Policy violations (was [WikiEN-l] Re: Violation of blocking policy by user "40277")

[James Marshall]

Look, I only did this because Timwi specifically requested me to make a
list of violations and links to policy pages-- see his previous posts.  I
had NO desire to spend hours on this very dry task, and I would not have
if no one had asked for it.  I'm not obsessing on it.  Readers of this
list are free to ignore it if they wish, and I've tried to make that clear
in my posts.  I think it's better to ignore posts that don't interest you
than to criticize people for posting something uninteresting to you.

I was directed here after a friend of Jimbo's thought I should contribute
to the (currently pretty one-sided) Reagan article.  If my contribution
has now taken the form of Q/A on the Wikipedia social system, then so be
it, but that's definitely not what I came here for.  It can, however, be
constructive, if anyone chooses to follow up on it; that's not my choice
one way or the other.

James


On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:

RS> James Marshall wrote:
RS>
RS> >Okee dokee, here are some of the violations I found in the recent
RS> >unpleasantness.  Some are more important than others, and some are
RS> >stronger cases than others.  But in no particular order, and in an ad hoc
RS> >format, here's what I came up with in the last couple of hours:
RS> >
RS> >
RS> >First, not a violation, but Timwi specifically asked about policies
RS> >encouraging additions and discouraging deletions.  To clarify, I didn't
RS> >mean a hard-and-fast rule-- of course some deletions are good and some
RS> >additions are bad.  But it's a theme I picked up a few times on various
RS> >newbie and policy pages.  I'll see if I can find the references again.
RS> >
RS> >... OK, here are some:
RS> >
RS> (long snip)
RS>
RS> Please stop obsessing on this.  Notwithstanding the truth and validity
RS> of what you say people only go so far in reading this kind of stuff.
RS> Those who frequent the mailing lists have heard it all before, and can
RS> become impatient when it comes to reading these long diatribes of
RS> defence.  They are counterproductive to your cause.
RS>
RS> You would do better to simply devote your time to editing real
RS> articles.  Avoid hot-button items until after you have become better
RS> known, or have some track-record in less controversial areas.
RS>
RS> Ec
RS>