The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Just what is Meta for, anyways?
Manning Bartlett
post Fri 10th February 2012, 6:02am
Post #21


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat 9th Jul 2011, 2:10pm
Member No.: 59,115

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



To answer the actual thread question, Meta was created to play the role currently filled by the Wikipedia namespace. We decided to create it around November of 2001.

The idea (at the time) was that Wikipedia was to be exclusively for articles, article discussions and user pages.

All policy, project discussions, disputes, notifications, etc, etc were to be contained on meta.

When the idea of namespaces was born, it was decided that the Wikipedia namespace would be used for "help" type pages only. Meta was still to remain the place for policy/project discussions.

Somewhere around mid 2002 the drift back to doing everything on WP began. This chiefly happened because the drama queens were annoyed that all of their "VITAL" input was not appearing on the WP recent changes page (which was the single most followed page at the time, because it was small enough to be usable.

I sometimes daydream about how much drama would have been avoided if the original goal of Meta has been preserved.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Fri 10th February 2012, 6:16am
Post #22


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Manning Bartlett @ Fri 10th February 2012, 6:02am) *

To answer the actual thread question, Meta was created to play the role currently filled by the Wikipedia namespace. We decided to create it around November of 2001.

The idea (at the time) was that Wikipedia was to be exclusively for articles, article discussions and user pages.

All policy, project discussions, disputes, notifications, etc, etc were to be contained on meta.

When the idea of namespaces was born, it was decided that the Wikipedia namespace would be used for "help" type pages only. Meta was still to remain the place for policy/project discussions.

Somewhere around mid 2002 the drift back to doing everything on WP began. This chiefly happened because the drama queens were annoyed that all of their "VITAL" input was not appearing on the WP recent changes page (which was the single most followed page at the time, because it was small enough to be usable.

I sometimes daydream about how much drama would have been avoided if the original goal of Meta has been preserved.


It would have been great, if meta were like that!

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 10th February 2012, 5:05am) *

Also I'd like to ask everybody to tell me what is the difference between Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ and RFC for Gwen Gale or rather what is the difference between the stories of an admin Fæ and an admin gwen gale.

*They both had prior accounts.
*They both went for a clean start after they have problems.
*They both were eventually identified as having prior accounts.
*Fæ wrote some articles that were BLP violations. Gwen Gale wrote two articles about not-notable herself, and added numerous links to her own bio written by her at the feminist.net to a few Wikipedia articles.
*They both were not exactly honest in their RfAs, except Gwen Gale made a few openly false or half-true statements during her RfA, while Fæ simply failed to disclose his prior accounts.
*Maybe I am mistaking, but I believe Fæ is not an abusive as admin at English wiki, Gwen Gale is.

I am simply trying to understand how somebody who read this section http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_fo...s_when_involved could claim that Gwen Gale is an average admin. She's probably not the worst one, but I am sure, she is well below average .

Please forget that this RFC was submitted by me. Let's assume it was submitted by a different person. Let's assume it was submitted on English wiki. Just tell me please, where I got it wrong, except submitting it on meta. I will really appreciate your comments. Thanks.


I'd like to clarify that the above request is a good faith request. I am willing to admit I got something wrong, and remove it from RFC, if somebody versus attacking me will discuss the content, providing some rational for his/her opinion.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 10th February 2012, 3:00pm
Post #23


