Wikimedia Stewards, Blogging about Jimbo and other stewards Options

[thekohser]

...especially as one editor failed to vote.

Does "QuiteUnusual" have a real name, Mike? (I mean, other than "Neil", of course.) I try not to vote for people who are playing their roles from behind pseudonymous shields.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Wed 6th April 2011, 12:02pm

[Gruntled]

I try not to vote for people who are playing their roles from behind pseudonymous shields.

Well, obviously if he'd used some silly pseudonym like Wikipedia Review, or some of the other names used by that character (including an admin account on WP) he'd be open to criticism.

[thekohser]

I try not to vote for people who are playing their roles from behind pseudonymous shields.

Well, obviously if he'd used some silly pseudonym like Wikipedia Review, or some of the other names used by that character (including an admin account on WP) he'd be open to criticism.

I don't even understand how that's a retort, but I'll just say that the silly pseudonym Wikipedia Review does repeatedly point across the Internet to a known individual who is fairly open about his real name, home address, employer, church, and even cell phone number.

Who are you, Mike? Who is Neil?

You see, attaching identity to opinions lends all sorts of credibility. You lack credibility. That seems to be fine by you. It's fine by me, too, up until that point where you start poking real people and their reputations. What you do is, in a word, cowardly.

[Gruntled]

Who are you, Mike? Who is Neil?

You see, attaching identity to opinions lends all sorts of credibility. You lack credibility. That seems to be fine by you. It's fine by me, too, up until that point where you start poking real people and their reputations. What you do is, in a word, cowardly.

Ah, the old "let's attack the person rather than consider what the person says" reply. Yes, I'll agree that anything said by say Cool3, someone completely anonymous while he said it, should be disregarded.

Of course all admin actions by anonymous people like QuiteUnusual are wrong, and you will express your revulsion at his unblocks on WB and press on WB for them to be reversed. Won't you?

How about this - list in this thread every name you are currently using on the Internet, and if you are using them on any WMF site then state clearly on their userpage that they are you, promise to do that for all your future names, and I'll agree that you are not being hypocritical and that your opinions carry greater weight than those of mine, Somey's, HK's, Gomi's and all the other anonymous people here.

Obviously you must agree that it is cowardly for anyone to edit WMF sites while hiding behind unacknowledged pseudonyms.

This post has been edited by Gruntled: Thu 7th April 2011, 10:33am

[thekohser]

Mike, I knew you wouldn't have the mental capacity to listen.

As I said, my feathers get ruffled when you and others use anonymity as a shield to attack other people who use real names. If you want to be anonymous while you mop the floor and whistle a happy tune, that doesn't really bother me at all.

The rest of this WR community will carry on ignoring your petty squabbling and stabbing, and I shall join them. Keep it up enough and hopefully this account of yours will be shown the door, and you can pick up with one of your other accounts here.

[JWSchmidt]

use anonymity as a shield to attack other people who use real names. If you want to be anonymous while you mop the floor and whistle a happy tune, that doesn't really bother me at all.

I've never understood "the wikipedia review". Why do some participants here have a link to their Wikipedia user page while others do not?

-John Schmidt

[Gruntled]

[Funny tirade].

Firstly, if, as you believe, you know my real name, in what way am I anonymous? Secondly, why do you assume that everyone you don't like - Lilburne, Beloved Fox, RMHED, powercorrupts, Zoloft., etc - is the same person? (Oh, I can answer that - you picked that habit up from being a WP checkuser.) Thirdly, why is it OK for you to have anonymous accounts on WP but not for others to? Fourthly, I wasn't clear if you are saying that it's OK for admins on WP to be anonymous while they mop the floor and whistle a happy tune. Daniel Brandt may disagree.

Fifthly, let's get this absolutely clear. Is it the case that if a person - especially an admin - you deem anonymous goes out on a limb to help you, then the correct response is to spit in their face solely because they are anonymous?

[thekohser]

[Sputtering rebuttal that lacked any basis in logic.]

[Logical counter-argument that would make sense to most normal human beings, but not cross-dressing statisticians in the London area.]

[JWSchmidt]

[Logical counter-argument]

I never understood why Adambro removed content from this page and called it vandalism.

