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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Adam Brookes, User:Adambro asserts his custodial rights and perogatives
Moulton
post Thu 5th August 2010, 1:28pm
Post #1


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



From the Wikiversity Colloquium...

QUOTE(Wikiversity Colloquium)
The alleged discretionary "rights" of Wikiversity custodians

Adambro said here,

QUOTE(Adambro)
I absolutely retain the right to use my custodian rights in accordance with what I judge to be in the interests of the project and in accordance with the views of the community.

Adambro certainly has mixed "rights" with "privileges". But that is not my main point. In essence he believes he can competently act as police, judge and jury at the same time, and at every instance that he interests himself in, just based on what he thinks Wikiversity should be, and even in the face of community opposition.

I do not know if that has ever been the consensus or custom of Wikiversity. However, from what I know from the very early days Wikiversity custodians has never been explicitly endowed with any "rights" and they only act as functionaries who would act on behalf of the community, and hence the title "custodian", in clear distinction from Wikipedia "administrator". [So please don't say we are Wikimedia blablabla and it has always been like that blablabla.] The use of the custodial tools by custodians may have changed through practice, and I would like the Wikiversity community to establish consensus on what discretions, in particular blocking others from participations, we allow our functionaries to make.

Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

_________________


You might be better raising any concerns you have about the general use of blocks at Wikiversity talk:Blocking policy where the development of a policy regarding this can be discussed. I'm not quite sure how you conclude that I believe I can act "based on what he thinks Wikiversity should be, and even in the face of community opposition" when in the quote you highlight I specifically said that I would use my custodian rights in accordance with both "what I judge to be in the interests of the project and in accordance with the views of the community". On the issue of my "custodian rights", I refer to the ability to block as a custodian right because that is what it is widely referred to as. You can find a list of the rights that members of the Custodians group have at Special:ListGroupRights.

Adambro 12:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

_________________


These problems are not here because of missing policies. Policies may help to solve actually problems, but on the other hands, they will build up barriers around custodians, who will no longer be possible to use their brains and fantasy, to fix problems.

Juan de Vojníkov 12:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

_________________


I agree that would be nice to know. I'd also like to know in general what discretion anyone has to make any independent decisions. Is the impact that a decision has part of what discretion people are willing to give anyone? I believe that is usually true on other wikimedia projects. A decision to rename a resource usually only impacts the people working on the resource and the people reading the resource for example. If most people do the things that Custodians block for that would have more of a direct impact on the Wikiversity community, than if only a few people do the things that Custodians block for. Is having a direct impact a consideration as well? I think where people stand on issues that have no direct impact on them seems to vary.

darklama 13:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Thu 5th August 2010, 6:00pm
Post #2


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Adam Brookes has blocked some 70,000 IPs in four domains in three states, plus the entire IPv6 network, world-wide. Nonetheless, I briefly found a small unblocked range and exchanged a few brief remarks with User:JTNeill, a Bureaucrat on Wikiversity who is also a college professor in Canberra, Australia. He is working on a study project in a field that overlaps my own NSF-funded research.

For a few hours last night, while Adam slept, I was able to catch up with James Neill on his Wikiversity talk page...

QUOTE(Emotions and Motivation)
Emotions and Motivation

Hi James. I see you are working on a textbook project that explores Motivation and Emotion. As you may know, I have published some NSF-funded research on this topic, most of which is summarized in an article entitled Cognition, Affect, and Learning. Would you be interested in including or referencing any of the ideas or materials from that research? —Barry Kort 12:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Barry - this is a very relevant, appropriate resource - I've added a link in here for now: Motivation_and_emotion/Textbook#References and I hope we can learn from it. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be glad to work with your students on any of this material that they find of interest. Note that portions of it may have some daunting math, but I believe we can get past that with a little patience and some good metaphors. —Barry Kort 01:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

