Resending as per Mark Ryan's email on an accidental rejection from queue.
Parker
On 2/20/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:41:56 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
(apologies for non-trimmed top posting)
Ray, I subscribe to unblock-en-l.
So do I.
The really gross cases, I simply
don't read. I'm not capable of extending good faith so some of those people, so I leave them alone.
If you're not capable of extending good faith long enough to examine a case, you have no business with admin powers.
I *know* some cases are valid even
though they are stated in obnoxious terms and often by obnoxious people. One who was unblocked under a month ago is now in front of ArbCom; the unblock was probably valid but I'd not have unblocked.
Which proves that you don't deserve the power you have, since you're willing to throw the book at people even when it's clear they've already been abused by someone else.
The
thing is, though, we don't need those cases here. Here, we discuss things which might actually be broken.
If by "discuss" you mean mouth vague platitudes and stonewall...
Admins blocking abusive trolls
is not broken.
With this I agree.
I trust the mods to sort out the abusive trolls from
the simply rude and obnoxious, I then apply my own filters to the rude and obnoxious.
May I suggest you apply your filters through a mirror briefly.
Overall, the mods are doing just fine.
No, they're not.
Either the
seriously batshit cases don't post here, like they do to the unblock list, or they are being modded, and actually I don't care which.
The "seriously batshit" cases don't post here, but the cases which do post here are ignored or pooh-poohed by personages like yourself anyways.
Thus the problems.
Parker
Parker Peters wrote:
On 2/20/07, Guy Chapman wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:41:56 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
(apologies for non-trimmed top posting)
Ray, I subscribe to unblock-en-l.
So do I.
I admit that I didn't know about that list until it was mentioned in this thread. I confess too that I sometimes have wished that it did exist, for the uncharitable reason that I did not want to read through all the crap. But I never stated this before. It has seemed more important to keep an eye on this sort of thing.
I *know* some cases are valid even
though they are stated in obnoxious terms and often by obnoxious people. One who was unblocked under a month ago is now in front of ArbCom; the unblock was probably valid but I'd not have unblocked.
Which proves that you don't deserve the power you have, since you're willing to throw the book at people even when it's clear they've already been abused by someone else.
I'm not concerned right now with specifying who deserves the power. Rather than "throw the book" at anyone, I would prefer techniques that give us a better chance to identify those who have been unjustly treated. If a bad egg gets through from time to time that's nothing to worry about. The bad ones are good at repeating their mistakes, and will soon enough let us know.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:25:04 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
"Parker Peters" posts are blacklisted at my mail server, so I don't have full text of his comments, nor am I interested, but when you say:
I'm not concerned right now with specifying who deserves the power. Rather than "throw the book" at anyone, I would prefer techniques that give us a better chance to identify those who have been unjustly treated. If a bad egg gets through from time to time that's nothing to worry about. The bad ones are good at repeating their mistakes, and will soon enough let us know.
I agree. There have been several people who have been blocked who I've argued for unblocking on those grounds. At least one was rejected out of hand, and I was loudly denounced for it, and that was probably right as well, since he already had numerous chances which he blew (this was due to medication, but that's not our problem).
Sometimes there are people, like [[User:Lee Nysted]], whose unblocking seems to me to be a complete waste of time. He is here for one reason, and one reason only, and that's to get an article on himself into the project. It's all he's ever done, all he's ever wanted from us, and even when superficially talking about something else, it's obvious that he's talking about just that. And I would not have unblocked [[User:DeanHinnen]] either. I might well be wrong about those, too, but that's the price you pay for having humans instead of robots as admins.
Guy (JzG)