On 11/05/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
> Or perhaps he didn't do anything wrong, and
that because you don't
> like it just isn't sufficient.
I really don't think that's the case, I'm
not exactly picking a
borderline individual. 3 RfCs and 2 ArbCom cases...
Did you read the RFCs? Did you see the one where he was RFCd for
actually *following* the deletion policy? (Quite literally, he was
RFCd for not violating it the way a pile of people wanted it
violated.) The one where he was RFCd for refactoring talk page
signatures so long they hampered actual discussion? (And where
everyone complaining had signatures like a smurf had taken acid and
thrown up, and everyone saying the RFC was stupid and Wikpedia was not
Myspace had simple ones?) Those are examples of a lynch mob not
getting their way.
Your reply to me says "but look at all this smoke!" I suggest it went
nowhere because that was the right way for it to go. They utterly
failed to make a case.
> I think what it shows is that your assumption
that where there's smoke
> there MUST be fire is *not* correct, and that there is in fact good
> reason to be profoundly sceptical of your proposals for setting up new
> lynch mob mechanisms because you can't sufficiently punish these
> offenders you refuse to name using the existing ones.
This has nothing to do with smoke and fire, though.
It's rather
discouraging to have calls for accountability be dismissed as lynch mob
tactics, though. Quite counterproductive.
You still won't name the people you consider grievous offenders who
need to be deleted from the wiki to make everything magically better,
and you refuse to consider the mechanisms that do exist because
troublesome things like actually convincing people you have a case
stand in the way.
- d.