| |
|
  |
 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Web Fred |
|
Pervert & Swinger
Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined:
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141
|
QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Tue 31st January 2012, 1:29am) 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. The justification of the blocks bears no relationship to my opinion of you. Anyone who has ever blocked me is a cunt. Except for Chillum, he's a mother-fucking, cock-sucking cunt. Be grateful that you're just a cunt. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 8,944
|
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! I'm not that bothered about being called a cunt; it's a meaningless epithet, and water off a duck's back. I've lived in Merseyside, so I know its meaninglesness. I'd be more concerned by other epithets, but, to be honest, not many of them. QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sat 28th January 2012, 11:35pm) 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. No. As pointed out above, wrong venue. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Web Fred |
|
Pervert & Swinger
Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined:
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141
|
QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Tue 31st January 2012, 1:39am) 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. LMAO, hey Mal, this southern Nancy thinks he can take you. (IMG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MeSmokies.jpg) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 8,944
|
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Tue 31st January 2012, 1:43am) QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Tue 31st January 2012, 1:29am) 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. The justification of the blocks bears no relationship to my opinion of you. Anyone who has ever blocked me is a cunt. Except for Chillum, he's a mother-fucking, cock-sucking cunt. Be grateful that you're just a cunt. Forgive me if I don't take you seriously. Your attitude is probably part of why I blocked you, and, to be honest I make no apology for that. As regards Wikipedia, you might just want to grow up a little. This post has been edited by Encyclopedist: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vigilant |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined:
Member No.: 8,684
|
QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Tue 31st January 2012, 1:39am) 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. AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA SCARY FACE, GRRRRRRYou remind me of Jeff Merkey |
|
|
|
|
|
| Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 8,944
|
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Tue 31st January 2012, 1:55am) QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Tue 31st January 2012, 1:52am) ... you might just want to grow up a little.
Many have tried to persuade me, but I see absolutely no purpose in it. As a dyed-in-the-wool hedonist I've discovered over the decades that there is absolutely no advantage in "growing up". Then editing Wikipedia is not for you, and you've retrospectively validated my blocks of you. Editing WP is not for children, of any age, in my opinion, although those who can do so constructively deserve the kudos; but it's not some online game. Perhaps you can find some online tarts via MS Messenger who would be willing to show you their fannies, because that's where I think you belong, if only to get some experience of real life. Myself, I'm no longer 14. Cheers. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 8,944
|
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 30th January 2012, 7:15pm) 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) More like "A Horse With No Point", although I'll give credit for it being late at night, and you are probably intixocated. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Web Fred |
|
Pervert & Swinger
Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined:
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141
|
QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Tue 31st January 2012, 2:02am) QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Tue 31st January 2012, 1:55am) QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Tue 31st January 2012, 1:52am) ... you might just want to grow up a little.
Many have tried to persuade me, but I see absolutely no purpose in it. As a dyed-in-the-wool hedonist I've discovered over the decades that there is absolutely no advantage in "growing up". Myself, I'm no longer 14 You're still banned though, I'm just blocked. Just shows what a cunt they think you are I suppose. So being a grown up had no benefit at all now did it? QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Tue 31st January 2012, 2:06am)
More like "A Horse With No Point", although I'll give credit for it being late at night, and you are probably intixocated.
Is that what happens when one ingests too much Tixylix cough medicine? QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 31st January 2012, 2:12am) QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Mon 30th January 2012, 6:02pm)
Myself, I'm no longer 14. Cheers.
Some man-children never seem to grow up. Thank fuck for that I say. There's nothing worse than having to behave grown up and have to do grown up things when one doesn't have to. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 8,944
|
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Tue 31st January 2012, 2:19am) QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Tue 31st January 2012, 2:02am) QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Tue 31st January 2012, 1:55am) QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Tue 31st January 2012, 1:52am) ... you might just want to grow up a little.
Many have tried to persuade me, but I see absolutely no purpose in it. As a dyed-in-the-wool hedonist I've discovered over the decades that there is absolutely no advantage in "growing up". Myself, I'm no longer 14 You're still banned though, I'm just blocked. Just shows what a cunt they think you are I suppose. So being a grown up had no benefit at all now did it? QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Tue 31st January 2012, 2:06am)
More like "A Horse With No Point", although I'll give credit for it being late at night, and you are probably intixocated.
Is that what happens when one ingests too much Tixylix cough medicine? QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 31st January 2012, 2:12am) QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Mon 30th January 2012, 6:02pm)
Myself, I'm no longer 14. Cheers.