-John Schmidt

[Gruntled]

[Totally off-beam, childish ad hominem attack.]

So, proof that thekohser regards everyone he doesn't like as the same person. He really is an ideal admin for Wikipedia, a site he so enjoys editing anonymously while despising others who also dare to edit anonymously.

Also, proof that he concedes the argument. I rest my case.

[SB_Johnny]

[Logical counter-argument]

I never understood why Adambro removed content from this page and called it vandalism.

-John Schmidt

Did you consider maybe asking poetlister?

I know what was deleted and why, and it's frankly none of your business.

[JWSchmidt]

it's frankly none of your business.

What I expect to hear from a sysop who calls good faith edits "vandalism".

Jimbo dun learned these boys good how to falsify log entries.

-John Schmidt

[SB_Johnny]

it's frankly none of your business.

What I expect to hear from a sysop who calls good faith edits "vandalism".

Oh, fine then. It was all about you, like everything else.

[Abd]

[Logical counter-argument]

I never understood why Adambro removed content from this page and called it vandalism.

-John Schmidt

Lots of things you will never understand, JWS. Must be some thing BAD.

To be sure, there has been excessive use of revision deletion, but it's impossible for ordinary mortals to tell, because we can't read what was removed. And this utterly minor, silly edit is important for us to look at, why? It's Poetister's user page, and if Poetlister isn't offended, why should we be concerned? For all I know, Poetlister asked for the removal and revision deletion, and that would be proper, almost no matter what.

In hiding revisions, sysops often go too far. Normally, as I recall, one could show the user ID of the editor and only hide problem content, and the edit summary is also an option.

I have no clue who made the "vandalism" edits. It's possible that Adambro's action was entirely justified. But his tracks are covered, unless some custodian unhides the revisions, or what part of them is objectionable.

I've been called all kinds of names, including "Muslim scum," on Wikipedia, and nobody ever seemed to think that revision deletion was necessary, including me. But if there was outing involved.... or if Poetlister complained .... sure.

Wikibooks is a great example, JWS, of how to address true administrative abuse. Hint: spending years generating walls of text about "abuse" and "banhammers" and censorship, etc., isn't a significant part of the process, and it can actually impede progress, driving people away.

If that's what you want, to drive people away, carry on. It works. If you are permitted to continue. You won't be, Wikiversity isn't yet that dead.

[Abd]

it's frankly none of your business.

What I expect to hear from a sysop who calls good faith edits "vandalism".

Jimbo dun learned these boys good how to falsify log entries.

This can, and will, go on forever. Jimbo is almost totally irrelevant now, as to Wikiversity (and all this is about Wikiversity, really).

"Falsification of log entries" is JWS-speak for a log entry or edit summary that JWS thinks is wrong. Adambro, in another place, used rollback to remove a JWS edit from the top of a Wikiversity policy page, which was, indeed, vandalism. That is, an edit which defaces the page, subverting it from its purpose, to make a political point. JWS made a huge stink about "rollback is only for vandalism," which counts as a peak example of pure wikilawyering, since the exact tool used to revert an edit is about as significant as bird poop.

Rollback is discouraged from use for non-vandalism because it leaves behind a single, non-explanatory edit summary, and rollback guidelines deprecate this. But when the reason for the reversion is patently clear, there is no need for a detailed edit summary. The substance of the policy is satisfied, if not the letter. Yet JWS has repeated this argument, and has given the example, God knows how many times.

It's all about him, I agree with SBJ.

It is possible for there to be "good faith vandalism." That's the missing element in JWS' logic.

I wish the extent of administrative abuse were making incorrect edit summaries! But sometimes these summaries that JWS complains about aren't clearly incorrect, and the making of "correct edit summaries" isn't the goal of editorial work, it's merely a support for part of it. It is difficult or cumbersome to correct edit summaries, and if they were that important, that would be fixed.

And if an edit is made in a place where it is obviously inappropriate, where it will definitely be reverted, and the editor knows this and has no overriding policy reason to make the edit, that's a form of vandalism

This post has been edited by Abd: Sat 16th April 2011, 11:00pm

[EricBarbour]

This thread is sooooo exciting........my nipples are gettin' hard just thinking about it. (not)