I'm breaking this thread because a) it is always possible that there are unique factors in play in the ru.wikibooks situation, and b) this is a wider issue in any case.
Here is my opinion:
*No policy, however good or golden, should ever override human judgment.* This is true on every level, on every project. Policies that suggest otherwise *should* of course be rewritten; but in any case, they *must* be ignored.
It should go without saying that blatantly abusive behavior by the lone admin on a project without a strong local community calls for direct and immediate corrective action, regardless of policy.
If the people who are charged by the WMF community with project stewardship do not feel that their own judgment is good enough to handle serious problems in a moment of crisis, then that is a very serious problem which threatens the WMF's entire model of governance.
Cheers,
Sam
Although this is the wrong thread: The human -my- judgement was: reverting the one revert (one revert imho is no editwar) and warn him once more, then if he had reverted it again, I would have desysoped him and restored the Monobook again.
I doubt You would normally block a user in Your project after one revert if it is not obvious vandalism, if the user might not be aware that he is doing wrong and gives a reason for his revert in the summary?
Please don't cut that off the case we are talking about, if You are really talking about human judgement You can't generalize it imho, it is case specific.
Best regards.
2008/1/7, Samuel Henderson samueljhenderson@gmail.com:
I'm breaking this thread because a) it is always possible that there are unique factors in play in the ru.wikibooks situation, and b) this is a wider issue in any case.
Here is my opinion:
*No policy, however good or golden, should ever override human judgment.* This is true on every level, on every project. Policies that suggest otherwise *should* of course be rewritten; but in any case, they *must* be ignored.
It should go without saying that blatantly abusive behavior by the lone admin on a project without a strong local community calls for direct and immediate corrective action, regardless of policy.
If the people who are charged by the WMF community with project stewardship do not feel that their own judgment is good enough to handle serious problems in a moment of crisis, then that is a very serious problem which threatens the WMF's entire model of governance.
Cheers,
Sam
-- Samuel Henderson Miryang, South Korea - Chicago, Illinois, USA Document Translation, Review and Proofreading Korean-English, German-English Member ATA, NAJIT, KST Co-moderator NAJIT Listserve Certified Korean-English Translator _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 7, 2008 4:23 PM, Samuel Henderson samueljhenderson@gmail.com wrote:
If the people who are charged by the WMF community with project stewardship do not feel that their own judgment is good enough to handle serious problems in a moment of crisis, then that is a very serious problem which threatens the WMF's entire model of governance.
Oh, please. There is no "crisis". You need to take a step back, look at the subject from a broader perspective and treat it dispassionately. There is a sysop on a tiny project feeling himself at home. Yes, he is abusing his tools. In a few days, the RfC on meta will certainly lead to the decision of his desysoping. What "crisis" is there?
Furthermore, stewards have absolutely nothing to do with "WMF's entire model of governance". They are servants of the community, neither ubersysops, nor cops or judges. Yes, we have human judgment, hence the possible emergency desysoping of someone getting on a deletion rampage or whatever. But I maintain this particular situation on the Russian-language Wikibooks is *not* a crisis. It is a serious problem, but there is absolutely no emergency in it. It doesn't mean we should not take care of it. It only means writing emails on a mailing list asking for emergency desysoping by stewards doesn't help resolving it.
Hello,
On Jan 7, 2008 6:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In a few days, the RfC on meta will certainly lead to the decision of his desysoping. What "crisis" is there?
Will it? Is there a precedent for desysopings via external methods like that?
Yes. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comments/Netoholic_on_Simple_Eng... and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comments/Request_to_Stewards led to http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&am...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org