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 10th February 2012, 1:16am) *
QUOTE(Manning Bartlett @ Fri 10th February 2012, 6:02am) *
I sometimes daydream about how much drama would have been avoided if the original goal of Meta has been preserved.
It would have been great, if meta were like that!
Meta remained relatively functional, most of the time, but was quite naturally dominated by Wikipedians. If you didn't criticize Wikipedians on meta, you were pretty free. I'll agree that criticism of Wikipedia users should stay off of meta, except as specifically relates to global locks, and that would not be criticism of WP users, per se, but of the actions of global accounts. The idea of meta bans is quite new, the result of continued slide down a slippery slope, that began with Thekohser and Moulton, and continued with Poetlister. You can see, on the Poetlister global ban discussion, some old-timers who were opposed, and others who supported, and the ones who supported were, to some degree, the ones who have generally attempted to make the whole WMF wiki family toe the Wikipedia line. That's a generalization, but I saw the familiar names.
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 10th February 2012, 5:05am) *
Also I'd like to ask everybody to tell me what is the difference between Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ and RFC for Gwen GalePlease forget that this RFC was submitted by me. Let's assume it was submitted by a different person. Let's assume it was submitted on English wiki. Just tell me please, where I got it wrong, except submitting it on meta. I will really appreciate your comments. Thanks.
Okay, there are really two issues here. First of all, that it was submitted by you is *irrelevant.* It was improper if submitted, where submitted, by *anyone*. Ottava submitted an RfC on meta about SB_Johnny's Wikiversity behavior. Absolutely out of place. Ottava, though, has had some claque that has protected him to some degree, or he'd have been blocked for that RfC.
QUOTE
I'd like to clarify that the above request is a good faith request. I am willing to admit I got something wrong, and remove it from RFC, if somebody versus attacking me will discuss the content, providing some rational for his/her opinion.
Bottom line, wrong venue, and wrong web site to discuss the behavior of an admin on Wikipedia. I *reported* on admin response on Wikipedia, on Wikiversity, and that survived challenge. They griped about it on Wikipedia, which, of course, was improper! I carefully avoided actual criticism, simply reporting the events with diffs. However, in some cases some obvious criticism could be inferred. Tough. The page was a study of self-reverted edits by a blocked or banned editor, and not just my edits, others have used self-reversion as a way to *cooperate* with a ban while still *proposing* helpful edits. Self-reversion confronts the cabals by pulling the legitimate-argument rug out from under the "range block 'em, a ban is a ban is a ban" mentality. I'd say the sequence was valuable as a demonstration, but I did not personally continue it, I simply have more important fish to fry. Others could. In any case, it was demonstrably useful, and if any damage was caused, it was the kind of damage that is routinely caused by overenthusiastic block and ban enforcement, it wasn't necessary.

Within the WMF family, there is only one legitimate place to make allegations of administrative abuse, and that is on Wikipedia. Otherwise, that's what Wikipedia Review is for, and there are other places as well where you could compile evidence (WR isn't good for that, but, for example, you could, unless you get yourself blocked there too, move your evidence to netknowledge.org, once upon a time. Seems that is down. SBJ, what's happened to netknowledge.org? Wikipedia Review.com also can host wikitext. With any site, you'll need to avoid annoying the site managers, eh? Encyc?

You could also start your own damn wiki. Wikia? Maybe, you might run into WMF flak there. Your own domain? Lots of options.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Fri 10th February 2012, 3:41pm
Post #24


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 10th February 2012, 12:05am) *

Also I'd like to ask everybody to tell me what is the difference between Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ and RFC for Gwen Gale or rather what is the difference between the stories of an admin Fæ and an admin gwen gale.

*They both had prior accounts.
*They both went for a clean start after they have problems.


I'd say the difference can be seen in a comparison of the nomination statements;

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale (T-H-L-K-D)
QUOTE
Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) - Gwen Gale has been editing Wikipedia under her current user name for over a year, during which time she has made over 13,000 edits. She made a further 13,000 edits under her previous account User:Wyss. She is an excellent article writer, developing articles on a range of subjects, some up to Good Article level. She is experienced at XfD and guideline discussions, and has taken part in vandal fighting. Gwen Gale is an experienced and knowledgable user who can be trusted with the tools, in whatever area she decides to use them. Epbr123 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwen Gale 2 (T-H-L-K-D)
QUOTE
Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) - Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer you Gwen Gale, my next candidate for adminship.

