[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Ethics Commitee?

[Relata Refero]

PM did not "make trouble" or cause drama to the extent that the aggressive
response to his activites caused drama. I believe that should be said, and,
even if you and others believe it to be untrue, I think you must realise
that large numbers of good faith users think that.
And I see absolutely no reason why a 'trusted' user should be extended extra
courtesy if they are causing drama, as is implied (otherwise, why would you
need to discover whether the original account was 'trusted'?). I believe
that is precisely the point that some people are upset about, perhaps
because we all have different sets of people we 'trust'.

RR

On Nov 14, 2007 2:56 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:

> Ethics is good, but if a user makes as much trouble as you did, and
> continue to do, it is unrealistic to think your "wikignome" account would
> remain confidential. We needed to know if you were a trusted
> administrator, or some other trusted user.
>
> Fred
>
> >
> > I feel the oft-noted decline in civility on the wiki has led to some
> > extremism in admin. behaviour, and I am of the opinion that a parallel
> > stream to the ArbCom, some kind of ethics committee / forum might be a
> > good idea. That's the bigger picture thought, now some specifics;
> >
> > It may be repetitive but I absolutely stand by all of my contributions
> > to the wiki, which absolutely are in good faith. I thank the various
> > users who have said nice things about me - I can now represent myself
> > better on this list.
> >
> > In terms of gauging community consensus, Guy was self evidently wrong to
> > indef-block me - the decision was rightfully overturned pretty
> > quickly. Where do I feel ethics come in?
> >
> > I trusted guy with a user history, directly traceable back to my
> > identity fairly easily, and practically begged him not to abuse this
> > trust, and to keep that information confidential.
> >
> > He shared that information with many users.
> >
> > This is unethical.
> >
> > (and incidentally, it both upset and angered me hugely)
> >
> > Now a couple of further corrections, the need for which concerns me
> > also;
> >
> > (quoting Matt).....
> >
> >>Actually, the 'original identity' of PM was a user with less than a
> >> thousand edits and whose contributions to the project in earnest
> >>didn't start until January 2007.  He had a dozen or so edits in 2005
> >> and only a couple in 2006. Almost immediately after he resumed
> >>editing, he was embroiled in Wiki politics, stirring up trouble in the
> >> Essjay affair among others.  His encyclopedia-space editing is only
> >> about a fifth of his edits, and most of those are to just a small
> >> handful of articles.  Notably, they seem to have been picked mostly for
> >> their notoriety and for being the locus of disputes.
> >
> > This is wholly inaccurate. I will happily discuss my history with
> > those I trust privately - but please don't make such aggressive points
> > without better information, it creates drama, and upsets.
> >
> > What do you good people think about the need or use of an editor
> > ethical committee?
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > PM.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>