| |
|
  |
 Unbelievabale blocks |
|
|
| mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 25th January 2012, 6:54pm)  Well, it could be a bad block, yes, but I do not believe this block rises to the level of "unbelievable" blocks. Besides it was brought to AN/I and is being discussed. The example I started this thread with is an "unbelievable" block because an established user was blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism only" account for making a good faith, encyclopedic edit, and nobody said anything in his defense. It is worse than the block of !! (T-C-L-K-R-D)
] BTW it would be interesting to see, if any of admins and/or members of arbcom who read this post would unblock the user, and mention this block to gwen gale. Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) Of course the user is gone, but he still should be unblocked. This post has been edited by mbz1: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vigilant |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined:
Member No.: 8,684
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 25th January 2012, 6:54pm) Well, it could be a bad block, yes, but I do not believe this block rises to the level of "unbelievable" blocks. Besides it was brought to AN/I and is being discussed. The example I started this thread with is an "unbelievable" block because an established user was blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism only" account for making a good faith, encyclopedic edit, and nobody said anything in his defense. It is worse than the block of !! (T-C-L-K-R-D)
] BTW it would be interesting to see, if any of admins and/or members of arbcom who read this post would unblock the user, and mention this block to gwen gale. Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) Of course the user is gone, but he still should be unblocked. From HereSpank-o-licious! |
|
|
|
|
|
| mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 25th January 2012, 10:34pm) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 10:39am) That's why I classed Ms. Wyss as an "evil patroller". She's done bullshit like this so many times, I've given up counting them. The blocking of good content contributors for phony reasons is a principal part of the definition of "evil patroller". If you think Heidi's crazy, have a look at Ryulong's blocks. Or Georgewilliamherbert's blocks, or Rodhullandemu's blocks. Well, Rodhullandemu is banned (it took way too long to ban him, but he is now), but Gwen is running free. I cannot understand why she's like that. What is the purpose in blocking good faith editors? In this situation she blocked a user for user name although I've no idea what is wrong with his user name, and when the user did exactly as he was advised to do in such situation by the template added to his talk by Gwen, the very same Gwen declined his unblock. I do not believe I have ever seen a blocking admin declining unblock request. Have you? Wrongfully imprisoned man awarded $25 million in damages Could wrongly blocked users at least get unblocked? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) This post has been edited by mbz1: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Fusion |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined:
Member No.: 71,526
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) That is an exceedingly good question. Where, indeed? |
|
|
|
|
|
| mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(Fusion @ Thu 26th January 2012, 12:40pm) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) That is an exceedingly good question. Where, indeed? Well, one guy asked Gwen about this block] and she responded she emailed to him. QUOTE Hi! I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Funguy06#blocked but after looking through the edits, it seems like the user did make attempts to create encyclopedic edits. While it seems like the user had issues with image copvio warnings, it doesn't seem to match the block message. Some of the articles the user started are still there. Would you mind if I unblock the user? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Hey! I've sent you an email. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Hey, Gwen the bully, why not to respond in an open. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) It is a very simple question about a very simple situation. What are you afraid of? In a meantime I posted question to Jimbo's Commons talk pageThere was no response there. This post has been edited by mbz1: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 8,944
|
QUOTE(Vigilant @ Wed 25th January 2012, 9:33pm) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 25th January 2012, 6:54pm) Well, it could be a bad block, yes, but I do not believe this block rises to the level of "unbelievable" blocks. Besides it was brought to AN/I and is being discussed. The example I started this thread with is an "unbelievable" block because an established user was blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism only" account for making a good faith, encyclopedic edit, and nobody said anything in his defense. It is worse than the block of !! (T-C-L-K-R-D)
] BTW it would be interesting to see, if any of admins and/or members of arbcom who read this post would unblock the user, and mention this block to gwen gale. Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) Of course the user is gone, but he still should be unblocked. From HereSpank-o-licious! So which of my blocks do you take issue with? ArbCom had trouble finding any that were against policy, so I'd be glad to hear *your* take on that. |
|
|
|
|
|
| mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Fri 27th January 2012, 2:01am) QUOTE(Vigilant @ Wed 25th January 2012, 9:33pm) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 25th January 2012, 6:54pm) Well, it could be a bad block, yes, but I do not believe this block rises to the level of "unbelievable" blocks. Besides it was brought to AN/I and is being discussed. The example I started this thread with is an "unbelievable" block because an established user was blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism only" account for making a good faith, encyclopedic edit, and nobody said anything in his defense. It is worse than the block of !! (T-C-L-K-R-D)
] BTW it would be interesting to see, if any of admins and/or members of arbcom who read this post would unblock the user, and mention this block to gwen gale. Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) Of course the user is gone, but he still should be unblocked. From HereSpank-o-licious! So which of my blocks do you take issue with? ArbCom had trouble finding any that were against policy, so I'd be glad to hear *your* take on that. Could you link to your blocks? |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 26th January 2012, 9:09pm) QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Fri 27th January 2012, 2:01am) QUOTE(Vigilant @ Wed 25th January 2012, 9:33pm) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 25th January 2012, 6:54pm) Well, it could be a bad block, yes, but I do not believe this block rises to the level of "unbelievable" blocks. Besides it was brought to AN/I and is being discussed. The example I started this thread with is an "unbelievable" block because an established user was blocked indefinitely as a "vandalism only" account for making a good faith, encyclopedic edit, and nobody said anything in his defense. It is worse than the block of !! (T-C-L-K-R-D)
] BTW it would be interesting to see, if any of admins and/or members of arbcom who read this post would unblock the user, and mention this block to gwen gale. Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) Of course the user is gone, but he still should be unblocked. From HereSpank-o-licious! So which of my blocks do you take issue with? ArbCom had trouble finding any that were against policy, so I'd be glad to hear *your* take on that. Could you link to your blocks? |
|
|
|
|
|
| mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 26th January 2012, 9:51pm) QUOTE(Fusion @ Thu 26th January 2012, 12:40pm) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 8:31pm) Hey, the Straight Shooters, where are you? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) That is an exceedingly good question. Where, indeed? Well, one guy asked Gwen about this block] and she responded she emailed to him. QUOTE Hi! I found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Funguy06#blocked but after looking through the edits, it seems like the user did make attempts to create encyclopedic edits. While it seems like the user had issues with image copvio warnings, it doesn't seem to match the block message. Some of the articles the user started are still there. Would you mind if I unblock the user? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Hey! I've sent you an email. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Hey, Gwen the bully, why not to respond in an open. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) It is a very simple question about a very simple situation. What are you afraid of? In a meantime I posted question to Jimbo's Commons talk pageThere was no response there. And The user is unblocked! Of course it is too late and too little, but still. As usually Gwen was dishonest. She emailed to WhisperToMe, and told him she blocked the editor because of "image uploading issues, copyvios" at least it is what WhisperToMe wrote in their unblock edit summary, but here's the deal: first Gwen protected the article because of "excessive vandalism", then she reverted an encyclopedic edit and in the very next minute she blocked the editor who made this encyclopedic edit with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)". The editor was blocked not because of "copyvios" but because Gwen decided that an encyclopedic edit added to the article is "vandalism", and did not bother to check it neither before nor even after the block. And now imagine yourself making not only a good faith edit, but an encyclopedic edit as well and getting blocked as "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)" (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) This post has been edited by mbz1: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Malleus |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 25th January 2012, 10:34pm) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 25th January 2012, 10:39am) That's why I classed Ms. Wyss as an "evil patroller". She's done bullshit like this so many times, I've given up counting them. The blocking of good content contributors for phony reasons is a principal part of the definition of "evil patroller". If you think Heidi's crazy, have a look at Ryulong's blocks. Or Georgewilliamherbert's blocks, or Rodhullandemu's blocks. I've been blocked by three out of four of them, only Ryulong left to go until I get a full house. QUOTE(chrisoff @ Fri 27th January 2012, 3:55am)
Horrible!
I think such blocks are the single greatest reason wp loses editors.
That's perhaps something we can agree on. |
|
|
|
|
|
| TungstenCarbide |
|
Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined:
Member No.: 10,787
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 27th January 2012, 9:07pm) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 26th January 2012, 9:41pm) I am sorry but I am lost. You want to say that Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) If not, why the link to the blocks made by Rodhullandemu? Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu. thanks for clearing that up |
|
|
|
|
|
| mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 27th January 2012, 9:07pm)
Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu.
