In response to Johntex:
Finally, I love the message for our attorney which explains the
importance
of having an office policy, but does absolutely nothing to provide any
rational for why we should then FAIL TO FOLLW our office policy. I guess
maybe that sort of speech fools some of the people some of the time.
TonySidaway said:
This is uncalled for.
Tony, I have to disagree. The attorney works for the foundation, not the other way around. Critiquing whether or not he speaks to the question at hand is perfectly fair. All he did was say, we need "WP:Office". Fine. Let's follow WP:Office, but that means all of us.
TonySidaway said:
I'm sitting here and, over the months, watching people head towards Danny's office actions like moths to a flame. No wonder he doesn't want to advertise them, particularly the more sensitive ones.
That is no justification. Doing things on the sly is the way to attract INCREASING criticism. I'm a perfect example, I've never had any complaint about any WP:OFFICE action untill this.
TonySidaway said:
This latest kerfuffle is a good sign that the process we have set up just isn't enough. The rules are not an end in themselves.
I agree here in principle that results are more important than process. But the results here are all bad: A good admin got desysopped unfairly, massively additional attention was drawn to this than if the rules had been followed, WP:OFFICE takes it on the chin, etc. Therefore, saying the ends justified the means is no good argument in this case.
-Johntex
I agree. Regardless of whether people complain about WP:OFFICE, if Danny applies WP:OFFICE, people will complain, but they will not reverse his actions. Not applying WP:OFFICE means that people won't know whether they can reverse his actions or not.
If Danny doesn't want to use WP:OFFICE anymore, he (or Jimbo) should just delete the policy and find another way to deal with it. If, however, he wants a readily-available and very visible way of telling people "you reverse this action, you will get desysoped and banned for endangering the Foundation", I don't see a better wa than applying WP:OFFICE. People may complain, but they know the consequences of reverting him.
On 4/19/06, John Tex johntexster@gmail.com wrote:
In response to Johntex:
Finally, I love the message for our attorney which explains the
importance
of having an office policy, but does absolutely nothing to provide any
rational for why we should then FAIL TO FOLLW our office policy. I
guess
maybe that sort of speech fools some of the people some of the time.
TonySidaway said:
This is uncalled for.
Tony, I have to disagree. The attorney works for the foundation, not the other way around. Critiquing whether or not he speaks to the question at hand is perfectly fair. All he did was say, we need "WP:Office". Fine. Let's follow WP:Office, but that means all of us.
TonySidaway said:
I'm sitting here and, over the months, watching people head towards Danny's office actions like moths to a flame. No wonder he doesn't want to advertise them, particularly the more sensitive ones.
That is no justification. Doing things on the sly is the way to attract INCREASING criticism. I'm a perfect example, I've never had any complaint about any WP:OFFICE action untill this.
TonySidaway said:
This latest kerfuffle is a good sign that the process we have set up just isn't enough. The rules are not an end in themselves.
I agree here in principle that results are more important than process. But the results here are all bad: A good admin got desysopped unfairly, massively additional attention was drawn to this than if the rules had been followed, WP:OFFICE takes it on the chin, etc. Therefore, saying the ends justified the means is no good argument in this case.
-Johntex _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 20/04/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Foundation", I don't see a better wa than applying WP:OFFICE. People may complain, but they know the consequences of reverting him.
I wonder if the foundation has investigated taking a traditional route, like blanking the page, and replacing it with "CORRECTION: John Seigenthaler has never been at all involved in Kennedy assinations" etc, and leaving it like that for a week or so.
Steve