[Foundation-l] Note regarding status of privacy policy

[Nathan]

You have absolutely no standing to complain about a time limit -
personally, I am very glad to see the Committee putting some effort into
resolving issues in a somewhat timely manner.

You made your complaint in various places, multiple versions at different
times, and failed to file a case yourself. When it was filed "on your
behalf," you ignored it. Now you suddenly don't have enough time to
gather the diffs for a problem in the relatively distant past that you've
been
complaining about ever since?

I'm sorry, I don't expect many to be so credulous as to accept your
dispute of the time limit as good faith. When the Committee publicizes
a decision, you'll have a decision of your own to make - to continue raising
your complaint at every opportunity (claiming its ignored and unresolved)
and thus invite increasingly aggressive censure, or to let it go.

Nathan




On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 6:22 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Your attitude is an example of the problem. When someone has a
> complaint about checkuser use, they are insulted and ridiculed by
> ArbCom members, moaned about by other checkusers, and ignored by the
> Ombudsman commission. Then attacked on this list for "forum shopping"
> if they dare to mention it here.
>
> Of the recent case regarding Lar, I've been told all evidence must be
> submitted by this Sunday, then the case will be closed. But I don't
> have time to hunt for diffs right now, because I have family coming to
> stay until the end of the month. They know this -- they also know this
> is a holiday season -- but they want it closed by Sunday nevertheless,
> for reasons they're unable to explain. So nothing will be resolved.
>
> What puzzles me is why people like you argue against enforcing the
> checkuser policy. If you want to get rid of it -- and if it's so
> patently absurd that only lunatics and conspiracy theorists like me
> would ever want to enforce it -- why not argue for its removal? There
> is simply no point in having a policy that assures editors reasons are
> needed for checks, when in fact no reason is ever needed, and Jimbo
> supports that, while the Ombudsmen won't look at it, the ArbCom won't
> act, the checkuser list won't self-police, and when the issue is
> raised here, it's "forum shopping" and time for more abuse from David
> Gerard.
>
> With the current gulf between policy and practice, we are lying to
> users, pure and simple.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>