PM did not "make trouble" or cause drama to the extent that the aggressive response to his activites caused drama. I believe that should be said, and, even if you and others believe it to be untrue, I think you must realise that large numbers of good faith users think that. And I see absolutely no reason why a 'trusted' user should be extended extra courtesy if they are causing drama, as is implied (otherwise, why would you need to discover whether the original account was 'trusted'?). I believe that is precisely the point that some people are upset about, perhaps because we all have different sets of people we 'trust'.
RR
On Nov 14, 2007 2:56 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Ethics is good, but if a user makes as much trouble as you did, and continue to do, it is unrealistic to think your "wikignome" account would remain confidential. We needed to know if you were a trusted administrator, or some other trusted user.
Fred
I feel the oft-noted decline in civility on the wiki has led to some extremism in admin. behaviour, and I am of the opinion that a parallel stream to the ArbCom, some kind of ethics committee / forum might be a good idea. That's the bigger picture thought, now some specifics;
It may be repetitive but I absolutely stand by all of my contributions to the wiki, which absolutely are in good faith. I thank the various users who have said nice things about me - I can now represent myself better on this list.
In terms of gauging community consensus, Guy was self evidently wrong to indef-block me - the decision was rightfully overturned pretty quickly. Where do I feel ethics come in?
I trusted guy with a user history, directly traceable back to my identity fairly easily, and practically begged him not to abuse this trust, and to keep that information confidential.
He shared that information with many users.
This is unethical.
(and incidentally, it both upset and angered me hugely)
Now a couple of further corrections, the need for which concerns me also;
(quoting Matt).....
Actually, the 'original identity' of PM was a user with less than a thousand edits and whose contributions to the project in earnest didn't start until January 2007. He had a dozen or so edits in 2005 and only a couple in 2006. Almost immediately after he resumed editing, he was embroiled in Wiki politics, stirring up trouble in the Essjay affair among others. His encyclopedia-space editing is only about a fifth of his edits, and most of those are to just a small handful of articles. Notably, they seem to have been picked mostly for their notoriety and for being the locus of disputes.
This is wholly inaccurate. I will happily discuss my history with those I trust privately - but please don't make such aggressive points without better information, it creates drama, and upsets.
What do you good people think about the need or use of an editor ethical committee?
Many thanks,
PM.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l