Options

[mbz1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=482944579

How to figure out improvements in process that lower the number of inappropriate blocks, and increase the number of appropriate blocks, is tricky business!--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 18:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to discuss how to increase " the number of appropriate blocks", but lowering the number of inappropriate blocks is very easy.

Of course an admin could impose an inappropriate block by mistake, and it could be understood, but there are some situation, in which "mistakes" could be easily avoided, and that's why should not be forgiven.

1. An admin misuses its tools while involved broadly construed

2. An admin blocks a well established editor with an idiotic edit summary as for example "vandalism only account".

3. An admin misuses the tools to bully kids.

In the above situations, a first misuse of the tools should warrant a firm warning, and a second should result in desysoping.

Another way to lower " the number of inappropriate blocks" is to make sure that each and every block rationale is supported by at least one difference, and the more complex the situation is the more differences should be presented.

Another way to lower " the number of inappropriate blocks" is to make sure that during mob lynching on AN/I only uninvolved users are allowed to comment about the block.


Another way to lower " the number of inappropriate blocks" is to allow an editor in question to freely participate in all discussions concerning his/her block.

Another way to lower " the number of inappropriate blocks" is to stop closed tribunals by your arbcom, at least in the cases, where no private info of a third party is involved. Then the members of arbcom and you, Jimbo, would not be afraid that your private communications will get leaked some time some where.

Another way to lower " the number of inappropriate blocks" is strictly follow your own blocking policy: blocks should not be punitive!

I assure you, Jimbo, that these absolutely valid and fair measure that are really easy to implement will drastically lower the numbers of inappropriate blocks.

Just remember, Jimbo, if you care of course, it is much easier to replace a bully, power-hungry admin, and each and every sicko from you arbcom than a valued contributor.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Tarc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=482944579

How to figure out improvements in process that lower the number of inappropriate blocks, and increase the number of appropriate blocks, is tricky business!--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 18:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to discuss how to increase " the number of appropriate blocks", but lowering the number of inappropriate blocks is very easy.

Of course an admin could impose an inappropriate block by mistake, and it could be understood, but there are some situation, in which "mistakes" could be easily avoided, and that's why should not be forgiven.

1. An admin misuses its tools while involved broadly construed

2. An admin blocks a well established editor with an idiotic edit summary as for example "vandalism only account".

3. An admin misuses the tools to bully kids.

In the above situations, a first misuse of the tools should warrant a firm warning, and a second should result in desysoping.

Another way to lower " the number of inappropriate blocks" is to make sure that each and every block rationale is supported by at least one difference, and the more complex the situation is the more differences should be presented.

Another way to lower " the number of inappropriate blocks" is to make sure that during mob lynching on AN/I only uninvolved users are allowed to comment about the block.


Another way to lower " the number of inappropriate blocks" is to allow an editor in question to freely participate in all discussions concerning his/her block.

Another way to lower " the number of inappropriate blocks" is strictly follow your own blocking policy: blocks should not be punitive!

I assure you, Jimbo, that these absolutely valid and fair measure that are really easy to implement will drastically lower the numbers of inappropriate blocks.

Just remember, Jimbo, if you care of course, it is much easier to replace a bully, power-hungry admin, and each and every sicko from you arbcom than a valued contributor.

Btw Mila, you should probably ask the Commons admins to delete the various "Yyxx?" --> "Mbz1" redirects, as it makes your vanishing/departure/whatever kinda obvious.

[mbz1]

Btw Mila, you should probably ask the Commons admins to delete the various "Yyxx?" --> "Mbz1" redirects, as it makes your vanishing/departure/whatever kinda obvious.

Is there any connection between your post and the topic of the thread? If so, what is the connection?
I know you, as well as a few other sick sadists, have never failed to lie about me and to stalk me, but still that last post of yours is below even your own standards. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Web Fred]

Demolishing that fucking stupid civility pillar would drastically reduce the number of stupid blocks to otherwise productive editors. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/censored.gif)

[Emperor]

A clear-cut, easy to follow appeal process would be nice. Not holding my breath.

