Changes

Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Law (view source)

Revision as of 15:48, 3 October 2009

1,249 bytes added , 15:48, 3 October 2009

Line 18: Line 18:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=317228946&oldid=317228762]

−

~~Caused~~ concern among other members of the community, because defending friends "No matter what" implies that no matter what policy a friend breaches, the other friend will cover for them and assist them to evade repercussions. and that It is not enough to trust someone without revealing their secret. If the trust was justified, an appeal would have been successful and allowed him to regain adminship honestly, rather than purposefully assisting a friend in regaining adminship with an alternate account.

+

==Commnuity reaction==

+

This revelation caused concern among other members of the community, because defending friends "No matter what" implies that no matter what policy a friend breaches, the other friend will cover for them and assist them to evade repercussions. and that It is not enough to trust someone without revealing their secret. If the trust was justified, an appeal would have been successful and allowed him to regain adminship honestly, rather than purposefully assisting a friend in regaining adminship with an alternate account.

+

It also looked, to outsiders and ordinary editors, as a sign that Wikipedia had abandoned the idea of enforcing its ban policy, at least for insiders and their friends, and that this was an open secret among a significant number of Wikipedia administrators and well-connected editors, even to the point that they are surprised and offended that the right of administrators to protect their friends who are editing as ban-evading socks should even be challenged.

+

Those who weren't in on the secret, and who thought the ban policy meant something, felt betrayed. There seemed to have been dozens of these, given Law's admission that he had told "half the project". They felf that there should not be a climate that condones and enables such open deception in violation of policy, undermining the trust of the community. It was even more worrying that this seemed to have been accepted by the Committee itself - deception was being condoned by members of ArbCom and therefore there was no part of the governance structure of Wikipedia that ordinary editors could consider trustworthy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=317659517&oldid=317658141].

==Links==

Ockham

3,209

edits