James, let me know if you need any custodial help with this course. Psychology always fascinates me and I'm pleased to see a spiffy new textbook will be coming out of this course!!! (Maybe next time you teach 102, we'll get a better introductory psychology wikibook tongue.gif) Geoff Plourde 06:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Barry and Geoff for your willingness and contributions already. Please feel welcome to join in - I'm pretty new to the topic myself - it will be a bit of an experiment, but in the past students have been amazed and appreciative of outside assistance via Wikiversity. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have got to say I find this incredibly inappropriate. Unblock Barry or don't, either way. But welcoming block evasion is just not acceptable. Thenub314 09:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand there's a long history here and that different people have different views, but from a personal point of view, I'm happy to work with good faith edits from any user. I'd be concerned about block evasion if it was vandalism etc. (I think it's a bit unnecessary when we undo/rollback constructive edits to Wikiversity). If/when the community and User:Moulton wish to undertake a community review to consider unblocking, then I would support this. In the meantime, a constructive edit is a constructive edit regardless of where it emanates from. If my intended approach is of particular concern then please share with me more about that - and maybe we can explore the issue in a wider discussion. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a community !vote about Moulton in the past. The way I see it there are two possibilities, first JWSchmidt is correct that this was a show trial, in which case one should be making an effort to get a true community !vote on the issue. The other possibility is that the community actually felt he should be blocked, in which case it is a bit out of line to invite him to edit with out first starting a community discussion. In the mean time (to me) it looks like your side stepping involving the community. Thenub314 13:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is good food for thought, thankyou. Personally, I am in favour of a new review in which Moulton can participate. But it's not clear whether Moulton wishes this and it would require first community consensus to detach/rename his account from the global block in order to allow logged in participation. I'm open to developments in this direction, but I haven't yet sensed much interest (there are lots of diverse views). In the meantime, for projects I'm working on, if any anonymous IP makes productive edits, I am grateful for them. I realise that this might cause some unease when such IP edits emanate from a user who has one or more blocked accounts - a kind of cognitive dissonance, perhaps. It could be helpful to explore more about we feel about constructive edits by people with blocked accounts. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Lets open a new review. But do not break community consensus please. We were talking about ban, not block - it is something different. Its long standing. And if I have a look what is Moulton doing elsewhere I will support his block here. --Juan de Vojníkov 13:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jtneill, you were neutral at the time of the ban discussion. Geoff was against the ban. I did not post as I was the enforcing admin. SB Johnny did not vote as he was the closing admin. Moulton has still not agreed to the most basic of terms to ensure he can come back - agreeing to stop using real names and to drop what happened in the past. Looking at the numbers and people's responses, I do not think that there will be any future consensus to undo that previous ban and Moulton, when talking before, stated that he did not want to be unbanned. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Thu 5th August 2010, 6:41pm
Post #3


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Meanwhile, back at the Colloquium...

QUOTE(Wikiversity Colloquium)
Adambro has succinctly stated the common-law rule for administrators. In the absence of specific and clear policy to the contrary, this is the most that we can expect from any custodian, it is actually a lesser standard that the custodian would, for example, agree to only act within the clear confines of explicit policy. Wikiversity could establish this latter standard, but I'd highly recommend against it. "Police" are not "judges," they exercise executive power, which only allows temporary, ad-hoc "judgment," pending a deeper process where the community (or government, or university administrator, for, say, campus police, up to and including courts) reviews the actions. If Adambro regularly abuses discretion, that should be specifically addressed, not the principle of discretion, which is essential. Until this community gives much clearer guidance to Adambro, he cannot be deeply faulted for his actions as long as they are not clearly contrary to policy. If someone believes that a specific action is problematic, or a set of specific actions, and this cannot be resolved by direct discussion, that should be taken to a report on Wikiversity:Custodian feedback for the community to advise the custodian and the person(s) with a complaint. Instead, we have a habit of ineffective complaint through useless discussion, here and there, which just wastes everyone's time while accomplishing nothing. --Abd 18:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sxeptomaniac
post Thu 5th August 2010, 7:01pm
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu 18th Oct 2007, 11:49pm
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 5th August 2010, 11:00am) *

QUOTE(Emotions and Motivation)

I have got to say I find this incredibly inappropriate. Unblock Barry or don't, either way. But welcoming block evasion is just not acceptable. Thenub314 09:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand there's a long history here and that different people have different views, but from a personal point of view, I'm happy to work with good faith edits from any user. I'd be concerned about block evasion if it was vandalism etc. (I think it's a bit unnecessary when we undo/rollback constructive edits to Wikiversity). If/when the community and User:Moulton wish to undertake a community review to consider unblocking, then I would support this. In the meantime, a constructive edit is a constructive edit regardless of where it emanates from. If my intended approach is of particular concern then please share with me more about that - and maybe we can explore the issue in a wider discussion. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


I don't get why some admins/editors feel that a game of virtual whack-a-mole is necessary. I guess it's their entertainment.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Thu 5th August 2010, 7:16pm
Post #5


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Moulton rolls his eyes.