Gwen Gale joined Wikipedia in early 2004 under the account Wyss, which she amassed over 13,000 edits under, and used up until late 2006. With Gwen Gale, she has over 17,000 edits, totaling over 30,000 under both. To move away from edit counts, Gwen’s article writing is impressive: she has significantly edited and improved articles ranging from topics such as Amelia Earhart and Apollo 1 to Lesbian and Shamrock Hotel. In addition to her great article-writing skills, Gwen is also at good vandal-fighting, knowing when to use and when not to use the rollback feature, which I granted to her. She is also very active on WP:ANI, giving regular input to issues raised there.

[...]

Acalamari 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fae (T-H-L-K-D)
QUOTE
Fæ (talk · contribs) – Fæ is a highly active and experienced contributor (for those who like stats: 50,000 edits over 12 months) in a variety of areas in which having the tools would benefit the project. I highlight the following reasons why Fæ should be given the tools:

Fæ is an OTRS volunteer and has been since August 2010. The fact of being an OTRS volunteer already demonstrates a high degree of trustworthiness. But also, having the administrative tools will help Fæ to carry out important OTRS-related functions, like dealing with copyright and BLP violations that get reported via email.
Fæ has a demonstrated commitment to, and proficiency in, content work, with three good articles and one featured article.
Fæ's one featured article, Hoxne Hoard, demonstrates exactly the qualities the project needs in an administrator. The article passed FA as the result of an organised collaboration between multiple editors on- and off-wiki. It's one thing to write an FA yourself; it's another thing entirely to demonstrate the people skills, teamwork and leadership needed to get a large collaboration across the line. I'd also suggest having a look at WP:GLAM/BM and WP:GLAM/BL for Fæ's ongoing collaborative work in GLAM projects.
Fæ is very competent in deletion policy and practice. Fæ makes well-reasoned nominations (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Francis Xavier Montmorency and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irena Lipienė) and arguments.
Fæ is a proficient vandal fighter.
Fæ deals with complaints well - one of the most important parts of being an admin. A review of Fæ's talk page articles reveals that editors do disagree with Fæ from time to time: but the disagreements and complaints are dealt with courteously and constructively. Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)



What's different?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Fri 10th February 2012, 4:16pm
Post #25


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



..

This post has been edited by mbz1: Sat 11th February 2012, 3:27pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 10th February 2012, 6:35pm
Post #26


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 10th February 2012, 11:16am) *
And now, I'd still would like to ask everybody to look at this section
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_fo...s_when_involved
and tell, what from the documented cases I got wrong. If I am proven wrong on some of them, I will fix them, and/or remove these.
I'd also like to ask you to look http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...1#Zhand38_on_en here, and honestly tell me, what admin who did something like this during RFC about her misusing the tools will be allowed to keep the tools? There is much more to this story, but I will not post it here. I am posting this link only because it is on Commons anyway, and Gwen posted it there herself. Thanks.
Do you realize that "asking everybody" to look at something is often seen as abusive? That's a fact, I'm not justifying it or claiming it's right. In any case, I'll look.

The first link is a link to the RfC on meta. The basic thing you got wrong, Mila, is that you filed this on meta. That's the first thing that occurs, and it will then affect how I and others read what you've written. Basically, it's all moot process, and we don't want to waste time reading evidence filed in moot process.

The second thing is a non-neutral presentation of evidence, that is woven through the RfC, instead of making an evidence section that is rigorously neutral, and a claims section that makes claims about the significance of the evidence. You incorporate in your arguments your own assumptions, such as "Using tools when involved is unethical, and it is a violation of the policy that clearly states: In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved.....

Using tools while involved is not necessarily unethical. It might be and it might not be. Further, your quotation of policy includes a caveat: "In general...." I.e, there are exceptions. By tossing in the "unethical" right at the beginning, you telegraph your conclusions and position. Absent clear standards of ethics, and I don't think they exist on Wikipedia, you are merely making a personal attack. That doesn't mean that she didn't do unethical things, but you aren't showing up with clean hands. On Wikipedia, when you file an RfC, you must show several things, and among them is certification by another editor who, with you, affirms that efforts have been made to resolve the dispute and failed. You are, yourself, involved, Mila, and your RfC will be seen in that light. I filed an RfC on JzG, over a dispute that had developed (This was RfC/JzG 3.) This was certified by Durova, and I'd never have filed it if I hadn't been assured of this. I was warned that I'd get banned anyway, and I took the risk.

