[WikiEN-l] Office actions

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:46:11 -0500, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
wrote:

>I am unsure exactly how to redesign the process so that we get the good 
>outcome more often, and the bad outcome less often.

Stating the case here has already helped.  We should work on
[[WP:OFFICE]] to ensure that it reflects this aim.  I am very happy to
hear that we should be working to fix up these articles, since it is
often the case that several editors are motivated to do just that.

Sometimes it's not quite so simple (as with Gregory Lauder-Frost,
whose friends made baseless claims in respect of our ability to
document his verifiable conviction for fraud, a notable and
significant fact by any rational assessment).

In this case, hopefully it is simple.  We have impeccable sources for
a number of significant facts which bear directly on why this place
was ever considered notable in the first place.  We can work on those,
applying the highest standards of care.  

Hopefully the evidence of this care, through showing our working, will
be sufficient to ward off trouble, but there is still the niggling
concern that fiddling with OFFICEd articles has in the past led to
summary disciplinary actions.  I'd really rather that didn't happen to
me.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG