[Wikipedia-l] Re: thank you

Wed Jul 7 05:52:51 UTC 2004

Well, aside from Lir issueS (I put many S), there is a Guanaco issue as 
well.

In the past 2 years and a half, I have always been bugged by potential 
errors made by sysops. Most of these errors are done in good faith, and 
probably most do not require a hard answer precisely because in good 
faith. Also, most of the time, errors made are made because rules are 
not very clear.

Still, errors are made. And it came as a habit to just discard these.
When an error is made, there are two steps

* recognising the error (based on facts). It is best to study the case 
to see whether an error was made or not made. If the error was due to 
unclear guidelines, then guidelines should be improved for the general 
sake.

* then considering an error was made, take a decision regarding this 
specific violation, taking into account the situation itself (ie, 
perhaps quick and eroneous decision while fighting a vandal is easier to 
forgive and forget. Also, when an error is made, it is a good idea to 
admit it was made, even just to issue a *warning*. Because when a sysop 
has received perhaps 10 warnings, there is probably something to discuss.

It certainly bugs me to see that when a sysop makes an error, the 
reaction is to bury the error, put it under the carpet, as if it is 
impossible to imagine a sysop *could* make an error. I think rules are 
entirely useless if no reaction occurs when someone does not respect the 
rules. I also think it is bad that someone make an error and do not 
apology for it.

The issue is not to "punish" someone for the sake of punishing. Nor is 
it to humiliate or hurt the person, it is just to admit that there are 
rules, and that if people infringing the rules are never issued warning, 
then the rules are useless.

Which is why I would like that this case is studied :-)

I also strongly regret that this has to go in front of an arbitration 
committee to be discussed. Honestly, I think it could be discussed just 
between people, but en really seem to be bureaucratic now :-)

Phil Sandifer wrote:
> Well, the arbitration committee request was rather broader than just the 
> issue with Guanaco. To the point where I don't really think that there 
> are two parties to the dispute with Lir as it stands.
> 
> -Snowspinner
> 
> On Jul 6, 2004, at 6:40 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> 
>> If there are two parties to a dispute, it would seem more sensible to 
>> consider the matter from both sides.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>> Phil Sandifer wrote:
>>
>>> I did not request arbitration against Guanaco, nor do I intend to. If 
>>> you want that done, you'll have to do it yourself.
>>> -Snowspinner
>>>
>>> On Jul 6, 2004, at 3:30 PM, Anthere wrote:
>>>
>>>> Was Guanaco presented as well ?
>>>>
>>>> David Gerard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/06/04 14:32, Angela wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't a matter for the Wikimedia Board at this early stage, nor
>>>>>> for this mailing list. Please see
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and follow
>>>>>> the procedures there, taking it to arbitration, not the Board, as a
>>>>>> last resort.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lir has indeed been presented for arbitration on en. It's an 
>>>>> interesting
>>>>> case.
>>>>> - d.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia-l mailing list
>> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>>