Hi Elisabeth,
Well, my reason for changing the subject was to refocus the discussion from a specific case to a general issue which affects all Wikimedians. Like most who have commented here, I am in no position to judge the particulars of the ru.wikibooks situation, as I lack both the requisite linguistic ability and the requisite background knowledge. I can only say that it *appeared, *from the information posted here,* *to be a case of egregiously abusive, intimidating behavior by someone treating a WMF project as a personal fiefdom; and that the further *appearance *of inaction in the face of such profoundly unacceptable behavior was sufficiently troubling to prompt some reflection.
It would not serve my purpose, and was not my intent, to question your judgment (or anyone else's). It is however necessary to question a culture in which -- as at any rate it appeared, from the remarks posted here -- stewards do not feel qualified to exercise their own judgment in the absence of a community request (even when such a request is unlikely to be forthcoming). *If* true, this suggests that very serious problems exist in our organizational culture.
In any event, the traffic level since my post has served to remind me that this list is not suited to nuanced discussions of, well, anything; at least not for those of us who subscribe to the digest. IMO this is unfortunate. But so be it, for so it is; I shall return to my lurking.
Best regards,
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.
Dear Sam, dear all, as I stated already, I personally don't think that human judgement can be generalized.
There are rules and the stewards have to obey them, certainly they are interpreted by every human being slightly different, but I think we agree that a steward is not in the position to judge and to decidehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies#Don.27t_decide(please read the link target what is understood by "decide") (if there is no emergency).
Please note that I am almost certain, that if he would have been desysoped, there would now be other voices claiming here that this was a totally wrong thing to do.
Imho discussing this here is therefore a waste of time, if You or anyone wants that something is being done or someones user-rights being removed, please feel free to open a RFC, as suggested, to grant a wider community the chance to express their opinion in a more public and accessible place, thank You,
best regards.
2008/1/8, Samuel Henderson samueljhenderson@gmail.com:
Hi Elisabeth,
Well, my reason for changing the subject was to refocus the discussion from a specific case to a general issue which affects all Wikimedians. Like most who have commented here, I am in no position to judge the particulars of the ru.wikibooks situation, as I lack both the requisite linguistic ability and the requisite background knowledge. I can only say that it *appeared, *from the information posted here,* *to be a case of egregiously abusive, intimidating behavior by someone treating a WMF project as a personal fiefdom; and that the further *appearance *of inaction in the face of such profoundly unacceptable behavior was sufficiently troubling to prompt some reflection.
It would not serve my purpose, and was not my intent, to question your judgment (or anyone else's). It is however necessary to question a culture in which -- as at any rate it appeared, from the remarks posted here -- stewards do not feel qualified to exercise their own judgment in the absence of a community request (even when such a request is unlikely to be forthcoming). *If* true, this suggests that very serious problems exist in our organizational culture.
In any event, the traffic level since my post has served to remind me that this list is not suited to nuanced discussions of, well, anything; at least not for those of us who subscribe to the digest. IMO this is unfortunate. But so be it, for so it is; I shall return to my lurking.
Best regards,
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.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org