It's time for them to accept they're not a small group of a few dozen people, but now an impersonal bureaucracy. They need to put a formal mechanism in place where individuals can appeal to third parties aware of the wider principles involved, and not be at the mercy of roving bands of psychotic-obsessive nerds.

[mbz1]

Demolishing that fucking stupid civility pillar would drastically reduce the number of stupid blocks to otherwise productive editors. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/censored.gif)

I guess I could agree with this one too. For me it was much, much easier to deal with open incivility toward me than with sick and dishonest lies about me. Some users as tarc (T-C-L-K-R-D) ; Roscelese (T-C-L-K-R-D) ;Demiurge1000 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and others mastered their ability to make sick and dirty lies to such extend that they seem never to violate wikipedia policies, and never get blocked. Isn't this funny that a valued editor could get blocked for honestly saying that many admins are dishonest cunts, while a troll and a liar will not get even warned for defaming a real person?

A clear-cut, easy to follow appeal process would be nice. Not holding my breath.

It's time for them to accept they're not a small group of a few dozen people, but now an impersonal bureaucracy. They need to put a formal mechanism in place where individuals can appeal to third parties aware of the wider principles involved, and not be at the mercy of roving bands of psychotic-obsessive nerds.

Yes, I also thought about this. It is not a secret that so called wikipedia community is not mentally healthy, but the percentage of "of psychotic-obsessive " users is even much higher between the users who see their purpose in participating in each and every ban/block discussion on AN/I. It ought to stop. In other words no bipolar under the weather should be allowed to participate in block/bans discussion.

Besides requiring a blocked editor to appeal his block/ban to the very same "psychotic-obsessive nerds" (either so called community or arbcom) that blocked/banned him is ridiculous.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Alison]

Btw Mila, you should probably ask the Commons admins to delete the various "Yyxx?" --> "Mbz1" redirects, as it makes your vanishing/departure/whatever kinda obvious.

Just link me the redirects in email and I'll nuke 'em all, ok? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I've not been following any of this, to be honest.

[mbz1]

Btw Mila, you should probably ask the Commons admins to delete the various "Yyxx?" --> "Mbz1" redirects, as it makes your vanishing/departure/whatever kinda obvious.

Just link me the redirects in email and I'll nuke 'em all, ok? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I've not been following any of this, to be honest.

Thanks for your kind offer, Alison. It has been done already.
BTW tarc post reminded me yet another Russian joke.

In Soviet Union everybody had passports since they were 16 years old. Passports were required to get a library cards, to go to hospitals, to get employment, to get to a college... everywhere...
Also there was so called goverment antisemitism in Russia. It was much harder for a Jew to find an employment (all Russian companies belonged to goverment).

So here's a joke:

Rabinovich comes to a passport's agency and requests to change his last name to Ivanov.
An agent changed the name, and gave him a new passport.
In a month Rabinovich is back. Now he requests to change his last name to Petrov.
An agent looks at his passport, and asks: "Listen what is the difference between "Petrov" and "Ivanov". Rabinovich responds: "Yes, right, except, if somebody would ask me who I was before I became Petrov, I would say I was Ivanov." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Maybe I also should request another name change, in case somebody will ask me who I was before I became Yyxx? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

On the other hand it is rather sad that there so much in common between totalitarian communist regime and regime of wikipedia.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Malleus]

Demolishing that fucking stupid civility pillar would drastically reduce the number of stupid blocks to otherwise productive editors. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/censored.gif)

Hear, hear!

[EricBarbour]

Just remember, Jimbo, if you care of course, it is much easier to replace a bully, power-hungry admin, and each and every sicko from you arbcom than a valued contributor.

If he cared, he would start by tossing out that pathetic creature Orangemike.
Because Orangemike has clearly blocked scores of people for no good reason at all.

But he doesn't. Nobody says anything to Orangemike. And he goes right on his merry way, deleting and banning with impunity.

[Tarc]

BTW tarc post reminded me yet another Russian joke.