Well, in this case, if Encyclopedist insists, I'd be happy to point out some bad blocks he imposed, although I believe his blocks although bad enough were mostly not as bad as the ones imposed by Gwen Gale. Rodhullandemu also blocked editors with whom he was edit-warring , but at least I do not believe he has ever said the block was for vandalism. Gwen Gale did, which means she's not just a bully but a dishonest bully as well. This thread is about yet another bad block imposed by Gwen Gale . She blocked this user while involved with him (edit warring on the same article). The user was blocked at 15:04, 28 June 2008 for so called "vandalism" . In a few places Gwen Gale lied she edited the article only after the block. She edited this article a lot before and after the block. Actually Gwen Gale wrote this article, when she still edited as Wyss , but let's see June 28,2008: Gwen Gale was edit warring with the very same editor she later blocked . The user was not vandalizing the article. It was clearly good faith edits. Interestingly enough after blocking the user while so heavily involved, and being told and agreeing she should not have done it , Gwen Gale blocked him again just two days later on 22:38, 30 June 2008 in spite of being "not happy with having been the blocking admin". And after that she edit-warred with another user and blocked him for spamming, and then edit-warred with another user and blocked him for BLP where there was none, and so on. Oh, well, it looks like Gwen Gale has many more dishonest friends in govcom than Rodhullandemu does(did) This post has been edited by mbz1: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
Beyond clueless. Meta RfC/Gwen Gale filed by ... mbz1. Speaks in first person, but hasn't signed it. Wrong venue, i.e., meta has no jurisdiction over the issues raised. Might as well file it here. Ottava tried this one. Ottava has nine lives. mbz1 probably doesn't. Waste of time. I ran process on meta when meta actions were in order, such as the removal of the blacklisting of lenr-canr.org, or reviewing *meta* blocks, or global bans through the SUL lock facility accessed at meta. Emergency desysoppings can be done at meta, but stewards will want to see either true emergency (or the claim of one, as SBJ did in asking for my Wikiversity admin bit to be lifted. He lied, bottom line) or a local consensus on the affected wiki. I.e., mbz1, you'd have to show a *Wikipedia consensus*. You can't possibly get that at meta, even if you could get enough interested editors to support whatever you want, which is about impossible itself. At one time there were serious discussions at meta and dissent was handled as a necessary part of the process. That's changed, meta is now *worse* than Wikipedia. The heavy hitters, the truly good guys, like Lar, are gone. There are a few good stewards, but they've been notably ineffectual against the oozing slime. |
|
|
|
|
|
| mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 28th January 2012, 10:36pm)
Waste of time.
I was sure nothing will come out of this, but I strongly believe that administrative abuse should be documented. If I wrote the same request on Wiki it would have probably be deleted. At meta it stays. The more people are to read it the better.At least the dishonest bully Gwen Gale will think twice before issuing another bad block. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 28th January 2012, 6:35pm) QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 28th January 2012, 10:36pm) Waste of time. I was sure nothing will come out of this, but I strongly believe that administrative abuse should be documented. If I wrote the same request on Wiki it would have probably be deleted. At meta it stays. The more people are to read it the better.At least the dishonest bully Gwen Gale will think twice before issuing another bad block. You're dreaming, mbz1. I doubt the RfC will have any effect at all on Gwen Gale, whether she is honest or dishonest, whether her blocks are good or bad. The RfC was such a farrago of charges, incompetently presented, that I didn't read any of it with care. The first problem, which most readers will have, is that it's in a completely wrong place, meta. Meta is not for airing grudges. It's for cross-wiki coordination. Bad blocks are common on Wikipedia. Good administrators sometimes issue bad blocks. A sysop may have many bad blocks and actually still be a good administrator. It's a question of balance. Further, one administrator is still only one administrator. The real problem isn't bad administrators, as individuals. The real problem is dysfunctional structure, such that review and appeal processes are broken and stacked against a complainant. Making it worse is the general lack of good counseling for those blocked. I used to do this, and was sometimes successful in assisting blocked editors to handle the situation in a way that would get them and leave them unblocked. That was stopped by ArbComm with its "MYOB" sanction, even though there was *no* evidence even presented, no allegation that my "interventions" had been doing harm. The MYOB sanction was a blunt instrument, affecting a large body of work, as a device to address what was, for ArbComm, the real problem: that I'd intervened *when neutral* with an administrator, JzG, one of their pets. (That was about JzG's unilateral blacklisting of lenr-canr.org, the cold fusion "library," and it started before I had a clue about cold fusion, other than knowing some of the history from 1989, when I was aware of the announcement and the later rejection -- and thought that cold fusion was probably bogus. But the blacklisting was beyond the pale, as ArbComm later concluded. They wanted to spank me then, the hacked emails revealed, but had no excuse yet.) It was truly ironic: as written, the sanction allowed me to go to bat for a cause where I was involved, not where I wasn't. In other words, neutrality was to be punished. I thought it was completely brilliant as a demonstration of just how idiotic ArbComm had become. However, the sanction was interpreted more and more mindlessly and literally, with definitions shifting, until almost every edit became a "violation." Just my story, there are a million stories in the wiki-city. I lasted an amazingly long time, given how much of a challenge to the oligarchy I was (as perceived by them). |
|
|
|
|
|
| Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 8,944
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 27th January 2012, 11:03pm) QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 27th January 2012, 9:07pm)
Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu.
