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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> "JzG does not need a consensus to block", "...only a belief that a block is appropriate"
Kato
post Sat 19th April 2008, 8:14pm
Post #1


dhd
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined: Fri 29th Dec 2006, 8:39pm
Member No.: 767




"JzG does not need a consensus to block, only a belief that a block is appropriate."


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=206590556

Another admin explains and supports JzG's peculiar privileges on Wikipedia.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Random832
post Sat 19th April 2008, 8:33pm
Post #2


meh
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,933
Joined: Thu 14th Feb 2008, 8:52pm
Member No.: 4,844

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



That's no peculiar privilege - that's just another example of "Wikipedia doesn't do due process".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
One
post Sat 19th April 2008, 8:42pm
Post #3


Postmaster General
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 10:49am
Member No.: 4,284

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



No it is a peculiar privilege. Using similar logic, WJBscribe could have said that LHvU needs no consensus to unblock. That's a respectable vision of admin wild west egalitarianism.

Instead of saying that, WJBscribe issues a grave warning to any who would cross JzG.

JzG, it seems, is more equal than others.

This post has been edited by One: Sun 20th April 2008, 12:04am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Proabivouac
post Sat 19th April 2008, 10:45pm
Post #4


Bane of all wikiland
*******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined: Thu 23rd Aug 2007, 8:25am
Member No.: 2,647

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 19th April 2008, 8:14pm) *


"JzG does not need a consensus to block, only a belief that a block is appropriate."


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=206590556

Another admin explains and supports JzG's peculiar privileges on Wikipedia.

How about a reasonable belief that a block is a appropriate? Appealing to Guy's beliefs would only make sense if his judgment were halfway sound, when it's so plainly not.

QUOTE(One @ Sat 19th April 2008, 8:42pm) *

JzG, it seems, is more equal than others.

That might also make sense, if this were based on merit. The trouble isn't that some administrators are more equal then others, but that these more-equal administrators aren't selected by merit or for good judgment, don't enjoy the confidence of the community, and don't behave ethically or responsibly.

And there appears to be no way to remedy this situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...or_comment/JzG2

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Sat 19th April 2008, 10:52pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
michael
post Sun 20th April 2008, 12:17am
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri 9th Mar 2007, 12:47am
Member No.: 1,097



QUOTE(Random832 @ Sat 19th April 2008, 1:33pm) *

That's no peculiar privilege - that's just another example of "Wikipedia doesn't do due process".


I thought that the only thing that governored properness of a block was the blocking policy, which was derived from consensus.

The way I see it, I could block JzG right now even though I don't have a consensus and I believe it's appropriate.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd 5 13, 1:22pm