Id like to thank you, as members of the Wikimedia Board, as members of the mediation committee, and as concerned citizens -- for being so rude as to not even bother to respond to this issue. It is obvious that you feel I can be banned by anyone, for any reason; regardless of Jimbo Wales request that I be treated according to the rules of the website. Thank you for not caring, it means a lot to me. ----- Original Message ----- From: C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons]<mailto:a[name omitted for privacy reasons]@msn.com> To: Antheremailto:anthere9@yahoo.com Cc: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.orgmailto:wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org ; wikipedia-en@wikipedia.orgmailto:wikipedia-en@wikipedia.org ; Edmund.W.Poor@abc.commailto:Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com ; chris_mahan@yahoo.commailto:chris_mahan@yahoo.com Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:27 PM Subject: Hephaestos must be desysoped
Since no effort was made to address my previous ban, in which Guanaco banned me because he felt that I was User:Yuna (despite having no evidence to support his claim) -- now, I have been banned again, for an even less reasonable reason. Such is the slippery slope, no? Hephaestos has now banned me. without giving any reason, except that I have "admitted to trolling" -- whatever that could mean. The ban is for 30 days.
C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
Id like to thank you, as members of the Wikimedia Board, as members of the mediation committee, and as concerned citizens -- for being so rude as to not even bother to respond to this issue. It is obvious that you feel I can be banned by anyone, for any reason; regardless of Jimbo Wales request that I be treated according to the rules of the website. Thank you for not caring, it means a lot to me.
I tell you what’s rude. This is rude: Shut the F*CK up.
No-one has been rude to you, but many readers of this list have been forced to read your endless whining and the simple fact that you do not understand, no matter how many times Anthere repeated it that this is NOT the right place to do so. This concerns the English list, wikien-l, and the voting section inside the Wikipedia, whose address has been mentioned at least once. Requests for Review of Administrative Actions or what ever it’s called.
I do not understand why you keep repeatedly disregarding NICELY laid requests that you go to the RIGHT places with your problems. Again, all you need is to sign up to the damn list, else you’ll be moderated.
Now please read and act accordingly, I have had enough of your “input” to this list.
This isn't a matter for the Wikimedia Board at this early stage, nor for this mailing list. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and follow the procedures there, taking it to arbitration, not the Board, as a last resort.
Angela.
Lir wrote:
Id like to thank you, as members of the Wikimedia Board, as members of the
mediation committee, and as concerned citizens -- for being so rude as to not even bother to respond to this issue. It is obvious that you feel I can be banned by anyone, for any reason; regardless of Jimbo Wales request that I be treated according to the rules of the website. Thank you for not caring, it means a lot to me.
On 07/06/04 14:32, Angela wrote:
This isn't a matter for the Wikimedia Board at this early stage, nor for this mailing list. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and follow the procedures there, taking it to arbitration, not the Board, as a last resort.
Lir has indeed been presented for arbitration on en. It's an interesting case.
- d.
Was Guanaco presented as well ?
David Gerard wrote:
On 07/06/04 14:32, Angela wrote:
This isn't a matter for the Wikimedia Board at this early stage, nor for this mailing list. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and follow the procedures there, taking it to arbitration, not the Board, as a last resort.
Lir has indeed been presented for arbitration on en. It's an interesting case.
- d.
I did not request arbitration against Guanaco, nor do I intend to. If you want that done, you'll have to do it yourself.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 6, 2004, at 3:30 PM, Anthere wrote:
Was Guanaco presented as well ?
David Gerard wrote:
On 07/06/04 14:32, Angela wrote:
This isn't a matter for the Wikimedia Board at this early stage, nor for this mailing list. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and follow the procedures there, taking it to arbitration, not the Board, as a last resort.
Lir has indeed been presented for arbitration on en. It's an interesting case.
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
If there are two parties to a dispute, it would seem more sensible to consider the matter from both sides.
Ec
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I did not request arbitration against Guanaco, nor do I intend to. If you want that done, you'll have to do it yourself. -Snowspinner
On Jul 6, 2004, at 3:30 PM, Anthere wrote:
Was Guanaco presented as well ?
David Gerard wrote:
On 07/06/04 14:32, Angela wrote:
This isn't a matter for the Wikimedia Board at this early stage, nor for this mailing list. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and follow the procedures there, taking it to arbitration, not the Board, as a last resort.