Well, in this case, if Encyclopedist insists, I'd be happy to point out some bad blocks he imposed, although I believe his blocks although bad enough were mostly not as bad as the ones imposed by Gwen Gale. Rodhullandemu also blocked editors with whom he was edit-warring , but at least I do not believe he has ever said the block was for vandalism. Gwen Gale did, which means she's not just a bully but a dishonest bully as well. This thread is about yet another bad block imposed by Gwen Gale . She blocked this user while involved with him (edit warring on the same article). The user was blocked at 15:04, 28 June 2008 for so called "vandalism" . In a few places Gwen Gale lied she edited the article only after the block. She edited this article a lot before and after the block. Actually Gwen Gale wrote this article, when she still edited as Wyss , but let's see June 28,2008: Gwen Gale was edit warring with the very same editor she later blocked . The user was not vandalizing the article. It was clearly good faith edits. Interestingly enough after blocking the user while so heavily involved, and being told and agreeing she should not have done it , Gwen Gale blocked him again just two days later on 22:38, 30 June 2008 in spite of being "not happy with having been the blocking admin". And after that she edit-warred with another user and blocked him for spamming, and then edit-warred with another user and blocked him for BLP where there was none, and so on. Oh, well, it looks like Gwen Gale has many more dishonest friends in govcom than Rodhullandemu does(did) What a fucking disgrace. To begin with, it's common knowledge here that Encyclopedist=Rodhullandemu=me. Apart from that, it doesn't take much effort to find that out. Otherwise, I stand apart from Gwen Gale, and I stand by each and every one of my blocks, and thanks to whoever linked to them above. Maybe some were dubious, according to some, but in my view necessary to protect Wikipedia from being wrong or incomplete - a view of the article history of Cilla Black will show that, and I was perfectly prepared to discuss the policy issues involved in that, and other cases. However, being an admin isn't guaranteed to make you friends, or get you laid, but is a job that needs to be done. But I've found that since I've not been an Admin, that I really, really do not care that much about Wikipedia any more if its government does not recognise good faith by volunteers. In short, WP has become dysfunctional, it's strusctural government is just wrong, and in such circumstances is doomed to fall apart, and quite rapidly. I have no friends in ArbCom, dishonest or otherwise, and to be honest, I wouldn't want any. The 2010 elected tranche seemed to be directed towards improving the processes, but they have failed to address the basic problem that in a community-based, decentralsied project, government is somehow irrelevant, and accordingly, the exercise of their powers is both irrelevant and, in my own case, abusive. There's a real person behind this keyboard, and that basically, is the major point missed by all levels of WP governance. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Malleus |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
|
QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Mon 30th January 2012, 2:58am) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 27th January 2012, 11:03pm) QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 27th January 2012, 9:07pm) Encyclopedist is Rodhullandemu. Well, in this case, if Encyclopedist insists, I'd be happy to point out some bad blocks he imposed, although I believe his blocks although bad enough were mostly not as bad as the ones imposed by Gwen Gale. Rodhullandemu also blocked editors with whom he was edit-warring , but at least I do not believe he has ever said the block was for vandalism. Gwen Gale did, which means she's not just a bully but a dishonest bully as well. This thread is about yet another bad block imposed by Gwen Gale . She blocked this user while involved with him (edit warring on the same article). The user was blocked at 15:04, 28 June 2008 for so called "vandalism" . In a few places Gwen Gale lied she edited the article only after the block. She edited this article a lot before and after the block. Actually Gwen Gale wrote this article, when she still edited as Wyss , but let's see June 28,2008: Gwen Gale was edit warring with the very same editor she later blocked . The user was not vandalizing the article. It was clearly good faith edits. Interestingly enough after blocking the user while so heavily involved, and being told and agreeing she should not have done it , Gwen Gale blocked him again just two days later on 22:38, 30 June 2008 in spite of being "not happy with having been the blocking admin". And after that she edit-warred with another user and blocked him for spamming, and then edit-warred with another user and blocked him for BLP where there was none, and so on. Oh, well, it looks like Gwen Gale has many more dishonest friends in govcom than Rodhullandemu does(did) What a fucking disgrace. To begin with, it's common knowledge here that Encyclopedist=Rodhullandemu=me. Apart from that, it doesn't take much effort to find that out. Otherwise, I stand apart from Gwen Gale, and I stand by each and every one of my blocks, and thanks to whoever linked to them above. Maybe some were dubious, according to some, but in my view necessary to