| |
|
  |
Where is the best place on the Wikipedia to raise ethical issues or admin abuse? |
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
Sun 7th December 2008, 3:15am
|

Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
     
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267

|
One question please, - where is the best place on the Wikipedia to raise ethical issues about an admin's background and behavior or admin abuse?
Its interesting. I have been probing this one a little bit. It strikes me that far worse that being an absolute POV loon gaming the wiki, a trivia buff filling it with crufts, or even a puppeteer of 10,000 disguises ... attempting to seriously question, or demonstrate systemic failures within the Wikipedia, or the background, behavior and actions of the chosen few, is dealt with far more quickly and severely. Especially if it is stating the evident and obvious! Please excuse me if I am new to all this discussion, state the obvious or this has already been covered. It seems to be that there is no specific page to address admin or bureaucrat abuse. Where is the best page to place a critique so that it is seen my the most and most influential individuals? Interestingly, I have discovered that placing well presented pieces on the Jimbo Wales talk page will not only lead to them being deleted ... but even erased from its history as if it was never made. Excuse my naivety, but it is also obvious that little cliques of admins are looking after each other even though their actions are plainly contrary to the most basic editorial policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cedric |
Sun 7th December 2008, 7:12am
|

General Gato
     
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined: Sun 11th Mar 2007, 5:58pm
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116
WP user page -
talk
check -
contribs

|
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sat 6th December 2008, 9:15pm)  Where is the best page to place a critique so that it is seen my the most and most influential individuals?
Interestingly, I have discovered that placing well presented pieces on the Jimbo Wales talk page will not only lead to them being deleted ... but even erased from its history as if it was never made.
Excuse my naivety, but it is also obvious that little cliques of admins are looking after each other even though their actions are plainly contrary to the most basic editorial policies.
Once upon a time, I was invited to give comment on Jimbo's talk page, an invitation which I declined because by that time I finally realized the futility thereof. Instead, I promptly buggered off Wikipedia, which, for me at least, was the only mentally healthy response left. Welcome, Cock-up-over-conspiracy, to Wikipedia Review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Eppur si muove |
Sun 7th December 2008, 12:57pm
|
Senior Member
   
Group: Contributors
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri 28th Nov 2008, 10:50pm
Member No.: 9,171

|
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sun 7th December 2008, 3:15am)  One question please, - where is the best place on the Wikipedia to raise ethical issues about an admin's background and behavior or admin abuse?
Its interesting. I have been probing this one a little bit. It strikes me that far worse that being an absolute POV loon gaming the wiki, a trivia buff filling it with crufts, or even a puppeteer of 10,000 disguises ... attempting to seriously question, or demonstrate systemic failures within the Wikipedia, or the background, behavior and actions of the chosen few, is dealt with far more quickly and severely. Especially if it is stating the evident and obvious! Please excuse me if I am new to all this discussion, state the obvious or this has already been covered. It seems to be that there is no specific page to address admin or bureaucrat abuse. Where is the best page to place a critique so that it is seen my the most and most influential individuals? Interestingly, I have discovered that placing well presented pieces on the Jimbo Wales talk page will not only lead to them being deleted ... but even erased from its history as if it was never made. Excuse my naivety, but it is also obvious that little cliques of admins are looking after each other even though their actions are plainly contrary to the most basic editorial policies. Please tell me that this isn't about Gwen Gale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| quanta |
Thu 2nd April 2009, 6:39am
|
New Member

Group: Contributors
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri 27th Mar 2009, 12:21pm
Member No.: 10,988

|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 8th December 2008, 8:27am)  Don't forget to send your evidence to Cade Metz at the Register..... It depends if your a admin or a offical then your point will be heard otherwise just keep silent
|
|
|
|
|
|
| quanta |
Thu 2nd April 2009, 7:31am
|
New Member

Group: Contributors
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri 27th Mar 2009, 12:21pm
Member No.: 10,988

|
QUOTE(Son of a Yeti @ Thu 2nd April 2009, 12:02pm)  QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 6th December 2008, 8:19pm)  QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Sat 6th December 2008, 9:15pm)  where is the best place on the Wikipedia to raise ethical issues about an admin's background and behavior or admin abuse? Probably here on Wikipedia Review. Attempting to raise such issues on Wikipedia proper is likely to get you banned in short order. I second this. Actually I wanted to give the same reply when I saw the thread title. Nowadays it's dangerous even to comment on AN/I if you are a mere mortal. You will get blocked just for reporting This post has been edited by quanta: Thu 2nd April 2009, 7:32am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |