My postscript to Jimbo Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I recently initiated a poll at the Wikipedia Review, asking this question: Which admins most consistently abuse admin powers, in violation of Wikipedia's stated policies? In my appended comment, I said the following: "I propose that we Assume Good Faith, and offer Jimbo our consensus-based advice on which admins most consistently abuse their authority in defiance of Wikipedia policies."

The top five vote-getters thus far are, in descending order:

1. SlimVirgin
2. Snowspinner tied with Raul654
4. Will Beback
5. Jayjg

I would like to add the following postscript to Jimbo: if you would like to demonstrate to Wikipedia's critics, whose ranks are swelling rapidly now, that you will not tolerate a Wikipedia dominated by a culture of corrupt and abusive admins, then I propose that you also intervene to overrule the ArbCom in the case called Everyking 3. Everyking has frequently and justifiably spoken out against abuses by his fellow admins, and for his trouble, has been penalized by the ArbCom. I believe that this case has done much to reinforce the belief among rank-and-file editors that the ArbCom and many admins are hopelessly corrupt.

This post has been edited by Herschelkrustofsky: Tue 6th June 2006, 1:18pm

[blissyu2]

I would add that Jimbo should consider reinstating Karmafist, who was desysopped because he upheld the Wikipedia rules against Snowspinner, who wilfully violated them during the Userbox dispute, and Karmafist failed a subsequent request for adminship purely based around being a critic. Karmafist represents the very best in Wikipedia administrators, and should be considered to be someone who Wikipedia should never have allowed to have been desysopped, essentially, for being a critic.

[guy]

Hear, hear!

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I sent an email to Jimbo with a text version of this thread. Jimbo responded as follows:

I would add that Jimbo should consider reinstating Karmafist, who was desysopped because he upheld the Wikipedia rules against Snowspinner, who wilfully violated them during the Userbox dispute, and Karmafist failed a subsequent request for adminship purely based around being a critic. Karmafist represents the very best in Wikipedia administrators, and should be considered to be someone who Wikipedia should never have allowed to have been desysopped, essentially, for being a critic.

This is not factually accurate. Karmafist was not desysopped for upholding wikipedia rules against Snowspinner, he was desysopped for wheel warring.

As to the rest, I found it unpersuasive. It is one thing to say that a list of banned users, most of whom I know as being quite difficult users to say the very least, hates the admins who got them banned. That's
pretty uninteresting.

What would be more interesting would be to show some actual diffs showing actual abuse.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

My response to Jimbo:

"I am personally unfamilar with some of the high-scoring admins in the poll. However, of the ones with which I have had encounters Wikipedia -- SlimVirgin and Will Beback -- I would say that there is a great deal of very persuasive evidence of their misconduct in the various Requests for Comment (SlimVirgin1 and SlimVirgin2, for example) and ArbCom cases such as Rangerdude. My sense, from my limited experience at Wikipedia, is that the ArbCom has shown consistent favoritism, turning a blind eye to damning evidence of misconduct. I suspect that other posters at the Wikipedia Review can make detailed arguments as well. But I thought that it was actually unlikely that you would wade through the minutia, and that it might be of some use to you to know the "consensus."

[Sgrayban]

What would be more interesting would be to show some actual diffs showing actual abuse.

He is joking right? HK did you doctor that email? (j/k)

If he can't spot abuse then I am not surprised at all with all the admin going ape-shit and getting away with it.

He could always read my blog about good ole Adam Carr and see his "diffs" there. Plenty of abuse in them but I really doubt he will.

If Jimbo was nothing but hot air he would be floating in the clouds right now.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

A further response from Jimbo:

"I am personally unfamilar with some of the high-scoring admins in the poll. However, of the ones with which I have had encounters Wikipedia -- SlimVirgin and Will Beback -- I would say that there is a great deal of very persuasive evidence of their misconduct in the various Requests for Comment (SlimVirgin1 and SlimVirgin2, for example) and ArbCom cases such as Rangerdude. My sense, from my limited experience at Wikipedia, is that the ArbCom has shown consistent favoritism, turning a blind eye to damning evidence of misconduct. I suspect that other posters at the Wikipedia Review can make detailed arguments as well. But I thought that it was actually unlikely that you would wade through the minutia, and that it might be of some use to you to know the "consensus."

Well, it is useful to me yes. I would like to wade through the minutia though. This gives me as good a starting point as anything, I suppose.

To which I responded:

"I have no doubt that the denizens of the Wikipedia Review would love to compile diffs for you on the top-scoring abusive admins in the poll. I will post a request and it will be duly forwarded to you. HK"

[danielshays]

I sent an email to Jimbo with a text version of this thread. Jimbo responded as follows:

What would be more interesting would be to show some actual diffs showing actual abuse.

He can look in his database any day of the week and see which admins are calling contributors trolls, but he won't do it because he uses the same juvenille hasty generalization as a standard tool himself.