On Wikipedia, your RfC, unless you found co-certification, would be promptly deleted. Meta doesn't have that rule, but the same principles will apply. You will be seen as pursuing a vendetta, whether you are or are not.

Before you have presented any evidence, you ask, "So why Gwen Gale has been allowed to misuse the tools over, and over and over again?" You are assuming the conclusion you have made before you have established it, and using it in a loaded question. It's polemic, it's not sober presentation of evidence, it's an attack.

Even if the user has done lots of Bad Stuff.

When you get down to presenting evidence, you include lots of stuff where the administrator's action was ultimately correct, but the administrator should have recused as involved. "Should have" is your position, this has never become clear on Wikipedia, and making it clear has been resisted. I'd agree that recusal would be better, but it's also considered efficient for a somewhat-involved admin to simply act without raising a big ruckus. Rules for this have never been developed, but you are expecting the admin to follow your concepts of ethics. You are making it personal, when, in fact, the behavior you are describing is quite common. So administrators aren't going to support your position because it is not being proposed as a general problem with policy -- there is a general problem -- it is being proposed as a reason why the particular administrator should be reprimanded, or, what do you want? Desysop? Not going to happen, not from these kinds of things, unless and until recusal requirements are clear policy and they are *then* violated.

As to your second question, I looked at the diff you gave in your comment on Commons. I see no impropriety there. The IP was blocked by Courcelles, an admin, and then by JamesBWatson. Now, perhaps Gwen Gale previously blocked this user. If so, you didn't show that, it would be an essential element to even begin to establish recusal failure. However, again, in this case what Gwen Gale actually wrote is what about any administrator would write. Yes, it would be better to allow an independent unblock (assuming Gwen Gale was involved before), but that something else is better doesn't establish that an action is abusive. Bottom line, no admin, under the conditions existing there, would respond to that unblock request with an unblock.

If you want to criticize Wikipedia, you are first going to need to understand how it works, basically, what's right about it. There is lots that is wrong, abusive even, but you won't be able to tell the difference.

Does that answer your questions?

(Now, I notice that there are revision deletions on the IP talk page. The log for these has been suppressed. Many Wikipedians feared, when RevDel became available to ordinary administrators, that it would be abused. Certainly it reduces transparency. I helped to develop RevDel standards, by presenting certain administrators -- self-selected -- with the opportunity to use RevDel outside of its intended use. When they did, it then became a matter for discussion, and the outcome was an improvement. However, there is no easy way to know if RevDel is being abused, it can only be reviewed by administrators. What I'd set up was a situation where I was making sure that the edit contents were published (elsewhere), so it could be seen that RevDel was being used outside of intent, as a kind of punishment, and certainly without necessity. That's rare, that an IP sock will both self-identify, and document what resulted. Socks mostly try to escape detection, and it's assumed that a sock that self-identifies is, then, "doing it for the attention." Maybe.... maybe the motive is to improve the wiki by drawing attention to violations of consensus or policy. (These were self-reverted edits, so there was actually no need for administrative response at all; none of the edits were uncivil or disruptive in themselves, in any way, except as "block evasion.")

(A certain administrator then set up an edit filter to detect "Abd" in edits, automatically blocking them, and thus interdicting my self-identification of the edits in the edit summary. This, then, caused collateral damage, as it turns out that the string Abd is pretty common, many Muslim names contain it, but there are other examples as well. It also loaded down the server. Indeed, the collateral damage was asserted in my ban as something that I gloated over. Nope. I pointed it out and did what I could to prevent or repair damage, spending valuable IP on it. It was administrative over-reaction through the edit filter that caused the damage, and I'd never dreamed that admins would go to those lengths to attempt to stop all editing. And, of course, it was ineffective, I merely stopped self-reverting.)

