Initial thinking, not yet set in stone. I'm going to listen hard to the comments and evidence provided before I decide the best way forward. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
FloNight says, "A snarly response from a warned editor is a normal reaction, and nothing that warrants a block." While I think that as an observation this is mostly accurate, I think that accuracy is only because the standards for decorum have slipped very low. What collegial environment would have the property that, when someone warns you not to do something, the expected response is for you to insult them? Who would respond to an email from a colleague at work with "Get lost!"? If someone receives a warning that is genuinely inappropriate, they have numerous avenues for discussion to resolve the situation. Giving no response at all is better than responding with incivility or an assumption of bad faith. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
spam.domain
, where www.domain
was the original link, but no personal words. The problem is not within Labeling any good faith edit as vandalism is taboo. When this happens in the heat of the moment (by editors in a dispute) or in error, experienced editors or administrators step in and correct the person doing it. If you see it happening, politely correct the person by explaining the meaning of the term vandalism as Wikipedia uses it. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've expressed my concern in a very recent ArbCom case that many editors call things 'trolling' even though it isn't actually trolling, whether it is deliberately misrepresenting, or as a result of genuine misunderstanding or not having read, and comprehended the essay well enough. There must be a better way for the ArbCom to refer to trolling, without using a term that is so broad, and quite clearly, widely misused. I also see no positive benefit out of actually calling something trolling. I think these issues may need to be addressed by the ArbCom in future relevant cases. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 18:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed the discussion about the various ways to either make Tango undergo reconfirmation, being de-sysop'ed with the potential of filing another RfA in the future, etc. Personally, I get the impression that many or most of these could be effectively dealt with, without all these steps, if Tango were to just make himself eligible for recall. Would Tango agree to that possiblity, as a possible alternate to all those other steps which have been proposed? John Carter ( talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Until(1 == 2) has pretty much summed up my views on recall. By the very nature of the job, admins have enemies (whenever you block someone or delete something, you're likely to annoy at least one person [the blockee or the author, respectively]). In the past when past or present admins have gone through RfA following some controversy, they've pretty much always got a large number of oppose votes with no real reason behind them (obviously, there are cases where some/many of the oppose votes have been well reasoned) and crats have ended up promoting at controversially low support levels. I doubt many (if any) admins that have been involved in any controversial decisions (whether they were right or wrong) could get 80% support in an RfA, and I wouldn't want to be the subject of another Carnildo RFA. The discussion here and elsewhere clearly shows there is no consensus to desysop me (not that ArbCom are obliged to follow consensus - that's kind of the the point of having an ArbCom), but I also doubt there would be a consensus to resysop me if I were desysoped (or recalled - it doesn't really matter what order you do things in). Generally, in cases with no consensus, we favour the status quo - that's what I think ought to happen in this case. -- Tango ( talk) 16:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've placed my comments in the "parties" section as I believe without a clear statement to the contrary it would be unsound to place my comments in the "others" section due to my action on Mongo's block at the time. Clerks are welcome to move my comments into the "other" spot if I am not a party to the action. Orderinchaos 10:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Initial thinking, not yet set in stone. I'm going to listen hard to the comments and evidence provided before I decide the best way forward. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
FloNight says, "A snarly response from a warned editor is a normal reaction, and nothing that warrants a block." While I think that as an observation this is mostly accurate, I think that accuracy is only because the standards for decorum have slipped very low. What collegial environment would have the property that, when someone warns you not to do something, the expected response is for you to insult them? Who would respond to an email from a colleague at work with "Get lost!"? If someone receives a warning that is genuinely inappropriate, they have numerous avenues for discussion to resolve the situation. Giving no response at all is better than responding with incivility or an assumption of bad faith. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
spam.domain
, where www.domain
was the original link, but no personal words. The problem is not within Labeling any good faith edit as vandalism is taboo. When this happens in the heat of the moment (by editors in a dispute) or in error, experienced editors or administrators step in and correct the person doing it. If you see it happening, politely correct the person by explaining the meaning of the term vandalism as Wikipedia uses it. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've expressed my concern in a very recent ArbCom case that many editors call things 'trolling' even though it isn't actually trolling, whether it is deliberately misrepresenting, or as a result of genuine misunderstanding or not having read, and comprehended the essay well enough. There must be a better way for the ArbCom to refer to trolling, without using a term that is so broad, and quite clearly, widely misused. I also see no positive benefit out of actually calling something trolling. I think these issues may need to be addressed by the ArbCom in future relevant cases. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 18:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed the discussion about the various ways to either make Tango undergo reconfirmation, being de-sysop'ed with the potential of filing another RfA in the future, etc. Personally, I get the impression that many or most of these could be effectively dealt with, without all these steps, if Tango were to just make himself eligible for recall. Would Tango agree to that possiblity, as a possible alternate to all those other steps which have been proposed? John Carter ( talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Until(1 == 2) has pretty much summed up my views on recall. By the very nature of the job, admins have enemies (whenever you block someone or delete something, you're likely to annoy at least one person [the blockee or the author, respectively]). In the past when past or present admins have gone through RfA following some controversy, they've pretty much always got a large number of oppose votes with no real reason behind them (obviously, there are cases where some/many of the oppose votes have been well reasoned) and crats have ended up promoting at controversially low support levels. I doubt many (if any) admins that have been involved in any controversial decisions (whether they were right or wrong) could get 80% support in an RfA, and I wouldn't want to be the subject of another Carnildo RFA. The discussion here and elsewhere clearly shows there is no consensus to desysop me (not that ArbCom are obliged to follow consensus - that's kind of the the point of having an ArbCom), but I also doubt there would be a consensus to resysop me if I were desysoped (or recalled - it doesn't really matter what order you do things in). Generally, in cases with no consensus, we favour the status quo - that's what I think ought to happen in this case. -- Tango ( talk) 16:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've placed my comments in the "parties" section as I believe without a clear statement to the contrary it would be unsound to place my comments in the "others" section due to my action on Mongo's block at the time. Clerks are welcome to move my comments into the "other" spot if I am not a party to the action. Orderinchaos 10:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)