On Dec 10, 2007 9:28 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 6:01 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Indeed. My main concern at this point is that there seems to be a philosophy prevailing that 'the general public just misunderstood what happened, therefore we don't need to actually change anything and it's the public's responsibility to get it straight.'
[snip]
Secondly, blocking while being unwilling to explain why is not acceptable. In rare cases this explanation should not be made public; in those cases, the blocking admin should be sure to find other admins who will support the decision on-Wiki, and preferably should be willing to explain in private to uninvolved, trusted parties. It would be preferable to obtain the active agreement of the arbcom before doing such a block. In this case, Durova claimed that she had support but nobody came forward to state that they supported her decision.
[snip]
-Matt
This is probably the point that needs emphasis. I don't think anyone is bothered by the simple fact that a bad block was made (now this happens a lot). Nor is anyone really bothered that private discussions take place (now this also happens a lot). What we're bothered by (what I'm bothered by) is that we seem to be moving more and more towards a culture where admins make blocks they refuse to explain to anyone and this is considered appropriate (and at least one editor supported not giving any explanation of it). This is what gets people goat - the impression has been created (true or not) that these lists were contributing to this shift.
People are uppity for a reason - and so far as I can see, this is the reason - it's certainly the reason why I'm uppity.
Cheers WilyD