| Revision as of 00:11, 21 February 2006 editDominic (talk | contribs)Administrators29,558 edits →Transparency: more partypooping← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:32, 22 August 2007 edit undoMelsaranAWB (talk | contribs)393 editsm subst:'ing, Replaced: {{courtesy blanking}} → {{subst:courtesy blanking}} using AWB |
| (65 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
|
|
== Transparency == |
|
|
|
{| class="messagebox" |
|
Where was the discussion that led to these items being placed here? - ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 10:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| This page has been ]. |
|
:I've just been (quietly I suppose) reading the evidence and watching the workshop, and decided to move over the obvious/relevant ones. If you have any objections, you can still say so (though principle shouldn't usally be very controversial). There wasn't any private mailing list/IRC/cabal smoke signal discussion that led to it. ]·] 16:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|} |
|
::Aww, how am I meant to rage against the machine when you give sensible and prompt answers? Are you trying to spoil my fun? ;P |
|
|
::*I'd say that the "jimbo makes the rules" and "Assume good faith" are both in the category of "unarguable but no consensus that they are relevent". Both are ambiguious, and to my mind distract from the issues under examination. I don't think that either if these are in question enough that we ''need'' them in as proposed decisions. Back to workshop? |
|
|
::*The "disruption" one seems to have popped fully formed from the head of minerva. Could this be removed and taken to the workshop page? Quite a bit of the meat of this is about what ''contitutes'' disruption, and how to handle it. For example, could another admin have blocked Tony for disruption the third time he deleted ACoW? And NDk the third time he restored it? |
|
|
::Thanks for being responsive. I'm really pleased to see that there is involvement in this discussion by the arbitrators. If I don't have to have the decoder ring to know, what's the "voting starts now" threshold and will we get some warning to get our rows into the duck? <br/>]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 23:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*I find the Jimbo as a policymaker principle relevant with regards to T1, and the disregard some have shown to it (disagreement is fine, but until it is overturned, violation is not). While I'm sure some part/most of the disagreement may be over interpretation, this is still valid. As to assume good faith: I think it's relevant to all sectors of this conflict, both in the way some have been treating others, and in the wheel warring (which I think in large part develops from lack of AGF, ie: one admin decides to reverse another admin's decision without discussion or outside consensus-seeking, often because they assume the other is wrong without giving them the benefit of discretion and trust in good judgment the community has awarded them.). |
|
|
:::*Disruption: There was a WP:POINT proposal, but the "to make a point" part was rightly challenged. This kind of wording on general disruption is a common one, and the first clause is based on ], and just common practice. It could apply to any of the parties here who were disruptive, and there was certainly some disruption (but I haven't made a finding of fact saying any particular one was disruptive yet!). Sure "what is disruption" is an issue, but it is in any case; those blocks are controversial and usually require discussion, so I cant really say right now if either should have been blocked ''then'' now, and if it's an arbcom action due to disruption we are talking about, it will be based upon a finding of fact as well. You are welcome to list this on the workshop as well to solicit comment. |
|
|
:::Voting starts as soon as all the arbitrators' proposals are made and they begin to vote (er...), though proposals are frequently made afterwards, too. Basically, when it looks done. You can watch ] to see when it's moved to voting. ]·] 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|