(You know, I think some of these administrators really are idiots. As the IP range blocks got more extensive, I finally created a real sock. How many I created is information that I won't reveal. But only one "secret" sock came to the attention of the "authorities," because, deliberately, I hadn't taken precautions. The sock only made collaborative edits -- though most of them were ban violations. When it was detected, JzG, predictably, reverted an edit I'd made to a BLP, and an administrator with whom I'd had prior conflict reverted my edit back in as proper. Now, if I want to edit, does anyone seriously think that Wikipedia has a means to stop me? I'm not editing now because it's not worth the effort, not because it's impossible. I demonstrated, in that short period last year, how it would be possible for a banned editor to make contributions in a *non-disruptive* way, self-reverted and self-identified as being reverted "per ban," with little or no complication of enforcement, how enforcement effort aimed at stopping this wasn't preventing harm but might actually be causing it, and I'd previously seen the concept accepted by respected Wikipedians, when suggested for ScienceApologist, but the "ban is a ban" trope took over.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Fri 10th February 2012, 8:30pm
Post #27


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 10th February 2012, 6:35pm) *



Before you have presented any evidence, you ask, "So why Gwen Gale has been allowed to misuse the tools over, and over and over again?" You are assuming the conclusion you have made before you have established it, and using it in a loaded question. It's polemic, it's not sober presentation of evidence, it's an attack.

Even if the user has done lots of Bad Stuff.


As to your second question, I looked at the diff you gave in your comment on Commons. I see no impropriety there. The IP was blocked by Courcelles, an admin, and then by JamesBWatson. Now, perhaps Gwen Gale previously blocked this user. If so, you didn't show that, it would be an essential element to even begin to establish recusal failure. However, again, in this case what Gwen Gale actually wrote is what about any administrator would write. Yes, it would be better to allow an independent unblock (assuming Gwen Gale was involved before), but that something else is better doesn't establish that an action is abusive. Bottom line, no admin, under the conditions existing there, would respond to that unblock request with an unblock.



(Now, I notice that there are revision deletions on the IP talk page. The log for these has been suppressed. Many Wikipedians feared, when RevDel became available to ordinary administrators, that it would be abused. Certainly it reduces transparency. I helped to develop RevDel standards, by presenting certain administrators -- self-selected -- with the opportunity to use RevDel outside of its intended use. When they did, it then became a matter for discussion, and the outcome was an improvement. However, there is no easy way to know if RevDel is being abused, it can only be reviewed by administrators. What I'd set up was a situation where I was making sure that the edit contents were published (elsewhere), so it could be seen that RevDel was being used outside of intent, as a kind of punishment, and certainly without necessity. That's rare, that an IP sock will both self-identify, and document what resulted. Socks mostly try to escape detection, and it's assumed that a sock that self-identifies is, then, "doing it for the attention." Maybe.... maybe the motive is to improve the wiki by drawing attention to violations of consensus or policy. (These were self-reverted edits, so there was actually no need for administrative response at all; none of the edits were uncivil or disruptive in themselves, in any way, except as "block evasion.")




Gwen blocked this user before, but this alone would not have been a problem in declining the unblock request. The problem was not even in the wording she used. The problem was that the user complained about Gwen Gale in his unblock request , and then she declined it.
In particular the user wrote:
QUOTE
Hey I know I wasn't supposed to do this, but I cannot log-in, know one understands that. That means I can't type on my own talk page, nor can I email anybody. User:GwenGale told me to type on a "big deal" administrator to get me globally blocked, not blocked completely, so for the last time, I cannot email anybody except for lower class admins that ignored me.

