On 2/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/02/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/20/07 9:26 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No, which is why we try to keep a light hand and err on the side of letting stuff through. It takes a remarkable level of stupid for us to bother doing anything.
But David, this takes me back to the original question: Is it really offensive to call someone abusive? I, personally, would not use the word
to
define someone, I would, instead, describe their behavior as abusive;
but
isn't that, in the context of this List, somewhat nickpicky?
I'd generally allow it to pass myself in the first instance, FWIW. Though I'd expect substantiation to follow. It's supposed to be a productive working list for a project.
- d.
The user in question has, in fact, mailed in not just numerous diffs but a very accurate description of the situation. In fact, they were attacked by other users of this list for sending "too many" emails, apparently because the list system was not functioning properly and did not inform them of the moderation queue.
As far as I can understand after investigating with my own tools, the behavior towards this user was in fact abusive on the part of the involved administrators. In fact, the whole circumstances surrounding the case seem to stem from an administrator who felt it was his "right" to poke and prod and provoke a returned user, trying to get a reaction in order to justify a ban.
The fact that administrators actually will stand up to defend deliberate provocation - behavior that would NEVER be tolerated of a normal user, especially if it were directed at an administrator or so-called "respected user" - is one more bit of proof that wikipedia has become elitist and of the major cultural problems generated by too small a pool of people who have too much power for their egos to withstand. The "rules" as we put them forth seem to only apply to "other people" and you can get away with far too much if you've got a friend with power, or power yourself.
Of course, the fact that emails seem to have sat in the queue for 36 hours or more (one email, which I did not receive until Monday night, was apparently sent Sunday morning) isn't helping either. I'm sure that is frustrating the user to no end.
Parker