[WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

Wed Mar 9 19:46:46 UTC 2005

Charles Matthews wrote:

>Ed Poor wrote
>  
>
>>I had thought that any of the 415 admins, having the "ability" to block
>>    
>>
>signed-in users, were "authorized" to use that ability to enforce the
>rules - such as:
>[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
>
>There is a policy about removing personal attacks.  That there is policy
>about 'removing' those doing the attacking is news to me.  I wouldn't dream
>of using admin powers in this way.
>
>Ed Poor shoots from hip, once more.  Exactly what kind of place would
>Wiki-en be if say, 100 of our sysops took this line, on a daily basis?
>
>I don't want to find out.  Others please support me, in saying that Ed is
>out of line here.  Policy can't just be made on the hoof, any more.  The
>scare quotes round "authorized" tell me just about all I need to know.
>Civility is a big plus on WP, but enforcement of this kind goes way beyond
>what I would accept.  Out of hand bans for vandalism, yes.
>
If I were to judge Ed solely by many of the substantive positions that 
he takes, we should be bitter enemies. :'( Ed does indeed shoot from the 
hip, but with one big difference.  When he realizes that he has made a 
mistake he is quicker than most to admit it.  Yes, Ed was out of line, 
but so what?  I do not support making policy on the hoof, there is 
already far too much of that.  Ed did not do that; he enforced what he 
believed to be policy, and did his best to undo the damage when he found 
his mistake.  His actions are perfectly understandable when you see the 
unending parade of shifting policies.  Nobody but policy geeks can keep 
up with it, and policy geeks are notorious for losing sight of project 
goals.

I don't see any need for further action on this.  Ed's repentance tells 
me all I need to know.  Unless we take a forgiving attitude towards this 
kind of error how can we expect to be forgiven ourselves when the tables 
are turned.

Ec