This wording the user used made gwen heavily involved. she should not have acted on this unblock request.
Besides have you seen the language gwen used http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...1#Zhand38_on_en
QUOTE
is threatening suicide on my talk page here (he did this once before on en many months back)
.
Yes, he did it, and it is not rev deleted, but I will not provide the link. Gwen only failed to say that the user wrote :"I almost killed myself because of you" (highlighted by me) . This post was made at Gwen's talk page. The user was talking to Gwen. After such an admission only a finished bully or a finished idiot, or both could have declined unblock request for this user. In any case the declining of this unblock request is enough to desysop the admin who did it.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Fri 10th February 2012, 10:21pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jd turk
post Sat 11th February 2012, 2:01am
Post #28


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon 5th May 2008, 12:56am
Member No.: 5,976



And now Jehochman is blanking the RFC. And being reverted. It's pure, beautiful chaos.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sat 11th February 2012, 2:49am
Post #29


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 10th February 2012, 3:30pm) *
Gwen blocked this user before, but this alone would not have been a problem in declining the unblock request. The problem was not even in the wording she used. The problem was that the user complained about Gwen Gale in his unblock request , and then she declined it.
What the user was complaining about is quite unclear in the quoted comment, which was incoherent, face-palm material, and you are ignoring what I pointed out, which is that it's ultimately moot. Yes, a strong recusal policy would suggest recusal, perhaps -- it's still not clear -- but *wikipedia does not have a strong recusal policy.*

Mila, you aren't getting it. Do you get that, at least?

You are completely wasting your time, you are neither educating anyone nor are you learning anything.

By the way, you might even be right, i.e., it would have been better for someone else to decline the unblock request, if the user is likely to take as personal. However, part of what's crazy about your complaint about Gwen Gale is that you are complaining about common behavior.

And it's likely that the histrionics of this user were just that, and that the best thing for this user would be to be blocked. And to get help. I find "Wikipedia is not therapy" to be rather cruel, but ... Wikipedia is not therapy; when there are even possible suicide threats, my view is that a case should be turned over to experts. I've expressed my opinion before that there have probably been Wikipedia-related suicides. There should be clear policy on this, and the goal of the policy would be the avoidance of damage, both to the individual and to the project. Just considering the project would be reprehensible.

However, pinning this on Gwen Gale is nuts.

by focusing on her, you merely convince everyone that you are crazy.

This post has been edited by Abd: Sat 11th February 2012, 2:50am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Sat 11th February 2012, 3:08am
Post #30


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 11th February 2012, 2:49am) *



However, pinning this on Gwen Gale is nuts.

by focusing on her, you merely convince everyone that you are crazy.

I do not really care what everyone is thinking. I am doing what I believe is the right thing to do,
and this is the only thing that matters.
And about wasting time. Well, I wasted time discussing DYK, I wasted time discussing feature pictures,
I wasted lot's of time on wikipedia, and it is interesting to me what I am doing now. As long as I am doing something interesting no time is wasted.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jd turk
post Sat 11th February 2012, 3:19am
Post #31


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon 5th May 2008, 12:56am
Member No.: 5,976



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 10th February 2012, 9:08pm) *

I do not really care what everyone is thinking. I am doing what I believe is the right thing to do,
and this is the only thing that matters.


Wikipedia has many articles on people who felt the exact same way.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Sat 11th February 2012, 3:30am
Post #32


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 11th February 2012, 2:49am) *

Yes, a strong recusal policy would suggest recusal, perhaps -- it's still not clear -- but *wikipedia does not have a strong recusal policy.*


Why do you say it does not?
Please see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...istrative_tools
Isn't this policy strong enough?

QUOTE
Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal.

Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required:Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.


This post has been edited by mbz1: Sat 11th February 2012, 3:32am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Sat 11th February 2012, 3:45am
Post #33


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Y'know, I almost hate to go into "I told you so" territory Mila, but this would have been ended on far better terms for you if those yahoos hadn't shitcanned my deletion request in minutes.

Discussions on Jimbo's talk and on ANI, neither initiated by me, have now brought you and Meta's warped and unworkable administration a fuckton of very uncomfortable attention.

The kicker is, no one gives two shits about anything that gwen allegedly did.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sat 11th February 2012, 5:19pm
Post #34


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 10th February 2012, 10:30pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 11th February 2012, 2:49am) *
Yes, a strong recusal policy would suggest recusal, perhaps -- it's still not clear -- but *wikipedia does not have a strong recusal policy.*

Why do you say it does not?
Please see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...istrative_tools
Isn't this policy strong enough?