Lir has indeed been presented for arbitration on en. It's an interesting case.
- d.
Well, the arbitration committee request was rather broader than just the issue with Guanaco. To the point where I don't really think that there are two parties to the dispute with Lir as it stands.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 6, 2004, at 6:40 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If there are two parties to a dispute, it would seem more sensible to consider the matter from both sides.
Ec
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I did not request arbitration against Guanaco, nor do I intend to. If you want that done, you'll have to do it yourself. -Snowspinner
On Jul 6, 2004, at 3:30 PM, Anthere wrote:
Was Guanaco presented as well ?
David Gerard wrote:
On 07/06/04 14:32, Angela wrote:
This isn't a matter for the Wikimedia Board at this early stage, nor for this mailing list. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and follow the procedures there, taking it to arbitration, not the Board, as a last resort.
Lir has indeed been presented for arbitration on en. It's an interesting case.
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Well, aside from Lir issueS (I put many S), there is a Guanaco issue as well.
In the past 2 years and a half, I have always been bugged by potential errors made by sysops. Most of these errors are done in good faith, and probably most do not require a hard answer precisely because in good faith. Also, most of the time, errors made are made because rules are not very clear.
Still, errors are made. And it came as a habit to just discard these. When an error is made, there are two steps
* recognising the error (based on facts). It is best to study the case to see whether an error was made or not made. If the error was due to unclear guidelines, then guidelines should be improved for the general sake.
* then considering an error was made, take a decision regarding this specific violation, taking into account the situation itself (ie, perhaps quick and eroneous decision while fighting a vandal is easier to forgive and forget. Also, when an error is made, it is a good idea to admit it was made, even just to issue a *warning*. Because when a sysop has received perhaps 10 warnings, there is probably something to discuss.
It certainly bugs me to see that when a sysop makes an error, the reaction is to bury the error, put it under the carpet, as if it is impossible to imagine a sysop *could* make an error. I think rules are entirely useless if no reaction occurs when someone does not respect the rules. I also think it is bad that someone make an error and do not apology for it.
The issue is not to "punish" someone for the sake of punishing. Nor is it to humiliate or hurt the person, it is just to admit that there are rules, and that if people infringing the rules are never issued warning, then the rules are useless.
Which is why I would like that this case is studied :-)
I also strongly regret that this has to go in front of an arbitration committee to be discussed. Honestly, I think it could be discussed just between people, but en really seem to be bureaucratic now :-)
Phil Sandifer wrote:
Well, the arbitration committee request was rather broader than just the issue with Guanaco. To the point where I don't really think that there are two parties to the dispute with Lir as it stands.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 6, 2004, at 6:40 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If there are two parties to a dispute, it would seem more sensible to consider the matter from both sides.
Ec
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I did not request arbitration against Guanaco, nor do I intend to. If you want that done, you'll have to do it yourself. -Snowspinner
On Jul 6, 2004, at 3:30 PM, Anthere wrote:
Was Guanaco presented as well ?
David Gerard wrote:
On 07/06/04 14:32, Angela wrote:
This isn't a matter for the Wikimedia Board at this early stage, nor for this mailing list. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and follow the procedures there, taking it to arbitration, not the Board, as a last resort.
Lir has indeed been presented for arbitration on en. It's an interesting case.
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I have no particular stance on the issue one way or another, as I said, and encourage you to do what you feel is sensible to resolve it. I don't really know the history of it. If you want to discuss it with Guanaco, neat. if you want to bring it to Arbcom, well, I pity you, because compiling a lot of evidence for Arbcom really sucks. Either way, my point is that I have nothing to do with this one, nor do I intend to, so it's all you.
-Snowspinner
Fact is, I already discussed it with Guanaco :-( As for evidence, well, I'll try. This really has become a problem that we fear discussing a problem because of the amount of work it will require...:-(
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I have no particular stance on the issue one way or another, as I said, and encourage you to do what you feel is sensible to resolve it. I don't really know the history of it. If you want to discuss it with Guanaco, neat. if you want to bring it to Arbcom, well, I pity you, because compiling a lot of evidence for Arbcom really sucks. Either way, my point is that I have nothing to do with this one, nor do I intend to, so it's all you.
-Snowspinner
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org