Here's the post that can't get through;
re : jayjg
>> Try and resolve the problem, Jay.
>>I am. One big problem on this thread are accusations without any specifics. I'm asking for specifics.
Personal information which I had submitted privately to Guy, with a request for that privacy to be respected, was shared by him.Arbitrators have voted in my case without disclosing discussions of my editing prior to my case.
That is unethical.
PM.
And here are all my posts ever to the list - I am really surprised to have been moderated for anything in the below, especially given the.. er... general quality of discourse therein;
Further : some of Guy's words for reflection;
In response to the post 'You can't do anything to stop me" from a user in May 2006;
:I think you'll find we can: experience indicates that in a fight between editors and admins, the admins hold all the cards. All of them. We can block you indefinitely, and we can block your IP adress, and we can lock the articles, and we can prevent you editing your talk page, and we can moderate you off the mailing list. That's what we would od if we were taking this anythign like as personally as you make out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHganesan&diff=53924473&oldid=53914775
That's exactly what Guy, and cohorts have done.
PM.
http://just-some-privatemusings.blogspot.com/
**************
Here's a short few points from another in the thick of it;
* I submitted private information to Guy via email, which he shared with this list despite my asking him clearly not to
* Fellow list members 'reviewed' Guy's blocking of me, reblocked me, and then reviewed that block.
* List members have discussed my editing for almost a month, and as we speak are voting in my arbitration case without any on-wiki disclosure
I'm no User:!!, but I've fiddled away trying to help at the encyclopedia for about 3 years, and am now indefinitely blocked.
Full disclosure - I've edited using 8 accounts over 3 years, any many assert I've abused both SOCK policy, and BLP at Jonathan King, and Giovanni di Stefano articles.
Nothing I have done makes the three points above ok
**************
Strongly agree with William;
>Off the top of my head, I'd suggest these:
>
> * wikien-interesting:
> * wikien-forum:
> * wikien-open:
and with regard to wikien-sewer - why not leave this list open, and
allow those who to remain to do so, whilst the new channels pick up
the perhaps more useful traffic?
Also strongly endorse Steve's comments.
PM.
**************
a couple of small responses;
Re : William - I respect your judgment and will try and put things
more neutrally. I admit that I am losing some faith that a sensible
point can be made without many editors immediately flinging insults,
but that's no reason not to try......
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano Fred B has said
"Don't link to sources which imply information we lack a good source
for"
and has deleted the talk page containing heaps of reliable sources
(like US Court Doc.s, The Times etc.).
That concerns me.
Re : Steve...
>Looks like more clowining to me. Are you planning to contribute something
>productive to this list, or should we moderate you?
>Steve
>_______________________________________________
I don't wish to be moderated - please don't.
best,
PM
**************
Giovanni di Stefano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano)
- and a sticking point in article work.
The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer
mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on
talk pages, if they may lead readers who click on them to think worse
of the article subject.
This presents problems.
BADSOURCES anyone?
'broohaha' instead of 'drama'>
**************
A few responses and replies;
Firstly I'd like to welcome clearly the word of the
hour.....introduced by dg in this thread, but used with some frequency
throughout the wiki on this issue.......... 'querulous' - it's a very
nice word, and I have hope that we may inspire its resurgence in
popular verbiage. It's a little bit like 'whining' but makes you sound
smarter for using it.
per dg on this point;
>Indeed. It's like JB196 complaining that a few of the accounts blocked
>as sockpuppets of his weren't in fact his. I wonder what an editor ethics
>committee would say to such a charge.
I note it took exactly three posts before I was compared to a banned
user - perhaps that's insightful, or perhaps it's part of the problem.
Per sam;
>What is this ethical committee supposed to do?
This is a valid point, and I don't have the answer beyond saying that
any such body should aim to maintain ethical behaviour on the part of
trusted community members - is this not a useful aim?
Per Fredl
>Ethics is good.
I hope you may consider the possibility therefore of a remit to uphold them.
>Running one quiet responsible account and another aggressive
>confrontive, and uncivil, account is just not viable. That's something
>you might do on a MUD.
I agree that that is unacceptable, and wholly disagree that that is
the case. Please please please at least consider the possibility that
I am a rational, calm person who has been involved with wikipedia for
a long while, though not overly intensely, and is passionate enough
about issues that I consider important to try and ensure that I have
(at least) some contribution that can be heard. This is not a MUD, and
I am not aggressive, confrontive or uncivil.
Per Relato;
hear hear.
No comments:
Post a Comment