No, not nearly. As I've written before, the policy is quite good, and if you assume that policy is enforced, why, you'd think that Wikipedia was totally enlightened. However, the policy is not enforced, and supposedly clear policy without enforcement is practically worse than no policy at all. The policy is replete with exceptions, and exceptions are made all the time, without any review process to guarantee that the right -- or responsibility -- of exception is not abused. Only if an administrator offends another administrator, or someone protected by an administrator, does recusal failure start to be taken seriously, and I've seen that, as well, abused. I.e., admin acted where perhaps recusal was required, but also followed the procedure for emergency action, including consultation, did it right. And was desysopped.

There is no reliable process for decision-making, that's the rub. Policies are useless without reliable enforcement mechanisms.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Sat 11th February 2012, 5:43pm
Post #35


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 11th February 2012, 5:19pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 10th February 2012, 10:30pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 11th February 2012, 2:49am) *
Yes, a strong recusal policy would suggest recusal, perhaps -- it's still not clear -- but *wikipedia does not have a strong recusal policy.*

Why do you say it does not?
Please see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...istrative_tools
Isn't this policy strong enough?


No, not nearly. As I've written before, the policy is quite good, and if you assume that policy is enforced, why, you'd think that Wikipedia was totally enlightened. However, the policy is not enforced, and supposedly clear policy without enforcement is practically worse than no policy at all. The policy is replete with exceptions, and exceptions are made all the time, without any review process to guarantee that the right -- or responsibility -- of exception is not abused. Only if an administrator offends another administrator, or someone protected by an administrator, does recusal failure start to be taken seriously, and I've seen that, as well, abused. I.e., admin acted where perhaps recusal was required, but also followed the procedure for emergency action, including consultation, did it right. And was desysopped.

There is no reliable process for decision-making, that's the rub. Policies are useless without reliable enforcement mechanisms.


Well, with this I agree, but do you yourself believe this policy should (or better say "must" ) be enforced, and if no, why no? Thanks.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Mon 13th February 2012, 10:14pm
Post #36


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



---

This post has been edited by mbz1: Tue 14th February 2012, 12:05am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Mon 13th February 2012, 11:23pm
Post #37


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 13th February 2012, 5:14pm) *
Wikipedia is not for me, it is for wikipidiots. tongue.gif

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 13th February 2012, 5:14pm) *
Blah blah Gwen Gale block log blah blah blah.

Milla, do you understand why I put those quotes together?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Tue 14th February 2012, 12:27am
Post #38


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 13th February 2012, 11:23pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 13th February 2012, 5:14pm) *
Wikipedia is not for me, it is for wikipidiots. tongue.gif

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 13th February 2012, 5:14pm) *
Blah blah Gwen Gale block log blah blah blah.

Milla, do you understand why I put those quotes together?

I sure do, you put those quotes together because you are one of these wikipidiots. tongue.gif

This post has been edited by mbz1: Tue 14th February 2012, 12:39am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guido den Broeder
post Tue 14th February 2012, 2:51am
Post #39


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu 19th Feb 2009, 7:31pm
Member No.: 10,371



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 10th February 2012, 3:33am) *
BTW did somebody else experienced govcom lying on wiki about the private communications between them and you?


Absolutely. Arbidiots did so to me time after time, and I know of quite a few others with the same experience.

QUOTE(jd turk @ Sat 11th February 2012, 3:01am) *

And now Jehochman is blanking the RFC. And being reverted. It's pure, beautiful chaos.


Indeed. Sit back and enjoy the show. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jd turk
post Tue 14th February 2012, 4:23am
Post #40


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon 5th May 2008, 12:56am
Member No.: 5,976



QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Mon 13th February 2012, 8:51pm) *

Indeed. Sit back and enjoy the show. smile.gif


It was pretty fascinating to watch. At least Mbz1 gave us that final explosion on her way out of reality.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd 11 17, 10:13pm