In a message dated 6/18/2008 10:09:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm writes:
Once an admin action is performed to which there are
objections, the correct course of action is to find a compromise thorugh
discussion. This is no different than any other disagreement on
Wikipedia.>>
-------------------------
So an admin replaces a page on Hillary Clinton with a dancing monkey,
because Rush Limbaugh thought it would be a fine joke.
Now we need a long discussion just to put it back.
No. We never gave ArbCom the power to make such drastic and sweeping
changes.
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
I noticed some attempts by the trolls to update my bio in Wikipedia and
theyr got swatted.
>From the Horses mouth (or the other end of the horse). :-)
" On June 13, 2008, Merkey reached a settlement with Natural Selection
Foods regarding the E-Coli lawsuit pertaining to Alexej Martin Merkey and
the parties elected to dismiss the action without prejudice (meaining it
can be refiled in the future). Natural Selection Foods and their
associated companies agreed to pay their own attorneys fees in the matter,
and are at present paying out of pocket medical expenses for any of the
victims of the E-coli outbreak caused by any of their products."
Jeff
In a message dated 6/18/2008 5:31:27 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm writes:
Yes, that's how it should be. Unless there is agreement that an admin
action is actually wrong, no other admin should reverse it simply because
the other admin individually doesn't like it. This is simply a matter of
respect for the original acting administrator, that they don't take their
actions lightly and we don't reverse them lightly.
Adminship is "not a big deal" because any admin action can be undone
- admins can't permanently change things. >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not how it should be. I smack you in the head, you have to go get a
committee to condemn me for doing it, instead of just smacking you back.
If you think there are admins who don't go around smacking people in the
head, you're wrong.
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
In a message dated 6/18/2008 1:59:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sam.blacketer(a)googlemail.com writes:
I think the greater danger would be the assumption that administrators are
bound to act irresponsibly. >>
--------------------------------------------
You set up a false dichotomy. It is not that we have a choice between "all
administrators act responsibly" and "all administrators are irresponsibly".
That is not the situation. The true situation is that "some administrators
sometimes act irresponsibly."
To require a reversal of an arbitrary action *only* on the consensus of the
community essentially encourages some admins to act irresponsibly even more
often, because they know their actions will be even less often reviewed since
the procedure to so-do is now beauracratic. That is the wrong message to be
sending.
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
Has there been any discussion in the past about implementing article
specific (or category specific?) blocks as a way of enforcing topic bans?
I'm thinking that an article may have a list or log of blocked editors, so
that an editor can be blocked from a specific article without blocking them
more generally or relying on their good faith to not violate topic bans. Any
thoughts?
Nathan
At 11:47 AM 6/17/2008, David Goodman wrote:
>This is a proposal that will encourage administrators to not act
>responsibly, by destroying the principle that an administrative action
>can be overturned by another administrator. Any one of the 1100 or so
>active administrators can delete material, tc. etc. and no one can
>overturn it without a definite community consensus. any one of the
>1100 can be as arbitrary as he pleases, and get away with it unless
>the community is willing to actually actively oppose him. Thus, the
>bias will be towards removing material--which perhaps is what some
>people want with BLPs. Tell me, what would the reaction be if a
>proposal were mooted that any one of the 1100 administrators could
>mark BLP material as being kept, and could not be opposed without
>similar agreement?
It looks to me like ArbComm has gone totally mad. But I didn't read
the arbitration. It's one thing to protect an article at the drop of
a hat, and BLP policy would allow an admin to protect, in this case,
to "a preferred version," but the proposal goes way beyond that.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a "definite community consensus" arise on
Wikipedia. We don't have procedures for determining that; rather we
have an escalating response process that is not designed for crisp decisions.
The citations removed were to
1) Chillingeffects.org which was only replicating the letter his own lawyers
sent to Wikipedia
2) Wsws.org
3) News.sbs.com.au
4) finance.news.com.au
5) The Australian
These aren't reliable sources ? They are just mudslinging vicious vandals
bent on libelous bile ?
**************Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best
2008. (http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacg00050000000102)