-----Original Message----- From: William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 08:35 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Administrator flameout: Naconkantari
Fred Bauder wrote:
The warning signs were when the Arbitration Committee decided that continual agitation was just "free speech". We all know the users who have taken the lead. The precipitating event is at:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4
So after reading that and rummaging, I've got a couple of questions.
It seems like Naconkantari had recently taken some heat for too-vigorous blocking. Then he blocked several people on the RFC you link to above, shortly before the RFC was deleted. Doc Glasgow, one of the people blocked, offers this as an explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice...
Given that, is it fair to think of Naconkantari as one of those people who got caught in what I think of as the "overburdened admin spiral", where a tired person becomes more short-tempered, causing incidents that weary them further? And that this was just the final turn of that spiral?
Yes, best to cut back a bit when you see this happening to yourself. But to know you need to do that, you have to have had the experience of getting into a mess because you didn't. (Assuming one can only learn the hard way, by experience)
Also, when you refer to ArbCom-blessed continual agitation, is that the same thing as the ANI reference to free passes for certain people?
That is just part of life. High status actors can get away with more. Not sure I could find the discussion you cite easily. Generally, it has been framed, "So and so may be nasty, but he is a great editor."
Thanks,
William
On 01/05/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
That is just part of life. High status actors can get away with more. Not sure I could find the discussion you cite easily. Generally, it has been framed, "So and so may be nasty, but he is a great editor."
This is why, if the editor in question hits ArbCom *again*, I will *again* be strongly suggesting a personal attack parole with particular admins being forbidden from unblocking.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 01/05/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
That is just part of life. High status actors can get away with more. Not sure I could find the discussion you cite easily. Generally, it has been framed, "So and so may be nasty, but he is a great editor."
This is why, if the editor in question hits ArbCom *again*, I will *again* be strongly suggesting a personal attack parole with particular admins being forbidden from unblocking.
This is also why certain admins and former admins need to be held to the same standard the rest of us are as well.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 01/05/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
That is just part of life. High status actors can get away with more. Not sure I could find the discussion you cite easily. Generally, it has been framed, "So and so may be nasty, but he is a great editor."
This is why, if the editor in question hits ArbCom *again*, I will *again* be strongly suggesting a personal attack parole with particular admins being forbidden from unblocking.
This is also why certain admins and former admins need to be held to the same standard the rest of us are as well.
I think what you'll find is that "certain admins and former admins" are being held to considerably higher standards than certain high-volume contributors...and that anybody who dares point this out gets smeared as just another lackey.
On 5/1/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com] wrote:
Also, when you refer to ArbCom-blessed continual agitation, is that the same thing as the ANI reference to free passes for certain people?
That is just part of life. High status actors can get away with more. Not sure I could find the discussion you cite easily. Generally, it has been framed, "So and so may be nasty, but he is a great editor."
A quick note from a sitting Arbitrator that nobody has a free pass. NOBODY. Acting like you do is inviting us to show you how you don't.
In deciding remedies, we are of course influenced by the totality of someone's contribution to the project. This is not a free pass and the more you come up before arbcom, especially if it's for the same reasons as before, the less we will consider the positive since clearly the negative is not being worked on.
-Matt