protect Wikipedia from being wrong or incomplete - a view of the article history of Cilla Black will show that, and I was perfectly prepared to discuss the policy issues involved in that, and other cases. However, being an admin isn't guaranteed to make you friends, or get you laid, but is a job that needs to be done. But I've found that since I've not been an Admin, that I really, really do not care that much about Wikipedia any more if its government does not recognise good faith by volunteers. In short, WP has become dysfunctional, it's strusctural government is just wrong, and in such circumstances is doomed to fall apart, and quite rapidly. I have no friends in ArbCom, dishonest or otherwise, and to be honest, I wouldn't want any. The 2010 elected tranche seemed to be directed towards improving the processes, but they have failed to address the basic problem that in a community-based, decentralsied project, government is somehow irrelevant, and accordingly, the exercise of their powers is both irrelevant and, in my own case, abusive. There's a real person behind this keyboard, and that basically, is the major point missed by all levels of WP governance. Hmm. You stand by all your blocks? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 29th January 2012, 11:34pm) I also have question to Encyclopedist. It is a general question. Do you agree that no block ever should be imposed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INV...Involved_admins ? For my understanding of involved admin you could read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_fo...s_when_involved and if you'd like to, I'd interested to hear your opinion on the blocks described in this section. I'll answer this. No, I don't agree, and I wrote extensively on this on Wikiversity, mostly to no effect. The question, properly, is not involvement, but appearance of involvement, and this has been poorly understood. Whenever there is a reasonable appearance of involvement, an administrator should *routinely* recuse. Recusal would mean that the administrator, instead of directly acting, would request action, as if they were not an administrator. I claimed that it would be enough for a user to *claim* bias to create a recusal requirement. However, a general claim that all administrators are biased would be of no effect. Rather, it would be specific. A user should not be able to make themselves unblockable by claiming bias on the part of all administrators, or all available administrators. I wrote similarly on ArbComm pages, in RfAr/Abd and William M. Connolley, and the cabal claimed that this would be wikilawyered by editors to no end. False claim. In practice, it would simply mean that an administrator could not unilaterally maintain a block against a complaining editor. One administrator, and then another, or at most a defined list, which would be a small fraction of the total administrative corps. By the time an editor had been blocked a few times, they'd be indeffed, if they really were committing offenses and not responding to warnings. Because of the existence of factions, who do back each other up, almost knee-jerk, this policy would still not be quite enough, but there are other measures that would identify factions and interdict collaborative blocking. ArbComm was utterly uninterested in proposals that would actually implement policy. They have long been far more interested in protecting those whom they see as the core volunteers, i.e., people like them. Administrators. In any case, I also laid out procedures for emergency action in the presence of a recusal requirement. Basically, any administrator could declare an "emergency," a situation where delay in action could reasonably be asserted as causing harm. The administrator, in this situation, would block to prevent harm, but would immediately recuse and would further notify the administrative corps, in a neutral way, that they had blocked and recused. They would be inviting review, and would be obligated to avoid wheel-warring, and undoing their block would not be considered wheel-warring, itself. It would be an independent judgment, for which the new blocking administrator would be responsible. Absent guidelines like this, administrators are at sea, without a compass. Development of such guidelines has been restricted, for obvious reasons. People don't like to be restricted, and often don't understand that restrictions bring a different kind of freedom. Sane recusal policy would avoid a great deal of unnecessary conflict. But the Wikipediots aren't sane. They are obsessed with their own power, and don't understand how true community power would operate. The "community" they "enjoy" is one of independent actors who only coordinate accidentally, for the most part, each serving his or her own purpose. They imagine, many of them, that they have a common purpose, which vanishes when one leans on it. Humans are designed to form functional communities, face to face, it's instinctive. Text can weakly imitate that, but only where the missing communication -- which is mostly non-verbal, and high-bandwidth -- is supplied by imagination. It works, sort of, where the imaginations are sufficiently coincidental. The rapport generated is imaginary, though, and easily corrupted. |
|
|
|
|
|
| A Horse With No Name |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
|
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 30th January 2012, 11:38am)
Cunt.
