sandifer at sbcglobal.net
Sun Aug 1 16:20:56 UTC 2004
On Aug 1, 2004, at 12:46 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>> Jerome Jamnicky wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 07:10, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>>> I am annoyed by the behaviour of user:fire. He is not a sysop on
>>>>> Wikisource, yet he was able to come and block a user indefinitely
>>>>> no better excuse than a non-working link to wikipedia about
>>>>> policy. I immediately reversed the block.
>>>>> Those who participate in Wikisource are quite capable of deciding
>>>>> should be blocked. We don't need this loose cannon who has not
>>>>> otherwise participated in Wikisource to sneakily acquire some kind
>>>>> superior access for no other reason to block a user that he does
>>>>> not like.
>>>> You should get your facts straight before you make accusations like
>>> Butting in to prove your ignorance are you?
>> Odd that you sent this message three minutes after admitting that you
>> were wrong. Would you mind retracting that statement and apologizing
>> to Ronny, to Jerome, and to this list?
> There was no such admission, I merely said that I now understood what
> he did, and suggested how the situation could be better handled in the
> future. My response to Ronny speaks for itself. Jerome asked for it
> when he stuck his nose in. Thre was no attack against the list.
Perhaps this wouldn't have happened if you'd bothered to assume good
faith, or at least contacted Fire privately to find out what was going
on instead of tearing over to the list to complain publicly? I mean,
what happened from the perspective of the uninvolved is that your first
reaction to a sysop action you didn't understand was to come over to
the mailing list and decry the "loose canon sysop" who tried to
"sneakily acquire some kind of superior access" to your Wiki so he
could "block a user that he does not like."
I mean, clearly he was sysopped by a steward. That is the only way to,
as you put it, sneakily acquire access. There are only eight of those,
and they're all very sane and respectable people. Alternatively, the
other sane assumption would be that he was a developer or some other
person who was supposed to have access wherever he needed it. I mean,
sysops do not simply materialize from nowhere. In general, if someone
has the power to block a user, there's probably a very good reason.
It seems like the default assumption would not be "Loose cannon trying
to meddle with my Wiki" but "Oh. There must be some reason for this."
Especially since there was a link, albeit a bad one, to the name change
policy. This might have been a clue that the block had something to do
with the name change policy. You could have, perhaps, gone to Wikipedia
and found where the name change policy was supposed to be. Then,
perhaps, if you were still concerned about what the reason was you
could have, say, asked someone. Like Fire, for instance. I think he
would have been a good person to ask.
Or maybe I'm just crazy. Never can tell.
More information about the Wikipedia-l