-------------- Original message --------------
actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
Shall we say one abuse per month per sysop, use it strategically?
Perhaps you could show me where that came from in "absent a pattern of abuse" ?
That comes from making excuses such as "being human" and he was "baited", which look quite reusable, since sysops will still be human in the future and may be "baited" again. However, it wasn't just your statement, but the general sense of "deference" to other sysops. The sysop community should act as checks and balances upon each other, quickly correcting questionable actions. Their job is protect the community, not just from disruptive behavior below, but from abuses by each other. -- Silverback
actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
Shall we say one abuse per month per sysop, use it strategically?
Perhaps you could show me where that came from in "absent a pattern of abuse" ?
That comes from making excuses such as "being human" and he was "baited", which look quite reusable, since sysops will still be human in the future and may be "baited" again. However, it wasn't just your statement, but the general sense of "deference" to other sysops. The sysop community should act as checks and balances upon each other, quickly correcting questionable actions. Their job is protect the community, not just from disruptive behavior below, but from abuses by each other. -- Silverback
While I agree with that, I disagree that much change needs to be made to the sysop policy. I don't know much about the crux of this dispute, but I don't see any problems with sysops abusing their powers. Obviously those who believe in the cabal and/or enjoy nitpicking every mistake a sysop makes would disagree, but I feel that the only thing wrong with our dispute resolution now is the speed of arbitration, which is apparenlty being corrected even as I type. Furthermore, "one abuse per month" would formalise the possibility of sysops blocking people for frivolous reasons while still not accounting for genuine mistakes. I personally think overly specific regulations like these are ridiculous and open too many loopholes, but that's just me.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
John Lee wrote:
Furthermore, "one abuse per month" would formalise the possibility of sysops blocking people for frivolous reasons while still not accounting for genuine mistakes. I personally think overly specific regulations like these are ridiculous and open too many loopholes, but that's just me.
If I knew that I were allowed "one abuse per month" I would choose my target carefully, and make that abuse as effective as possible. ;-)
Ec
Could someone explain to me which topic I have broken the 3RR rule. Jfdwolff has blocked and decided not to answer an email. Yours
John Bradley
Loc: 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
We need your user name.
Fred
From: "John Bradley" john@ontobus.co.uk Organization: Ontobus Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:56:07 -0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] User Irate here.
Could someone explain to me which topic I have broken the 3RR rule. Jfdwolff has blocked and decided not to answer an email. Yours
John Bradley
Loc: 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
So is he unblocked now?
Fred
From: Nicholas Knight nknight@runawaynet.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:24:47 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User Irate here.
Fred Bauder wrote:
We need your user name.
He gave it to you. "Irate".
From looking at it, I think Jfdwolff has misinterpreted the 3RR as meaning *block* on third revert, not "max 3 reverts". _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
So is he unblocked now?
Uh, no. I don't have that ability. I'm not a sysop. Even if I were, I'd be unlikely to have reversed the block so quickly without someone else looking at it, too, or Jfdwolff confirming what (s)he thought (s)he was doing.
Near as I can tell it was Clitoris, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Block was done by Jfdwolff but on the request of Violetriga.
I have left a few notes so far.
Fred
From: "John Bradley" john@ontobus.co.uk Organization: Ontobus Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:56:07 -0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] User Irate here.
Could someone explain to me which topic I have broken the 3RR rule. Jfdwolff has blocked and decided not to answer an email. Yours
John Bradley
Loc: 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No replies. I have unblocked the user.
Fred
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:29:44 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User Irate here.
Near as I can tell it was Clitoris, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Block was done by Jfdwolff but on the request of Violetriga.
I have left a few notes so far.
Fred
From: "John Bradley" john@ontobus.co.uk Organization: Ontobus Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:56:07 -0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] User Irate here.
Could someone explain to me which topic I have broken the 3RR rule. Jfdwolff has blocked and decided not to answer an email. Yours
John Bradley
Loc: 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If I knew that I were allowed "one abuse per month" I would choose my target carefully, and make that abuse as effective as possible. ;-)
I don't think it's fair that this "one abuse per month" dispensation should be given only to admins. Non-admins should be permitted one personal attack per month, one page vandalism, one frivolous listing on VfD or RfA or RfAr or RfC, one trolling attack on the mailing list, one sterile revert war, and one edit of a talk page to misattribute everyone else's comments.
VV
They are, unless a depraved heart is thus revealed.
Fred
From: VeryVerily veryverily@gmail.com Reply-To: VeryVerily veryverily@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:20:05 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Evercat v. Libertas
If I knew that I were allowed "one abuse per month" I would choose my target carefully, and make that abuse as effective as possible. ;-)
I don't think it's fair that this "one abuse per month" dispensation should be given only to admins. Non-admins should be permitted one personal attack per month, one page vandalism, one frivolous listing on VfD or RfA or RfAr or RfC, one trolling attack on the mailing list, one sterile revert war, and one edit of a talk page to misattribute everyone else's comments.
VV _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050107 04:30]:
They are, unless a depraved heart is thus revealed.
Fortunately, the Arbitration Committee have been issued with advanced scientific utterly infallible Depraved Heart detectors which work at all times in all circumstances. Otherwise we might have problems. So even if you think you're right, you MIGHT BE WRONG!
- d.
actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
Shall we say one abuse per month per sysop, use it strategically?
Perhaps you could show me where that came from in "absent a pattern of abuse" ?
That comes from making excuses such as "being human" and he was "baited", which look quite reusable, since sysops will still be human in the future and may be "baited" again. However, it wasn't just your statement, but the general sense of "deference" to other sysops. The sysop community should act as checks and balances upon
I am not now, nor have I ever been, an admin. I have never been nominated for, nor have I ever sought, adminship.