Moved comments from Question from Raul654
Following up on a few of Gimmetoo's questions above:
- You refused to recuse yourself in the Jack Merridrew case, yet you offered an interpretation of the remedy for your friend that allowed him to serially sockpuppet. Do you not feel that recusals are also warranted for remedy interpretations?
- A: There wasn't a Jack Merridew case for me to recuse from. There was a point at which the committee was asked to offer an opinion on the remedy that had previously been enacted. I cannot see how the people who voted on a remedy can be asked to recuse from explaining what they meant by it.
- There was a request for clarification on his remedy. You don't think a recusal is waranted when that request involves your admitted friend? Especially when your interpretation is so off the wall that turns what had been a sockpuppeting prohibition into permission for him to sockpuppet as much as he wants?
Raul654 (
talk)
15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- What makes you think he's my especial friend? I blocked him once, and I've blocked his more recent socks as well. I think you're getting confused between 'I saw merit in his original request to have his restrictions lifted' 'I believe he has something to contribute' and 'bosom buddy'
- There was a request for clarification on his remedy. You don't think a recusal is waranted when that request involves your admitted friend? Especially when your interpretation is so off the wall that turns what had been a sockpuppeting prohibition into permission for him to sockpuppet as much as he wants?
Raul654 (
talk)
15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- A: There wasn't a Jack Merridew case for me to recuse from. There was a point at which the committee was asked to offer an opinion on the remedy that had previously been enacted. I cannot see how the people who voted on a remedy can be asked to recuse from explaining what they meant by it.
- I'm still waiting for an answer to my question
here: I want to know if the committee, when writing that remedy, intended that Jack should be able to sockpuppet, or if this is a case of retroactive CYA.
- A: Well clearly not, as the editor behind the accounts was blocked for creating socks.
- That's a nice non-answer answer, since it didn't answer my question about the committee's original intent. And it's patently false too, since Jack was banned by the community, not the committee. (The committee did absolutely nothing to stop him.) So can you please give me a real answer to my question? Raul654 ( talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- A: Well clearly not, as the editor behind the accounts was blocked for creating socks.
Moved comments from #Question from Mors Martell
With respect to the recent issue involving leaked messages on the mailing list, is there anything you wish you had done differently? -- Mors Martell ( talk) 16:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had just talked to my daughter - who has no interest in Wikipedia. I note your admiration for
Friedrich Nietzsche but find the notion of superArbs who never speak to anybody to be a bit unnerving. She would have given completely unrelated advice, which would have helped me identify my preferred action. It's a trick that
Sigmund Freud is alleged to have used, only he used to toss a coin. Seriously, I think burdening someone else with my problem was unfair, given the weight of shit that descended. --
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
23:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't suppose Nietzsche's philosophy works well with the arbitration system. The only person who could fill the role of a superArb would be Jimmy Wales, and he's among those who prefer the current system. However, it's unfortunate Wikipedia has no backup system that could be used when arbitration fails as it did in that case. --
Mors Martell (
talk)
23:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure Neitzsche would work so good on a collaborative project generally :) As Geometry guy said [1] Every editor is a human being, and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 00:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't suppose Nietzsche's philosophy works well with the arbitration system. The only person who could fill the role of a superArb would be Jimmy Wales, and he's among those who prefer the current system. However, it's unfortunate Wikipedia has no backup system that could be used when arbitration fails as it did in that case. --
Mors Martell (
talk)
23:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved comments from Question from Raul654
Following up on a few of Gimmetoo's questions above:
- You refused to recuse yourself in the Jack Merridrew case, yet you offered an interpretation of the remedy for your friend that allowed him to serially sockpuppet. Do you not feel that recusals are also warranted for remedy interpretations?
- A: There wasn't a Jack Merridew case for me to recuse from. There was a point at which the committee was asked to offer an opinion on the remedy that had previously been enacted. I cannot see how the people who voted on a remedy can be asked to recuse from explaining what they meant by it.
- There was a request for clarification on his remedy. You don't think a recusal is waranted when that request involves your admitted friend? Especially when your interpretation is so off the wall that turns what had been a sockpuppeting prohibition into permission for him to sockpuppet as much as he wants?
Raul654 (
talk)
15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- What makes you think he's my especial friend? I blocked him once, and I've blocked his more recent socks as well. I think you're getting confused between 'I saw merit in his original request to have his restrictions lifted' 'I believe he has something to contribute' and 'bosom buddy'
- There was a request for clarification on his remedy. You don't think a recusal is waranted when that request involves your admitted friend? Especially when your interpretation is so off the wall that turns what had been a sockpuppeting prohibition into permission for him to sockpuppet as much as he wants?
Raul654 (
talk)
15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- A: There wasn't a Jack Merridew case for me to recuse from. There was a point at which the committee was asked to offer an opinion on the remedy that had previously been enacted. I cannot see how the people who voted on a remedy can be asked to recuse from explaining what they meant by it.
- I'm still waiting for an answer to my question
here: I want to know if the committee, when writing that remedy, intended that Jack should be able to sockpuppet, or if this is a case of retroactive CYA.
- A: Well clearly not, as the editor behind the accounts was blocked for creating socks.
- That's a nice non-answer answer, since it didn't answer my question about the committee's original intent. And it's patently false too, since Jack was banned by the community, not the committee. (The committee did absolutely nothing to stop him.) So can you please give me a real answer to my question? Raul654 ( talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- A: Well clearly not, as the editor behind the accounts was blocked for creating socks.
Moved comments from #Question from Mors Martell
With respect to the recent issue involving leaked messages on the mailing list, is there anything you wish you had done differently? -- Mors Martell ( talk) 16:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had just talked to my daughter - who has no interest in Wikipedia. I note your admiration for
Friedrich Nietzsche but find the notion of superArbs who never speak to anybody to be a bit unnerving. She would have given completely unrelated advice, which would have helped me identify my preferred action. It's a trick that
Sigmund Freud is alleged to have used, only he used to toss a coin. Seriously, I think burdening someone else with my problem was unfair, given the weight of shit that descended. --
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
23:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't suppose Nietzsche's philosophy works well with the arbitration system. The only person who could fill the role of a superArb would be Jimmy Wales, and he's among those who prefer the current system. However, it's unfortunate Wikipedia has no backup system that could be used when arbitration fails as it did in that case. --
Mors Martell (
talk)
23:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure Neitzsche would work so good on a collaborative project generally :) As Geometry guy said [1] Every editor is a human being, and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 00:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't suppose Nietzsche's philosophy works well with the arbitration system. The only person who could fill the role of a superArb would be Jimmy Wales, and he's among those who prefer the current system. However, it's unfortunate Wikipedia has no backup system that could be used when arbitration fails as it did in that case. --
Mors Martell (
talk)
23:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)