Unless it is either Yakov Smirnoff (T-H-L-K-D) or overused memes, Russian humor really doesn't strike the American funny bone, y'know.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[mbz1]

Because Orangemike has clearly blocked scores of people for no good reason at all.

But he doesn't. Nobody says anything to Orangemike. And he goes right on his merry way, deleting and banning with impunity.

I'd be interested in some examples please. It is the first time I've heard about Orangemike.

[timbo]

Just remember, Jimbo, if you care of course, it is much easier to replace a bully, power-hungry admin, and each and every sicko from you arbcom than a valued contributor.

If he cared, he would start by tossing out that pathetic creature Orangemike.
Because Orangemike has clearly blocked scores of people for no good reason at all.

But he doesn't. Nobody says anything to Orangemike. And he goes right on his merry way, deleting and banning with impunity.

I've recently bumped into Orangemike for the first time at AfD and I found him a very reasonable person. When it became clear to him that the piece by a noob that I was trying to source out and save was gonna pass GNG, he set to work improving it himself — and he was the deletion nominator!

And then he wrote a full bio for one of the redlinks in the piece.

So, yeah, there are some kooky assholes at WP, but some good folks, too. I include Orangemike among the latter.

t

[Fusion]

Demolishing that fucking stupid civility pillar would drastically reduce the number of stupid blocks to otherwise productive editors. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/censored.gif)

Hear, hear!

But would that not mean that occasionally admins might be rude? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) That of course never happens now because such an admin would get sacked. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/irony.gif)

Unless it is either Yakov Smirnoff (T-H-L-K-D) or overused memes, Russian humor really doesn't strike the American funny bone, y'know.

Americans are clearly lucky to know nothing of such social conditions.

[Tarc]

Unless it is either Yakov Smirnoff (T-H-L-K-D) or overused memes, Russian humor really doesn't strike the American funny bone, y'know.

Americans are clearly lucky to know nothing of such social conditions.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my SUV that I drive down to the mailbox.

BTW, this was never about Mbz's "right to vanish", it was always just the old "martyr for a cause" shtick. The new account now waves the J'accuse flag in tribute.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[Fusion]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my SUV that I drive down to the mailbox.

You drive down to the mailbox? That is appalling! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

[Web Fred]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my SUV that I drive down to the mailbox.

You drive down to the mailbox? That is appalling! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Even worse, an SUV! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[Tarc]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my SUV that I drive down to the mailbox.

You drive down to the mailbox? That is appalling! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Even worse, an SUV! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Sarcasm is obviously lost on you Eurotrash girls.

[Web Fred]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my SUV that I drive down to the mailbox.

You drive down to the mailbox? That is appalling! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Even worse, an SUV! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Sarcasm is obviously lost on you Eurotrash girls.

It got the sarcasm, but to have to explain the joke pisses on the joke-teller's chips.

Trolling 101 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[EricBarbour]

OrangeMike? You asked for it......

Mike loves to block people and delete articles--often improperly. The others typically close ranks. They like him because he is willing to make "difficult" blocks, Wiki-code for a sociopath. The following is only a small sample of the complaints about him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...editing_dispute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...t:_No_action.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ing_Indeffed.29

In April 2008, he pissed this guy off real good.

In October 2008, Durova and the presenters of the Wikipedia podcast Not the Wikipedia Weekly attempted to create an article from scratch, to illustrate the process. Within two minutes, Mike deleted it.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20567

Mike was the guilty party in the TuftsWebComm fiasco. It is typical and vintage Mike, he blocks someone wrongly, and walks away uncaring. Other admins clean up after him.

Plus.

In June 2010, porn actor Donny Long attempted to request the deletion or repair of his BLP, claiming it was defamatory. Mike responded, by blocking him. After two contentious AFDs, it was deleted. Over Mike's loud objections.

In October 2010 Mike deleted an article about a city councilwoman, which resulted in media coverage.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/escondid...5f32efd8b2.html
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...6&hl=orangemike

Go ahead, Carrite. Tell us all again what a great, great guy OrangeMike is.