Note: this was an offlist mail to me, which has been sent back to the whole list. Black mark for etiquette on that.
I advise everyone against answering private mails from this poster.
Well, and what you say is absolutely not what you wrote to the list, then. You will gain no respect at all from exaggerating and then shifting position when challenged.
Charles
From: "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com Date: 2006/10/06 Fri PM 04:59:18 BST To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Quitting Wikipedia and wanted you to know why.
No.
I am asserting that polices, while they may have been well intentioned, have the net effect of being a bureaucratic nightmare that makes it a virtual impossibility that any course of action against an admin by a non-admin will succeed.
That policies which were designed to safeguard admins from deliberate harassment have become twisted into opposition of any investigation of admin conduct whatsoever.
I'm forwarding this to en-l because I want these words to be clear to everyone.
Cheers, Parker.
On 10/6/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
You are asserting that
Every policy
(not some but all)
is designed
(i.e. deliberately set up)
to make it impossible
(not inconvenient, time consuming, legalistic)
for an aggrieved user to make any protest against abuse.
(you say _any protest_, not just an effective protest leading to action).
Well, that's hooey. Anyone can start an RfC. Show me an admin who sits on an RfC and I'll take action on that myself.
Charles
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Charles, I apologize for sending it directly to the list, but you obviously had misread my words and I was worried that others might have as well. I am not "exaggerating" or "shifting" my position. I would ask at this time that you please calm down and perhaps take a breather.
I believe that the policies are problems. Starting with the number of roadblocks to starting an RFC - the requirement of "evidence of trying to resolve the difference beforehand" (hard to do when an admin is blocking you!), the requirement of finding a second user to sign on with you (especially if they become fearful of being blocked).
They may at one point have been well intentioned, but they do not help the situation today.
Parker
On 10/6/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Note: this was an offlist mail to me, which has been sent back to the whole list. Black mark for etiquette on that.
I advise everyone against answering private mails from this poster.
Well, and what you say is absolutely not what you wrote to the list, then. You will gain no respect at all from exaggerating and then shifting position when challenged.
Charles
From: "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com Date: 2006/10/06 Fri PM 04:59:18 BST To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Quitting Wikipedia and wanted you to know why.
No.
I am asserting that polices, while they may have been well intentioned,
have
the net effect of being a bureaucratic nightmare that makes it a virtual impossibility that any course of action against an admin by a non-admin
will
succeed.
That policies which were designed to safeguard admins from deliberate harassment have become twisted into opposition of any investigation of
admin
conduct whatsoever.
I'm forwarding this to en-l because I want these words to be clear to everyone.
Cheers, Parker.
On 10/6/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com <
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
You are asserting that
Every policy
(not some but all)
is designed
(i.e. deliberately set up)
to make it impossible
(not inconvenient, time consuming, legalistic)
for an aggrieved user to make any protest against abuse.
(you say _any protest_, not just an effective protest leading to
action).
Well, that's hooey. Anyone can start an RfC. Show me an admin who sits
on
an RfC and I'll take action on that myself.
Charles
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Parker Peters wrote:
I believe that the policies are problems. Starting with the number of roadblocks to starting an RFC - the requirement of "evidence of trying to resolve the difference beforehand" (hard to do when an admin is blocking you!), the requirement of finding a second user to sign on with you (especially if they become fearful of being blocked).
In 4 1/2 years I have never been involved in an arbcom fight. If I had to deal with it I'm sure that I would make the same mistakes as a newbie. :-)
Ec