[Wikipedia-l] Re: thank you

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: