On 2/20/07, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
Mark Ryan wrote:
For transparency, the moderated user
"countpointercount" has the
following message for subscribers to the mailing list:
'Your "moderators" are now claiming that any reporting of abusive
administrators is a "personal attack." This is obvious coverup
behavior.'
This is in response to my rejection of two emails, both of which I
considered to contain personal attacks because they called various
administrators 'abusive' etc. What are the thoughts of subscribers to
the list on this? What would the appropriate course of action have
been?
Having been cc'd on one of those rejected messages, I think you made
the right decision.
I looked into the user in question, and he was being contentious and
difficult on AIV within 30 minutes of creating his account. I'd give
10:1 odds that he's a sockpuppet doing the standard
I'm-really-not-a-sockpuppet dance. His refusal to calm down and the
stridency of his accusations aren't helping, either.
On the off chance that his he's really a well-meaning user, it seems to
me that he doesn't have a lot invested in that account, and he's already
gotten himself a bad reputation. If he's still following this list, I'd
suggest that he just let this incident go and take a month's break from
Wikipedia. Then when he has cooled down, he can start fresh with a new
account. As long as he becomes a good contributor and behaves
appropriately, nobody will know or care that he once got off on the
wrong foot.
I know some people are concerned that this is censorship, and is
blocking an avenue of appeal. If people are really worried about that,
we could create another list where we try to sort the wheat from the
chaff and talk down from the ledge people who are upset, legitimately or
not. Something between an ombudsman, a help desk, and a therapist. I'd
rather not see that traffic on this list, but I'm glad to serve on that
other list.
William
Lie much?
"he was being contentious and
difficult on AIV within 30 minutes of creating his account."
You mean, I spoke up on Adminstrator's Noticeboard (AIV?) about something I
saw that I considered to be improper behavior: the deliberate provocation of
a user, by an admin, conduct which would never have been countenanced were
they not an admin, a Checkuser filed obviously as a fishing expedition, and
obviously falsified results that could have no bearing on the case.
Coverup.