You have absolutely no standing to complain about a time limit -
personally, I am very glad to see the Committee putting some effort into
resolving issues in a somewhat timely manner.
You made your complaint in various places, multiple versions at different
times, and failed to file a case yourself. When it was filed "on your
behalf," you ignored it. Now you suddenly don't have enough time to
gather the diffs for a problem in the relatively distant past that you've
been
complaining about ever since?
I'm sorry, I don't expect many to be so credulous as to accept your
dispute of the time limit as good faith. When the Committee publicizes
a decision, you'll have a decision of your own to make - to continue raising
your complaint at every opportunity (claiming its ignored and unresolved)
and thus invite increasingly aggressive censure, or to let it go.
Nathan
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 6:22 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Your attitude is an example of the problem. When someone has a
complaint about checkuser use, they are insulted and ridiculed by
ArbCom members, moaned about by other checkusers, and ignored by the
Ombudsman commission. Then attacked on this list for "forum shopping"
if they dare to mention it here.
Of the recent case regarding Lar, I've been told all evidence must be
submitted by this Sunday, then the case will be closed. But I don't
have time to hunt for diffs right now, because I have family coming to
stay until the end of the month. They know this -- they also know this
is a holiday season -- but they want it closed by Sunday nevertheless,
for reasons they're unable to explain. So nothing will be resolved.
What puzzles me is why people like you argue against enforcing the
checkuser policy. If you want to get rid of it -- and if it's so
patently absurd that only lunatics and conspiracy theorists like me
would ever want to enforce it -- why not argue for its removal? There
is simply no point in having a policy that assures editors reasons are
needed for checks, when in fact no reason is ever needed, and Jimbo
supports that, while the Ombudsmen won't look at it, the ArbCom won't
act, the checkuser list won't self-police, and when the issue is
raised here, it's "forum shopping" and time for more abuse from David
Gerard.
With the current gulf between policy and practice, we are lying to
users, pure and simple.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l