while they may have been well intentioned, have
the net effect of being a bureaucratic nightmare that makes it a virtual
impossibility that any course of action against an admin by a non-admin will
succeed.
That policies which were designed to safeguard admins from deliberate
harassment have become twisted into opposition of any investigation of admin
conduct whatsoever.
I'm forwarding this to en-l because I want these words to be clear to
everyone.
Cheers,
Parker.
On 10/6/06, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> You are asserting that
>
> Every policy
>
> (not some but all)
>
> is designed
>
> (i.e. deliberately set up)
>
>
> to make it impossible
>
> (not inconvenient, time consuming, legalistic)
>
> for an aggrieved user to make any protest against abuse.
>
> (you say _any protest_, not just an effective protest leading to action).
>
> Well, that's hooey. Anyone can start an RfC. Show me an admin who sits on
> an RfC and I'll take action on that myself.
>
> Charles
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
>
"Tony Jacobs" wrote
> We're actually developing a
> reputation as a place of arrogance and nastiness, a place of heavy-handed
> thugishness, a place where people treat each other quite badly.
That rep has always been there, actually. There have always been admins who have treated vandal-chasing as central. The vandals have complained, the trolls are definitive loudmouths when it comes to their own grievances. I don't know how you would judge whether matters are getting worse or better, just from the hubbub.
> Why
> doesn't ArbCom come down on admins who fail to respect contributors? Why
> isn't that a high priority?
Why don't we get the cases brought that mean we could do that? We have a clear policy on civility. Some people do reckon that long service gives them some rights in how they talk to others. They are certainly wrong about that, and should note well that ArbCom doesn't have binding precedents, and may well up the tariff of punishment for shooting off your mouth. As far as I can see, this causes a large outcry when it is proposed, but it may well happen.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> writes:
>charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
> >> Why doesn't ArbCom come down on admins who fail to respect
>>> contributors? Why isn't that a high priority?
>>
>> Why don't we get the cases brought that mean we could do that? We
>> have a clear policy on civility. Some people do reckon that long
>> service gives them some rights in how they talk to others. They are
>> certainly wrong about that, and should note well that ArbCom doesn't
>> have binding precedents, and may well up the tariff of punishment for
>> shooting off your mouth. As far as I can see, this causes a large
>> outcry when it is proposed, but it may well happen.
>
>I back Charles 100% on this.
>
>I am on the ArbCom mailing list, and take an active part in it. I can
>assure everyone that the ArbCom takes a very dim view of admins behaving
>badly. The thing is, unless cases are brought, then the ArbCom doesn't
>see it.
The problem is that leads to fairly arbitrary decisions, of which I
was a victim in the summer. In February, blocked wrongly for a
non-existent 3RR, at 1 AM in the middle of an edit that had taken
an hour, I self unblocked. I was a very naughty boy and I was
punished by being blocked again, but everyone seemed to think that
was closed.
Then, months later a completely unrelated issue in which I was
tangentially involved goes to ArbCom and results in this issue being
dragged up again. Now probably it would not have led to my desysopping
had I not regarded the article ban as unacceptable (and successfully
campaigned against it but that's another story), but it does raise
two issues:
1) If admin status is no big deal, is removing it no big deal either?
Arbcom is becoming more willing to remove admin status, of which I
generally approve (despite possibly being a victim of it).
2) If ArbCom is the only body that can remove admin status, excluding
self-administered recalls, then how does it cope with low-level but
persistent admin misbehaviour? ArbCom is much better at dealing with
egregious single incidents.
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david(a)election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd(a)westminster.gov.uk (council)