Got one good new oppose today :): A cursory overview of this topic shows that the proposal to limit the users privileges is unfounded. The supporting reasons are full of assumptions of bad faith and speculation about the users intentions. The Assume Good Faith policy requires treating these issues as situation where someone can learn to collaborate better and where you must assume they are trying to work for the good of Wikipedia and follow Wikipedia policies. It has not been shown that the user in question is acting in bad faith. Rather, the user appears to have been excessively verbose but is learning and making good-faith effort to improve and to focus on specific Wikipedia policies. It is absolutely unacceptable to reduce editors privileges without a very high burden of evidence that they cannot and will not learn to improve or that they are truly acting in bad faith. This burden has not been met. It seems that he may have legitimate concerns about the articles, and it is not in Wikipedias interests to discourage his participation. It is only in Wikipedias interests to help him follow best-practices in manner of discourse, and he appears willing and interested in learning to improve in that regard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Extensive_edit-warring.2C_severe_COI-violations_and_refusal_to_hear
Posted on: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:32:38 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015