[WikiEN-l] Wikiquette "committee"

Sat Oct 4 06:35:15 UTC 2003

Vancouverguy wrote:

>You're right- it does say it should be able to ban Jimbo. Not likely to
>happen.
>
May I suggest "Hooked on Phonics"?  Recommending a ban to Jimbo is not 
the same as recommending to ban Jimbo.  Perhaps switching those two 
little words could indicate a dyslexia problem.  At least Steve 
humourously recognized that he had misread the "to" as "on".

Ec

>
>From: "Stevertigo" 
>
>>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 at 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
>>>