On 4 February 2014 16:45, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 February 2014 16:42, Harold Hidalgo <hah...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand how bad ArbCom managed the >> ... case by putting him against a slow death that would >> ultimately end in a year-long ban handled by a single administrator. > > > Risker has not noted her personal involvement in such. She's not > defending the treatment of ... as any sort of uninvolved > commentator.
Equally odd is deciding spontaneously to opine on the topic of using bots, with a track record of being a Wikimedia expert and authority in the case mentioned, while also being someone who would rather "defer to the opinion of the Bot Approval Group" when asked directly for opinions on whether myself as a highly active and successful Commons bot writer is a menace to Wikimedia - but as someone who also been subject to years of depressing ridicule, after being subject to the devastating effect of Risker's personal intervention. It would be great if the English Wikipedia were becoming a more open and welcoming environment, including positive encouragement for bot writers. I just don't see it being led in that direction, instead over the last few years I see it being looked at by other Wikimedia projects as a lesson in how to avoid pointless bureaucracy and hostility to new users or those with minority viewpoints. Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>