Talk:Sysop vigilantiism: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
(comment re: sysop vigilantiism by Ray Saintonge on vile maililng list) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Isn't this a typo and should be [[Sysop vigilantism]]. For all I care this stuff should all be collated to [[AWR]] --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 13:18, 28 Feb 2004 (EET) | Isn't this a typo and should be [[Sysop vigilantism]]. For all I care this stuff should all be collated to [[AWR]] --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 13:18, 28 Feb 2004 (EET) | ||
:Nope, there are definitely two syllables there, as it means vigilante-ism. At least it is always pronounced with two syllables. | |||
:It can't be one of your [[AWR]] unless you think the [[Wikipedia]] [[GodKing]] makes such rants, and is also a [[142.X.X.X]]. Which is not out of the question. But he invented the word, not us, and he said it happened, not us. | |||
----------- | |||
"When we have the situation that some individual is suspected of being | |||
the reincarnation of a banned user, many, including some sysops start by | |||
acting on their suspicions rather than seeking out hard evidence. There | |||
is rarely a need for hasty action when the suspect is confining his | |||
activities to a handful of articles; there will always be time to fix | |||
this when the issue is clarified. | |||
... incessant gnattering about whether someone's edits resemble those of a banned user serves no useful purpose.... | |||
There is a serious need for some people to start understanding what | |||
standards of proof are all about." - [[Ray Saintonge]][http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-June/013498.html] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:12, 26 June 2004
Isn't this a typo and should be Sysop vigilantism. For all I care this stuff should all be collated to AWR --Juxo 13:18, 28 Feb 2004 (EET)
- Nope, there are definitely two syllables there, as it means vigilante-ism. At least it is always pronounced with two syllables.
- It can't be one of your AWR unless you think the Wikipedia GodKing makes such rants, and is also a 142.X.X.X. Which is not out of the question. But he invented the word, not us, and he said it happened, not us.
"When we have the situation that some individual is suspected of being the reincarnation of a banned user, many, including some sysops start by acting on their suspicions rather than seeking out hard evidence. There is rarely a need for hasty action when the suspect is confining his activities to a handful of articles; there will always be time to fix this when the issue is clarified.
... incessant gnattering about whether someone's edits resemble those of a banned user serves no useful purpose....
There is a serious need for some people to start understanding what standards of proof are all about." - Ray Saintonge[1]