Some man-children never seem to grow up. Thank fuck for that I say. There's nothing worse than having to behave grown up and have to do grown up things when one doesn't have to. Thanks for convincing me that you're a waste of space, and of my time. I was coming round to that opinion, but you saved me the timel |
|
|
|
|
|
| mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Tue 31st January 2012, 1:25am) 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. Do you then believe then that admins who banned yourself "sincerely believed it was necessary to protect Wikipedia from "clear and present danger""? Another point to make is this: Do you understand that a single mistake could make a good faith contributor to leave. Remember !! (T-C-L-K-R-D)
]. The mistake was fixed, the admin who blocked him was desypoed but the user is gone. Besides how many users you blocked appealed the block proves absolutely nothing. See the beginning of this topic. Gwen Gale blocked an established editor, who just made a good faith, encyclopedic edit as vandalism only account, and he has never asked to be unblocked. This post has been edited by mbz1: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 8,944
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Tue 31st January 2012, 7:37am) QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Tue 31st January 2012, 1:25am) 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. Do you then believe then that admins who banned yourself "sincerely believed it was necessary to protect Wikipedia from "clear and present danger""? Another point to make is this: Do you understand that a single mistake could make a good faith contributor to leave. Remember !! (T-C-L-K-R-D)
]. The mistake was fixed, the admin who blocked him was desypoed but the user is gone. Besides how many users you blocked appealed the block proves absolutely nothing. See the beginning of this topic. Gwen Gale blocked an established editor, who just made a good faith, encyclopedic edit as vandalism only account, and he has never asked to be unblocked. I was not banned by Admins; I was banned by ArbCom, who quite plainly were looking for an excuse to do so, and who managed to find a vague, unsubstantiated pretext for doing so. As for "clear and present danger", that's a non-starter since it is apparent from their deliberations on my adminship that they thought I had been a poor Admin for a long time, although (a) nothing had been done about that, either formally or informally until the Malleus thing blew up, giving them a reason for acting, regardless of the merits, and (b) having being forced into the position of acting, they took any opportunity they could to not only desysop me, but also ban me. Well, on reflection, that isn't my loss: it's Wikipedia's and I am currently doing what I can at Commons. But there are still vandalised pages on my watchlist that remain vandalised, and there's nothing I can do about that except when the time is right to forward the list of them I've collected and forward it to Cade Metz at The Register under the banner "This is what happens to Wikipedia when you ban people who know what they're doing". As for Gwen Gale, and her blocks, it's nothing to do with me. I've repeatedly asked for examples of blocks I've made that didn't benefit the encyclopedia, and ArbCom didn;t provide them and I suspect neither will anyone else. Meanwhile, best wishes to all at UK postcode M32 8DR. Evenin' all! This post has been edited by Encyclopedist: |
|
|
|
|
|
| mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Wed 1st February 2012, 1:00am)
I was not banned by Admins; I was banned by ArbCom, who quite plainly were looking for an excuse to do so, and who managed to find a vague, unsubstantiated pretext for doing so.
But why would they desysop a prominent, good faith admin? Are you suggesting that members of govcom together with Jimbo (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) conspired against you with no good reason? Are you suggesting that there was not a singly decent and honest member of govcom to stop this unwarranted persecution? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/scream.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 8,944
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 1st February 2012, 5:50pm) QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Wed 1st February 2012, 1:00am)
I was not banned by Admins; I was banned by ArbCom, who quite plainly were looking for an excuse to do so, and who managed to find a vague, unsubstantiated pretext for doing so.
