I'll likely be dismissed as being naive, but if the the discussion concerns
the material which has been oversighted, rightfully or not, then there's not
a great deal that can be discussed in public until those with access to the
logs and material can make a decision as to whether or not the oversight
tool has been abused, and if so, what impact that's had on anything. If
there is material that was abusively oversighted and it can be presented in
public, then I'm sure we'll see it, along with any other relevant
information.
On 27/08/07, Frank Bellowes <fbellowes(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/27/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
NavouWiki wrote:
He does not have to explain his absence.
The claimed "absence" is a lie.
--Jimbo
The claimed "absence" is a fact. He hasn't made any edits since August
4th and has made no statement explaining his absence. He disappeared
in conjunction with an RFA case in which he's named as a party.
This behaviour is very irresponsible for a "trusted admin" let alone
one with various entitlements on the project.
It is reasonable to expect a modicum of accountability and
transparency. That the ArbComm is discussing this behind closed doors,
without any sort of mechanism for feedback by users or any sort of
transparency does not enhance the credibility of the project,
particularly at a time when it has come under severe criticism that
has eroded our standing.
Frank
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Nick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick