On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59:
>
> doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list
>>
>
> Then it would have been useful if you had refrained from issuing a motion
> of order against a simple, incidental 7-words mention, making this
> (otherwise quiet) thread into a television legal drama with the continuous
> scenes of "objection!" and the judge telling the court to ignore the
> rampant attorney's harangue.
>
>

I'm not sure I entirely understand your point here, Nemo, but nonetheless
since it seems to be the opinion of several people in this thread that I
was personally responsible for this whole mess, I'll simplly suggest that
people read the actual case[1] where the Arbitration Committee upheld not
one but two *community* restrictions on the user in question, and took
steps to ensure that the community's decision was enforced.

Of course, if the Arbitration Committee had overturned the community
restrictions, then it would be pilloried for blatantly ignoring a decision
that the community had every right to make without Arbcom's involvement.

So meanwhile, I look at my watchlist and note that about 15% of the edits
on it were made by bots - and as far as I can see, none of them are
problematic.  Some of the bots on English Wikipedia have been editing
longer than I have, and more are created all the time.  There are a lot of
really excellent bots around, and a lot of bots that might cause problems
are weeded out or improved when they get to the Bot Approvals Group.  Bots
aren't the problem.

Risker


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Final_decision
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to