-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Just cross posting here and on ANI for greater visibility. No recommendation however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_...
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
Interesting all the comments of "Why don't you raise this with the Arbitration Committee" and "surely soon, but not yet." The current appeal is, I think, the 4th? Maybe the 5th. Not that PM is being a vexatious appealer - half or so are not from him, and others support him each time. No one still seems to have argued that, on the merits, he should remain banned from BLPs. Others have noted the contradiction - he's prevented from editing BLPs, and so the Committee (and the community) has no evidence to back up a decision either way.
It seems like the Committee has decided to forego decisions when the answer isn't obvious (and sometimes when it is), perhaps gunshy from the scandal with the Orangemarlin case. Its unfortunate, but it appears we may have a "lame duck" committee until December.
Nathan
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
No one still seems to have argued that, on the merits, he should remain banned from BLPs.
I believe the Committee has decided on that basis.
Others have noted the contradiction - he's prevented from editing BLPs, and so the Committee (and the community) has no evidence to back up a decision either way.
The original ban was based on irresponsible and rash edits to controversial BLPs.
It's therefore appropriate to see if Privatemusings appears to be still displaying those qualities in areas he is not banned from. It's not like people suddenly take on a whole new personality when editing BLPs than they do in all the rest of their editing.
-Matt
hmmm.... I'm never sure how best to engage in this context, because the line between disagreement and disruption has occasionally seemed subjective to me. Two small points though;
Firstly, the admin.s amongst you will be able to review what was described privately as the edit which was most irresponsible and which was the work of a "dangerous fool" (an arb.s comment); http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Privatemusings/diStefano&...
The non admin.s amongst you can only see that this has been deleted as 'libelous content'. It certainly isn't a wonderful draft, and I've benefited greatly from watching the recent development at our current article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano ), but I just don't think it's fair to label me guilty of libel - it's a s serious charge and I really don't think it's right.
So let me be clear - my choice of words may well have been clumsy, my approach hugely flawed, and certainly I had little understanding at the time of the ramifications my editing would cause. These are lessons well worth learning, and represent the silver lining from my perspective.
Matt, you've commented briefly here about me in the third person, I'd like to ask you directly that if you have a spare moment, I'd really really appreciate it if you'd consider 'undeleting' the revisions identified by the arb.s as irresponsible and rash (just the draft above, maybe?) - I remain unclear as the rationale for their deletion, and I'd hope in examining them both I and others could avoid running into trouble in the future.
Secondly - I agree with the basic tenet of your post in many ways, but have you had the chance to take a look at the suggestions I've been making over the last month or so? I rather felt progress was being made! :-)
best,
Peter PM.
geez... I've just re-read this, and realised a) how dull the situation is, and b) how irrelevant to probably 99% of people reading this list!
Sorry for being a bore - I really do appreciate people bothering to take a look, and pass comment on the situation - but will take this opportunity to point you in a more useful direction!
I recently discovered how to add video to Wikipedia articles, and have uploaded a few (very boring!) sort of test clips - in my enthusiasm, I've now created a category;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_containing_video_clips
So if you happen across an article with a video clip - add the cat!! - I think this could be both fun and useful in due course....
feedback on whether this is a good use of cat.s, and whether or not I've set it up technically correctly is also much appreciated!
best,
Peter PM.
Its probably moot at this point, Matt, since the mentorship proposal is gaining ground, but - you're absolutely right that the original decision of the Committee was based on the merits, and I have no opinion on whether the remedies were appropriate or not at that time.
Since then, though, the response to the appeals hasn't contained much in the way of review on the merits - primarily "not enough time has passed." This appeal was shaping up to be no exception, even though the "enough time" described in the first appeal had gone by. If there are concerns based on his editing history since the case, then I think we'd all appreciate hearing those concerns described. Only Sam has done so - with PM's edits to the ArbCom page, and his reward board post. So far, the reaction by most people who have commented is that few if any see those edits as presenting a problem significant enough to warrant maintaining the restriction.
Editors, particularly adult editors, don't change personalities much over time - or between subjects. You are right about that. On the other hand, new editors have a pretty significant learning curve when it comes to community expectations and values. I think PM has done an excellent job on becoming an active and productive editor and member of the community since his case was before the committee, and I'd just like to see a more substantive acknowledgment of that fact by you folks.
Nathan
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
No one still seems to have argued that, on the merits, he should remain
banned
from BLPs.
I believe the Committee has decided on that basis.
Others have noted the contradiction - he's prevented from editing BLPs, and so the Committee (and the community) has no evidence to back up
a
decision either way.
The original ban was based on irresponsible and rash edits to controversial BLPs.
It's therefore appropriate to see if Privatemusings appears to be still displaying those qualities in areas he is not banned from. It's not like people suddenly take on a whole new personality when editing BLPs than they do in all the rest of their editing.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l