What would be most interesting would be if he took some original interest in the matter and did his own research. I could show him diffs, but I would rather save my best examples to give to someone to spring on him when he is in front of a neutral audience. I'm no more interested in helping him take out his trash than I am interested in helping him compile a hodge-podge of random information that he calls an encyclopedia.

I know this is a late reply but all I can say to this is Hear, Hear and right on Bro!

[Herschelkrustofsky]

More correspondence with Jimbo:

Jimbo quotes Herschelkrustofsky:
User talk:Cognition - Harassment by Snowspinner and Willmcw/Will Beback

User talk:Cognition - More harrassment from Snowspinner and Will Beback

Jimbo responds:

The very first example I looked at was shocking to me, but not for the
reason you might imagine. I am shocked that Snowspinner and Will Beback
were so kind and thoughtful towards Cognition. If it had been me, I
would have banned him on sight without a glance back.

Surely you don't mean to suggest that a friendy dialogue with a troll
and copyright violator is admin abuse?

Don't waste my time. Find me a better example.
begin:vcard
fn:Jimmy Wales
n:Wales;Jimmy
org:Wikia, Inc.
email;internet:jwales@wikia.com
title:Chairman

My response to Jimbo:

"Snowspinner and Will Beback harbored a strong animus toward Cognition because of political disagreements. Their focus on a minor procedural detail, which they would have cheerfully overlooked were it any other editor, represented grasping at straws, nit-picking in the extreme. You can attempt to defend the conduct of Snowspinner and Will Beback as technically correct, but you will be missing the point. If you continue to miss the point, the tendency among Wikipedia's critics, to blame "the cabal" while giving you the benefit of the doubt, is likely to shift."

[DrPoodle]

Wikipedia can be a great source of information if it is in the hands of competant and uncorrupt individuals. Unfortunately, most of the Administrative team there are worse than the "abusers" they act against. I can't believe that Jimbo Wales is so blind as to ignore perfectly good reasons against his Admin team!

[Skyring]

Wikipedia can be a great source of information if it is in the hands of competant and uncorrupt individuals. Unfortunately, most of the Administrative team there are worse than the "abusers" they act against. I can't believe that Jimbo Wales is so blind as to ignore perfectly good reasons against his Admin team!

In my experience I find that most admins are fine, decent, thoughtful people. A handful abuse the system and do it in such a way that they continue to function as admins.

Jimbo doesn't rule WP with an iron fist. In fact he didn't have sysop powers until recently. He asks admins or Arbcom to look into and act on things; he very rarely intervenes directly.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Jimbo doesn't rule WP with an iron fist. In fact he didn't have sysop powers until recently. He asks admins or Arbcom to look into and act on things; he very rarely intervenes directly.

However, the people who do rule Wikipedia with an iron fist, the ArbCom, are now appointed by Jimbo. And the above quotes don't indicate a casual indifference on Jimbo's part to abusive admins -- rather, they appear to be a wholehearted endorsement.

[Snowspinner]

Jimbo doesn't rule WP with an iron fist. In fact he didn't have sysop powers until recently. He asks admins or Arbcom to look into and act on things; he very rarely intervenes directly.

However, the people who do rule Wikipedia with an iron fist, the ArbCom, are now appointed by Jimbo. And the above quotes don't indicate a casual indifference on Jimbo's part to abusive admins -- rather, they appear to be a wholehearted endorsement.

You're not considering all the possibilities here.

It could also be that you're completely wrong that I'm an abusive admin. Or, more charitably, that after looking at your evidence, Jimbo disagrees with you on whether I'm an abusive admin.

[Skyring]

Jimbo doesn't rule WP with an iron fist. In fact he didn't have sysop powers until recently. He asks admins or Arbcom to look into and act on things; he very rarely intervenes directly.

However, the people who do rule Wikipedia with an iron fist, the ArbCom, are now appointed by Jimbo. And the above quotes don't indicate a casual indifference on Jimbo's part to abusive admins -- rather, they appear to be a wholehearted endorsement.

If you look on Jimbo as a constitutional monarch - more figurehead than all-powerful - then his position is pretty much as defined by Bagehot and you will not be likely to see any overt criticism of the "government".

As for being appointed by Jimbo, ArbCom members aren't just plucked from the general population. They are formally appointed because someone has to do it, and for senior positions, Jimbo is the obvious candidate. They are all approved by the community.

Mind you, the approval process is suspect, as people are allowed multiple votes - one for or against each candidate, leading to the skewing of results. It's as if every voter in the USA was entitled to vote in every Congressional district. You wouldn't get a scattering of Republicans here and a scattering of Democrats there - you'd get pretty much the same ratio of R/D support in every district. As yet WP doesn't have parties, but it's moving that way.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

If you look on Jimbo as a constitutional monarch - more figurehead than all-powerful - then his position is pretty much as defined by Bagehot and you will not be likely to see any overt criticism of the "government".

Actually, I look on him more as a doge.