We had that. They called themselves the "Association of Member's Advocates." They were disbanded because everyone saw them as a huge waste of time with 0 net benefit.
-Chad
On Nov 26, 2009 8:56 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I already pointed out that you cannot impose "friendliness". Our current state is one in which any particular admin may sit on any particular editor with or without adequate cause and that editor has nearly no power to affect a hearing. There is no advocate for the editors who are not admins.
Until that situation changes, we cannot claim to be moving toward a friendly environment.
What we need is an Office of the Editor Advocate. Any arrested person has the right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state. That is what we need. Advocate-attorneys who are on the side of the arrested editor.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists...
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates
As for having some level of "who polices the policeman" at least on Wikipedia we already have bureaucrats, checkusers, admins, arbitrators, oversighters, stewards... So I'm pretty sure we've got the checks and balances largely sorted out. On mailing lists it is correct there is "only" the list mods but I think I'm not the only one to believe that the Foundatio.nl mods are behaving in an exemplary manner in trying circumstances. Advocating for the creation of a new position of authority seems to me like "asking the other parenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PARENT#Forum_shopping ".
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
We had that. They called themselves the "Association of Member's Advocates." They were disbanded because everyone saw them as a huge waste of time with 0 net benefit.
-Chad
On Nov 26, 2009 8:56 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I already pointed out that you cannot impose "friendliness". Our current state is one in which any particular admin may sit on any particular editor with or without adequate cause and that editor has nearly no power to affect a hearing. There is no advocate for the editors who are not admins.
Until that situation changes, we cannot claim to be moving toward a friendly environment.
What we need is an Office of the Editor Advocate. Any arrested person has the right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state. That is what we need. Advocate-attorneys who are on the side of the arrested editor.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists... _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
on 11/26/09 9:06 PM, Chad at innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
We had that. They called themselves the "Association of Member's Advocates." They were disbanded because everyone saw them as a huge waste of time with 0 net benefit.
Everyone? I'm not familiar with the one you mention, but, let's try again.
Marc Riddell
On Nov 26, 2009 8:56 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I already pointed out that you cannot impose "friendliness". Our current state is one in which any particular admin may sit on any particular editor with or without adequate cause and that editor has nearly no power to affect a hearing. There is no advocate for the editors who are not admins.
Until that situation changes, we cannot claim to be moving toward a friendly environment.
What we need is an Office of the Editor Advocate. Any arrested person has the right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state. That is what we need. Advocate-attorneys who are on the side of the arrested editor.
Great idea!
MR
On Nov 26, 2009 8:56 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
Any arrested person has the right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state. That is what we need. Advocate-attorneys who are on the side of the arrested editor.
I'm totally okay with discussing this concept, but arguments like this one rather cheapen the concept.
People are provided with an attorney in the the US (not all states, worldwide, remember) and because what is at issue can be the deprival of life, liberty, or property.
Let's not draw a legal parallel too closely, huh?
pb
____________________ Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation
philippe@wikimedia.org
mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454)
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org