On 7/6/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Michael
Turley <michael.turley(a)gmail.com>
I suggest you
drop any stereotypes you may hold and respond with a real contribution
when a real suggestion arrives, rather than being solely negative and
dismissive.
I suggest you stop insinuating that I disliked that suggestion because of
the source, and acccept the fact that I thought it was a terrible idea
simply based on its own merits (or lack thereof). And I also suggest that
you accept the fact that I will be negative and dismissive on any policy
proposals which I think are terrible ideas.
Being dismissive about any idea is unproductive, and that's why I
suggested you consider a different approach. Being dismissive
projects the wrong image, especially from anyone who is an admin. You
are entirely correct that I was overly broad in my criticism of you.
I apologize.
If we kept the
"standard" 3RR in addition to a new page based revert
rule, one editor certainly could not hold pages hostage. I didn't see
anything in the previous proposal that suggested throwing away the old
(but actually pretty young) 3RR rule.
A page that is constantly kept locked by the actions of one individual
against a huge consensus of other editors is one held hostage. See
[[Apartheid]] for an example.
Why do you permit the hostage of the article, rather than addressing
the single editor? How is it possible that a single user can keep a
page locked when he can only revert 3 times before being blocked, yet
the "huge consensus" could certainly revert many times that number of
times?
Did you look at the history? He uses variable IPs; whenever he's blocked,
he simply reboots and gets another. He's used at least 11 userids and 30
IPs so far.
I asked because I didn't know the answer. I will try to help think up
a viable solution.
What policies
or procedures do you suggest to correct this
existing deficiency that isn't helped by the "ain't broke, don't fix
it" policy now in place?
I suggest broader admin powers regarding obvious trolls. But I don't
imagine that will go down too well with a number of people on this list.
As long as they're dealt out with a courteous, polite explanation, I'd
support a lot more than you might expect. What harms the project, in
my opinion, is not the punishments themselves, but the curt attitudes
of some administrators, and the lack of patient explanations. Most
people don't usually mind taking responsibility for their actions, as
long as they are treated with respect in the process.
Please
don't criticize people for searching for alternate paths to a
solution, especially if they're people who you don't think have
contributed in a positive manner recently. We should be encouraging
proper behavior at every opportunity.
Please don't describe my criticisms of ideas as criticisms of people, and
please don't tell me to stop doing things I haven't done in the first place.
My initial statement was solely about the idea itself, and described quite
clearly what I didn't like about it; I neither said nor implied about the
individual making the suggestion. You, on the other hand, wrongly assumed I
disliked the idea because of its source, and criticized me, not my response.
You should first model "proper behaviour" before encouraging it in others.
Jay.
I see no reason why anyone has to be perfect before suggesting
improvements to anyone else. Instead, I think we can build a virtuous
circle, if everyone is willing to assume good faith of the other
instead of taking offense.
However, I made a very poor assumption about your motives. I
apologize again. Thank you for pointing out the errors in my last
email politely. As proof of my apology, I offer to make three good
faith referenced, content contribution edits to any articles in
Wikipedia you choose. Just name the article(s) you want improved.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused