[WikiEN-l] I've Kicked the Process Habit

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

Look, lets not judge him on his intentions. It's just silly. If he
does make a mistake, take him to task on it, but you cannot know
whether this will turn out good or bad before he's actually done it.

Most of his suggestions are very reasonable, and it's not like he's
saying "I'm going to delete every article ever written about X,
because they're stupid!". His stated intentions is to follow the
policy as closely as he can, just to avoid all of the bureocracy
surrounding it. If he goes crazy, we have ways of dealing with that.
Then you can bring up all this stuff. For now, lets not judge people
*before they've actually done something wrong*, ok?


--Oskar

On 9/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sep 15, 2006, at 9:09 PM, geni wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> If I can't remember
> > >> how many warnings a vandal gets, I'll just zap 'em for 24 hours two
> > >> warnings early, and call it a day.
> > >
> > > This violates AGF thus WP:DICK.
> > >
> > > As an admin you are not empowered to do this. Those who enjoy state
> > > analogies would use the comparison you have the role of the police
> > > rather than the executive.
> > >
> > > Those who prefer analogies from the world of comic books would argue
> > > that you're Judge Dread rather than Rorschach. You do not have the
> > > power to decide to make a practice of not warning vandals.
> > >
> >
> > Unless I happened to guess wrong and two warnings is now the
> > convention, I didn't say I was swearing off vandal warning. I said
> > I'm not going to worry about going up from {{test}} to {{test500}} or
> > whatever insane number has been cooked up - I'll warn once or twice,
> > zap, and call it a day.
> >
>
> Two warnings is quite possible within process (you can block of test3
> and skip test2). Blocking within one warning is possible but I
> understand that people were complaining that the CVU were using it to
> a degree that people were objecting to.
>
> In short your suggestion would have involved blocking after no warning.
>
> > If it's not obvious why it's bad, I don't really see it as a waste of
> > time.
>
> I don't see it as my job to continually educate people as to why
> certain things are bad (we will ignore the issue that I tend to end up
> doing this anyway)
>
>
> > Is our copyright policy that bad? We should probably fix it up then.
>
> Really? Were you planning to run as a successful third party or go
> straight to armed revolution? In any case it won't help there are
> another 200 odd legal systems out there to worry about.
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>