Ah. It appears quite a lot of it is explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscienc...
Probation, repeated violations, apparent inability to work with others. Appeal to the arbitration committee is the way back.
Yes, that's where I was found guilty of having an "orientation", and an Arbitrator condoned the use of incivility with Ad hominems against me. Again, no examples of improper editing.
But if you have an indefinite ban, you are not allowed to appeal for a year. In other words, IF you are banned improperly, but indefinitely, there is no way back for at least a year.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
But if you have an indefinite ban, you are not allowed to appeal for a year. In other words, IF you are banned improperly, but indefinitely, there is no way back for at least a year.
News to me. If you are banned by CSN, you should be able to (and, as far as I know, can) appeal immediately to ArbCom. They may not accept the case if they feel there is nothing worth discussing, but I know of no rule which prevents you filing a case (of course, you're blocked, so you'll have to file it by emailing an arbiter).
On Sep 29, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:
Ah. It appears quite a lot of it is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Pseudoscience Probation, repeated violations, apparent inability to work with others. Appeal to the arbitration committee is the way back.
Yes, that's where I was found guilty of having an "orientation", and an Arbitrator condoned the use of incivility with Ad hominems against me. Again, no examples of improper editing.
I suggest you re-read it. Look for "low level edit warring and frequent edits against consensus", under the heading "Iantresman's editing style".
-Ronabop
At 05:12 30/09/2007, you wrote:
On Sep 29, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:
Ah. It appears quite a lot of it is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Pseudoscience Probation, repeated violations, apparent inability to work with others. Appeal to the arbitration committee is the way back.
Yes, that's where I was found guilty of having an "orientation", and an Arbitrator condoned the use of incivility with Ad hominems against me. Again, no examples of improper editing.
I suggest you re-read it. Look for "low level edit warring and frequent edits against consensus", under the heading "Iantresman's editing style".
Many thanks for taking the time to respond.
Yes, it says it, but gives no examples. Considering that the process is designed to collect and assess evidence, you would think it would be easy to give the best examples.
When I presented my evidence again other editors, it was very easy to provide actual diffs.
(b) reply to their questions?
Most *certainly* not. That would be devastating. Considering Wikipedia is a volunteer project, *requiring* a reply from our
So editors can take on the power of being an Administrator without the accountability and responsibility it entails. And yet they require my courtesy to reply when asked, and stick to the most trivial of guidelines when it suits them. This is very one-sided.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
So editors can take on the power of being an Administrator without the accountability and responsibility it entails. And yet they require my courtesy to reply when asked, and stick to the most trivial of guidelines when it suits them. This is very one-sided.
"accountability and responsibility" does not mean answering whatever questions anyone wants to ask them. If you have a problem with an admin, you can always go to ArbCom - it is through ArbCom that admins are held accountable.
I doubt any admin would block someone for not answering a question. More likely, they would decide that someone has done something worthy of being blocked, but ask them for an explanation to give them a chance to get out of it. You are being blocked for the original offence, not for failing to answer the question. The same applies to admins during ArbCom cases - if there is a clear case against them, and they don't respond to the case, they can expect to be desysopped. They have the option of responding to the case and possible explaining their way out of it.
Hello
Would it be possible to move this discussion to the english wikipedia mailing list please ?
Thanks
Ant
Thomas Dalton wrote:
So editors can take on the power of being an Administrator without the accountability and responsibility it entails. And yet they require my courtesy to reply when asked, and stick to the most trivial of guidelines when it suits them. This is very one-sided.
"accountability and responsibility" does not mean answering whatever questions anyone wants to ask them. If you have a problem with an admin, you can always go to ArbCom - it is through ArbCom that admins are held accountable.
I doubt any admin would block someone for not answering a question. More likely, they would decide that someone has done something worthy of being blocked, but ask them for an explanation to give them a chance to get out of it. You are being blocked for the original offence, not for failing to answer the question. The same applies to admins during ArbCom cases - if there is a clear case against them, and they don't respond to the case, they can expect to be desysopped. They have the option of responding to the case and possible explaining their way out of it.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org