| Revision as of 23:40, 2 October 2009 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →Low key: request for the user to answer questions← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:00, 3 October 2009 edit undoJayron32 (talk | contribs)105,509 edits reply to Jehochman, after lots of soul searching.Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :I've participated in lots of RfAs and very rarely have I seen candidates asked if they have histories with other accounts on Misplaced Pages. So it seems strange set up a system where we encourage editors to start over with new identities, don't expect editors to be forthright about their histories, and then point the finger at those who don't disclose "what they know". I'm not even sure it's a good idea to try to prevent editors from getting fresh starts. Why not just focus on rooting out collusion, corruption, and damage to the encyclopedia? I don't see any from the present circumstances, except for all the drahmaz instigated by those looking to settle scores. If there's a policy discussion to be had it should be separate from the present controversy. I am a strong supporter of greater leniency and giving editors a chance to clear their records so there wouldn't be a need for deception or the creating of new identities. ] (]) 20:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | :I've participated in lots of RfAs and very rarely have I seen candidates asked if they have histories with other accounts on Misplaced Pages. So it seems strange set up a system where we encourage editors to start over with new identities, don't expect editors to be forthright about their histories, and then point the finger at those who don't disclose "what they know". I'm not even sure it's a good idea to try to prevent editors from getting fresh starts. Why not just focus on rooting out collusion, corruption, and damage to the encyclopedia? I don't see any from the present circumstances, except for all the drahmaz instigated by those looking to settle scores. If there's a policy discussion to be had it should be separate from the present controversy. I am a strong supporter of greater leniency and giving editors a chance to clear their records so there wouldn't be a need for deception or the creating of new identities. ] (]) 20:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Are you an alternative account of Jayron32? If not, please let him answer the questions himself. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | ::Are you an alternative account of Jayron32? If not, please let him answer the questions himself. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::As I stated, I am neither embarassed nor ashamed of what I did. I do see the consequences of what has happened ''now''. Had I had the forsight to see the problems this has caused, I probably would not have voted in Law's RFA at all. I did what I did at the time in good faith. I thought at the time (and still do today) that Law/Undertow is a good editor and good admin. I think what has happened to him is a symptom of ''systemic'' shortcomings, not individual ones. The big problem is that Adminship, contrary to what everyone says, is a BIG DEAL. This is because it is so hard to become an admin. If adminship were easier to get, and easier to take away, like being a rollbacker, then it would not be valued so much, and people would not go through deception to get it. Have you ever heard of anyone going through such lengths to become a rollbacker? No, because if they are good editors, they can get it. If they misuse it, it gets taken away. That's it. If adminship were similar, we would not have these problems. With this current controversy, I fear there will be too much of a push to make adminship EVEN harder to get, which will only lead to even more people using deception to get it. That which is hard to get is valuable, and that which is valuable is worth cheating to get. That is the most disheartening thing about this whole mess, is that it feeds people's desires to turn adminship into even MORE of a reward by making it EVEN MORE difficult to get. ] is long gone, and it is quickly taking ] with it. --]''''']''''' 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:00, 3 October 2009
| This is Jayron32's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 Archives |
|
/Archive for Sept-Dec 2006 |
Low key
Thank you for owning up to your actions. Do you now recognize the problem you participated in? Will you be wiser in the future and avoid helping friends (or others) to violate policy? Jehochman 10:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've participated in lots of RfAs and very rarely have I seen candidates asked if they have histories with other accounts on Misplaced Pages. So it seems strange set up a system where we encourage editors to start over with new identities, don't expect editors to be forthright about their histories, and then point the finger at those who don't disclose "what they know". I'm not even sure it's a good idea to try to prevent editors from getting fresh starts. Why not just focus on rooting out collusion, corruption, and damage to the encyclopedia? I don't see any from the present circumstances, except for all the drahmaz instigated by those looking to settle scores. If there's a policy discussion to be had it should be separate from the present controversy. I am a strong supporter of greater leniency and giving editors a chance to clear their records so there wouldn't be a need for deception or the creating of new identities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are you an alternative account of Jayron32? If not, please let him answer the questions himself. Jehochman 23:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I stated, I am neither embarassed nor ashamed of what I did. I do see the consequences of what has happened now. Had I had the forsight to see the problems this has caused, I probably would not have voted in Law's RFA at all. I did what I did at the time in good faith. I thought at the time (and still do today) that Law/Undertow is a good editor and good admin. I think what has happened to him is a symptom of systemic shortcomings, not individual ones. The big problem is that Adminship, contrary to what everyone says, is a BIG DEAL. This is because it is so hard to become an admin. If adminship were easier to get, and easier to take away, like being a rollbacker, then it would not be valued so much, and people would not go through deception to get it. Have you ever heard of anyone going through such lengths to become a rollbacker? No, because if they are good editors, they can get it. If they misuse it, it gets taken away. That's it. If adminship were similar, we would not have these problems. With this current controversy, I fear there will be too much of a push to make adminship EVEN harder to get, which will only lead to even more people using deception to get it. That which is hard to get is valuable, and that which is valuable is worth cheating to get. That is the most disheartening thing about this whole mess, is that it feeds people's desires to turn adminship into even MORE of a reward by making it EVEN MORE difficult to get. WP:NOBIGDEAL is long gone, and it is quickly taking WP:BURO with it. --Jayron32 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are you an alternative account of Jayron32? If not, please let him answer the questions himself. Jehochman 23:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)