But why would they desysop a prominent, good faith admin? Are you suggesting that members of govcom together with Jimbo (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) conspired against you with no good reason? Are you suggesting that there was not a singly decent and honest member of govcom to stop this unwarranted persecution? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/scream.gif) Look at the evidence presented by Elen of the Roads in my ArbCom case; there's nothing there that couldn't have been dealt with *at the time it arose* and, if there appeared to be a problem, sorted before it even hit ArbCom. I was open to negotiation, except that nobody ever negotiated with me, and the background involves Roger Davies's apparent hatred of me since the Cilla Black incident; you'd have to go way back in the history to see that, but he was a prime mover in my desysopping, behind the scenes, perhaps, and for that alone, he should be shot- slowly. Elen was given a poisoned chalice to deliver- and managed it with some aplomb, not that my case hadn't been predetermined by those who hated me. So much for that; there are many good-natured people who've been pushed beyond natural limits by those who just don't get it, and I am only one. As for the collective decisions of ArbCom, they are just that- collective and their discussions are- or were- secret, and they don't give dissenting viewpoints on their decisions, and I have never received any communication from an Arb that said that he/she disagreed with the decision- that's collective responsibility to the point of being a ducks arse, and although it has some benefits politically, it ain't human. Likewise my appeal to Jimbo; his starting point was my ArbCom, and that must have coloured his opinion. Not once did he ask me for clarification of anyathing he found. But it's worse than that- he's so far out of it that his stated default stance is to back up ArbCom without question, which he has consistently done in the last couple of years or so. That, sadly, only supports the contention that he really would prefer to be somewhere else and not take on that role. OK. Let him pass it back to the WP community; meanwhile, ubergod he is not, he's become just some media hack who goes round the world on expenses selling an unrealistic and impractical dream. Apart from that, like most active Admins, I'd attracted some criticism, most of it factional in nature, but that's just par for the course. I wasn't going to ignore WP policies just because some people didn't approve of my way of applying them- if this had been a general issue for me, there would have been an RFC/Admin long before my ArbCom case- but there wasn't. If anyone cares, go through my Talk page archives- ignore the death threats because although upsetting, they are meaningless in real terms- and contrast the balance of praise/criticism and enquiry & advice/other discussion. That's all for now. I have to sort out my stuff to move house in a couple of weeks, so I'll be busy. This post has been edited by Encyclopedist: |
|
|
|
|
|
| mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
Encyclopedist, I would like to ask you, if, when you supported Gwen's RFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...hip/Gwen_Gale_2 were you aware about these statements of her made by one of her other accounts Wyss (T-C-L-K-R-D)
? QUOTE I'd also suggest that the wanton enabling of trolls and fools on Wikipedia gives the petty cyber-castle builders endless excuses to waste time on them with RfArs, RfCs, mentor committees, IRC watchlist feeds, loopy talk page discussions/scoldings, insincere civility patrols and other process-oriented, attention-getting stuff they think will help them get elected to roles in the bureaucracy... anything to avoid true volunteer work, the writing of an encyclopedia founded on scholarly principles. Wyss 18:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC) QUOTE I don't like the notion of wading through a cyber-waste dump of coddled trolls, fools and mob-think police to edit the 1% of articles most Wikipedians don't care about. Wyss 07:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC) QUOTE However, ridding WP of fools and trolls would eliminate (in my humble opinion) about 80% of the site's active user base along with at least half of its admins. I think Wales has known this for years and has his own reasons for not doing it. So what is Wikipedia truly efficient at?
If Wikipedia is so inefficient at generating quality content (hundreds, sometimes thousands of person-hours will wontedly result in a mediocre, unscholarly article), what is Wikipedia efficient at? Traffic is the name of the game, as is fame. Encyclopedia writing is not a mass market hook
Scholastically inclinced reference projects, while perhaps exciting to weird (grin) people like me, are in truth boring to most but without selectivity as to participating editors, WP's content will be driven by mob tyranny. Face it, half of all people are of below average cleverness, and many of the other half are either indifferent to volunteering their time to an academic project or shouldn't be trusted if they do express interest, since maybe half of them would come only as articulate hucksters. Worse, qualified people tend not to have a lot of spare time, so online projects like this risk attracting more than their share of tossers and impaired outcasts, even into its bureaucracy (or dominant clique) who themselves have not a clue how or why they are being used in the furtherance of non-encyclopedic goals. How's that for stark talking? Wyss 15:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC) QUOTE Once you've read Wikiruth, it's hard to think of Wikipedia as anything other than an autistic care ... I mean, I understand people change, but the above was said not by a teenaged girl. It was written by 30 years old woman(no outting, info is taken from her bio written by herself on Wiki). Her performance as an admin demonstrated she did not change. This post has been edited by mbz1: |
|
|
|
|
|
| jd turk |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 183
Joined:
Member No.: 5,976
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 1st February 2012, 10:31pm) Encyclopedist, I would like to ask you, if, when you supported Gwen's RFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...hip/Gwen_Gale_2 were you aware about these statements of her made by one of her other accounts Wyss (T-C-L-K-R-D)
? I've been gone from here for weeks now, and I return to find Mbz1 still swinging at Gwen Gale, using 6+ year old diffs as evidence. It actually makes me feel good, there's at least something in my life that's consistent. As for bad blocks, they're not just exclusive to Gwen or any of the other couple of admins brought up in this thread. What bothers me the most about bad blocks is when an admin issues one, then vanishes. The recent (probably 3 months, maybe?) example that comes to mind involved an admin swooping in and leveling a block on a good faith editor with over a thousand edits, and no warning. When the confusion happened, the admin just split. The block was rightfully overturned, the admin waited out the anger, then came back and all was calmer and forgiven. There's no accountability for the bad blocks. There should be a permanent record for admins, like there is at the long-term abuse page for the blocked. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