(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Sun 29th January 2012, 9:58pm) ...a view of the article history of Cilla Black will show that, and I was perfectly prepared to discuss the policy issues involved in that, and other cases.
Yes, but will you be willing to admit that Dionne Warwick's interpretation of Burt Bacharach's tunes was superior to Cilla Black's? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 30th January 2012, 10:29am)
Humans are designed to form functional communities, face to face, it's instinctive.
Except when you have the urge to do it doggy-style. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 30th January 2012, 2:15pm) QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 30th January 2012, 10:29am) Humans are designed to form functional communities, face to face, it's instinctive. Except when you have the urge to do it doggy-style. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) If there is no face-to-face, but only that style, it might be fun, but isn't likely to form a real community. Isn't from the rear how Wikipedia admins treat regular editors? Something about the eyes is powerful. That admins don't see those whom they block (and are not seen) is an important element in the dysfunction, and truly functional structure would probably create lots of local groups that would meet face-to-face. They would be everywhere. And members of them would protect each other, generally. Thinking of cabals, we might think that a Bad Thing. It wouldn't be, for with the protection would also come community restraint. The cabals we've seen on Wikipedia are only a little based on face-to-face meetings, which are relatively rare and shallow, compared to what I have in mind. They are mostly based on common interests, creating short-term collaboration. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Web Fred |
|
Pervert & Swinger
Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined:
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 30th January 2012, 9:56pm) QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sun 29th January 2012, 10:21pm)
"Do you think that's air you're breathing now?"
--Morpheus
In The Matrix, interesting things happened. Does WebHamster calling RH&E a "cunt" really have to substitute for Neo fighting with Agent Smith? If so, I want my money back! It's all in the delivery. Not that you would know that of course. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 8,944
|
QUOTE(Malleus @ Mon 30th January 2012, 4:16am) Hmm. You stand by all your blocks? Not necessarily; being human, I am bound to make mistakes. But at the time I made those blocks, I sincerely believed they were necessary to protect Wikipedia from "clear and present danger", and that's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. Editing WP should be denied to those who do not subscribe to its principles, and as far as I'm concerned, those who I blocked failed to subscribe, and accept the rules of the game. Of course, they were free to challenge my blocks by requesting unblocking, and I'd say that about 1 in 100 did so. However, only 1 in 10 of those were successful, and some of them I revisited myself and changed my opinion- and TBH, few Admins in my experience have ever been prepared to do that. QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 30th January 2012, 4:34am) I also have question to Encyclopedist. It is a general question. Do you agree that no block ever should be imposed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INV...Involved_admins ? For my understanding of involved admin you could read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_fo...s_when_involved and if you'd like to, I'd interested to hear your opinion on the blocks described in this section. See above. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 8,944
|
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 30th January 2012, 4:38pm) QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Mon 30th January 2012, 2:58am) ...and I stand by each and every one of my blocks...
You blocked me once or twice. Cunt. Link to the blocks and I'll see if they were justified, as I saw it at the time. Otherwise, I don't think I *am* a cunt, because if I were, I wouldn't give a toss about you. Clearly, I give a toss about my reputation, but not with those who call me a cunt with no apparent reason. Up to you. This post has been edited by Encyclopedist: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 8,944
|
QUOTE(Malleus @ Mon 30th January 2012, 6:36pm) QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 30th January 2012, 4:38pm) QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Mon 30th January 2012, 2:58am) ...and I stand by each and every one of my blocks...
You blocked me once or twice. Cunt. And also a liar, according to an email I received from him. Please elucidate, but take great care before doing so. Bear in mind I know not only who you are, but also exactly where you live. Not that I would take advantage of that myself, of course, but others might, and I wouldn't want you to come to any harm, particularly since ArbCom seem to have it in for you, if I read between the lines of the discussions that they still lovingly think are secret. To quote Willie Nelson "they ain't". Otherwise, happy birthday for a coupla weeks ago, and keep on furtling those ferrets. Best wishes, Eric, but you need to know who your allies are, and don't piss them off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