Elsewhere in the discussions about Motivation, Emotions, and Learning, I posed a question...

What is the name (or description) of the affective emotional state signaled by rolling one's eyes?

In Yiddish culture, the act of rolling one's eyes is usually accompanied by the the utterance, "Oy."

My respondents compiled this set of terms for naming the associated affective emotional state:

Dismissive with lack of interest, annoyance, impatience, exasperation, mild contempt, or disregard.

Less common responses were "Bumptious" and "Apostrophic."

Other verbal expressions included:

"Bloody Hell."

"Oy, not this again."

"Uggh."

"Gey avec." ("Go away.")

"Bugger off."

"Let's don't. (And say we did.)."

"Go fly a kite."

"Go jump in the lake."

"Giddoudahere."

"It's just a shame that on Web 2.0, when people disagree about things, there is a chance some hoary gobshite like you might be poking around to wax ad tedium on the matter."

Compare "rolling one's eyes" to "scathing glances" and giving someone "the hairy eyeball."

But the term that most intrigued me was "Apostrophic" which means "turning aside" or "turning away" (as in "disregarding" or "failing to pay attention").

The oldest reference I know of to "glancing away" as a signal of contempt is in Genesis 4:3-5.

What's fascinating about that ancient Biblical reference is that it's also the oldest reference to "Bloody Hell."

This post has been edited by Moulton: Thu 5th August 2010, 7:35pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Thu 5th August 2010, 7:26pm
Post #6


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Contempt of Kort

QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Thu 5th August 2010, 3:01pm) *
I don't get why some admins/editors feel that a game of virtual whack-a-mole is necessary. I guess it's their entertainment.

I think it's more than mere entertainment. I think they really want to learn something about how to handle this situation when the roles are reversed (as they often are).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Thu 5th August 2010, 8:22pm
Post #7


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 5th August 2010, 3:26pm) *

Contempt of Kort

QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Thu 5th August 2010, 3:01pm) *
I don't get why some admins/editors feel that a game of virtual whack-a-mole is necessary. I guess it's their entertainment.

I think it's more than mere entertainment. I think they really want to learn something about how to handle this situation when the roles are reversed (as they often are).

No, I think it's really just a matter of personality. Playing whack-a-troll on a wiki isn't that much different from playing World of Warcraft, really.

The big difference between WOW and WMF is that the WMF game supposedly has meaning, and playing it is an altruistic pursuit.

I've never played WOW, but I suspect it's probably more fulfilling for the gamer, even if it isn't wrapped up in the trappings of social meaning and altruism.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Thu 5th August 2010, 9:04pm
Post #8


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Winning an individual round of battle produces a Dopamine High.

That's what keeps people playing addictive games where no skill is involved.

Adam Brookes and Jamie Lantzy can play their kneejerk Javertian roles without exercising any brain functions.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sxeptomaniac
post Thu 5th August 2010, 10:22pm
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu 18th Oct 2007, 11:49pm
From: Fresno, CA
Member No.: 3,542

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 5th August 2010, 1:22pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 5th August 2010, 3:26pm) *

Contempt of Kort

QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Thu 5th August 2010, 3:01pm) *
I don't get why some admins/editors feel that a game of virtual whack-a-mole is necessary. I guess it's their entertainment.

I think it's more than mere entertainment. I think they really want to learn something about how to handle this situation when the roles are reversed (as they often are).

No, I think it's really just a matter of personality.

