In my previous logs, I have discussed topics such as:

The debate about detail levels in editor logs continues among the admins (and shows no sign of concluding in the near future). As per my personal style, I will continue to offer a fairly high level of detail. I do this for a number of reasons:

  • Accountability - I sign all my nukes and /msg all users whose WUs I edit. I may miss some, or forget to sign them (largely through failure to check the correct box), however, but they will be listed here.
  • Didactic reasons - One way to learn is to watch other people's mistakes. It may not be the best way, but it helps more than it hurts - unlike the best way (learning from your own mistakes), which hurts a lot.
  • Editorial style - Personally, I like to keep a fairly open record of what I do.
  • For future reference - I like to know which users I have had, (ahem), "dealings" with.
  • Behind the scenes - In my opinion, a lot of users who aren't of admin level derive considerable enjoyment from getting a glimpse of the activities of an editor. I will not deny them this vicarious pleasure.

I am currently considering adding a new listing - of writeups which have been the subject of a warning issued to the user (because they're too short, too uninformative, unintegrated, rude, etc.). This would fall under the "for future reference" reason, mentioned above. Periodically, I'd go back over old warnings, and check up on them. If they still failed to meet the standards set, they'd be nuked.

I'll be happy to hear from anyone who has an opinion on this matter.

Nose to the grindstone: