Well, I no longer own either of those things, the foundation does,
which means that I have a legal responsibility to the goals of the
organization. But, in any case, in the spirit of the rule of law,
I do authorize a temporary emergency ban of me if I start posting
goatse.cx images on the homepage. :-)
Stevertigo wrote:
At first read, I thought it said, "The
mediation
panel should be able to recommend a ban on Jimbo."
That might be wishful thinking, but at least we can
set this as one of the finite limits-- "No bans on the
guy who owns the servers and the domain names."
~S~
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
blairr wrote:
That's good for vandals, but what about
problem
users.
For things like strange edits (eg Nuuk/Godthab),
and users that have made
POV changes, as well as other things.
I like the idea of mediation by a select group of
users, as well as
empowering these users, if the user-in-question
does not change their
behavior, to orchestrate bans.
Simply making strange edits is not an offence. Even
POV changes are not
in theselves offences. How a person goes about
doing these things is
much more important.
The mediation panel should be able to recommend a
ban to Jimbo or a
delegated person. That recommendation could also
include a length of
time for the ban. If they become involved directly
in the ban
themselves it could compromise their objectivity.
Ec
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l