This is probably a big part of it. Some people are just more rules-oriented than others, and see things mostly in black-and-white. I know Moulton likes to trot out his hierarchies and whatnot, but I prefer to just see it as the reality of dealing with people. They are what they are, and preaching jargon doesn't change a thing.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Mon 16th August 2010, 3:09pm
Post #10


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



From Twenty-Three Skidoo to Giddoudahere

QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Thu 5th August 2010, 6:22pm) *
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 5th August 2010, 1:22pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 5th August 2010, 3:26pm) *
Contempt of Kort
QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Thu 5th August 2010, 3:01pm) *
I don't get why some admins/editors feel that a game of virtual whack-a-mole is necessary. I guess it's their entertainment.
I think it's more than mere entertainment. I think they really want to learn something about how to handle this situation when the roles are reversed (as they often are).
No, I think it's really just a matter of personality.
This is probably a big part of it. Some people are just more rules-oriented than others, and see things mostly in black-and-white. I know Moulton likes to trot out his hierarchies and whatnot, but I prefer to just see it as the reality of dealing with people. They are what they are, and preaching jargon doesn't change a thing.

Some fraction of the population is Learning Resistant (if not downright Learning Disabled), meaning they are unreceptive to conventional teaching and preaching. However, it might be possible to reach them with comedic ballads or looney cartoons. Such genres work especially well if they are rich in adolescent jargon that adults don't understand.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pietkuip
post Mon 4th October 2010, 5:47pm
Post #11


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun 12th Jul 2009, 9:32pm
Member No.: 12,524

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



On Commons, Adambro has now capriciously blocked three contributors (me and two others) for reverting the addition of a category to a few images. Out of the blue, totally unpredictable, and completely unexpected.

The Foundation loses out on on three weeks of free volunteer labor, for what?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 4th October 2010, 8:21pm
Post #12


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(pietkuip @ Mon 4th October 2010, 1:47pm) *

On Commons, Adambro has now capriciously blocked three contributors (me and two others) for reverting the addition of a category to a few images. Out of the blue, totally unpredictable, and completely unexpected.

The Foundation loses out on on three weeks of free volunteer labor, for what?


For those wishing to have links and links.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Mon 4th October 2010, 8:23pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Mon 4th October 2010, 10:15pm
Post #13


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



For a one week block, it's not worth the fuss, my opinion. However, if Adambro has improperly blocked, others may use this to nail his ass. I don't see that though. If it was truly improper, i.e., not within reasonable discretion, it wasn't obvious and I'd have had to take much more time than this seemed to be worth. Really, folks, people get indeffed for less, and that's what it takes to even get me mildly excited, any more.

The effective way to put up an unblock template is to promise not to repeat the behavior -- whatever it is -- unless that behavior has come to be approved by consensus. And you only add the latter qualification, if you think that you might need to repeat the behavior, because it was truly legitimate. But you still promise not to repeat it without getting support first.

"I didn't do anything wrong" almost never works unless you can really prove that you didn't do what the blocking admin blocked you for. And, then, this evidence should be presented with the utmost politeness to the blocking admin directly, i.e., before even putting up an unblock template and requesting review. ("I didn't vandalize that article, I think you may have misread a diff....." Or, "I was reverting vandalism (diff) and missed prior vandalism that this vandal had taken out. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Would you consider unblocking? Thanks.")

Promising not to repeat a behavior is not an admission of wrong-doing. It's a recognition of the value of avoiding unnecessary disruption.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RMHED
post Mon 4th October 2010, 11:20pm
Post #14


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined: Fri 8th May 2009, 8:48pm
Member No.: 11,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 4th October 2010, 11:15pm) *

Really, folks, people get indeffed for less, and that's what it takes to even get me mildly excited, any more.


Maybe it's time you started using the internet for what it was really intended for, namely PORN.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Tue 5th October 2010, 12:22am
Post #15


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(RMHED @ Mon 4th October 2010, 7:20pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 4th October 2010, 11:15pm) *
Really, folks, people get indeffed for less, and that's what it takes to even get me mildly excited, any more.
Maybe it's time you started using the internet for what it was really intended for, namely PORN.
That might get me more than mildly excited.

On a good night.

I am, after all, 66.

I much prefer, however, a real woman. Thanks, God.

This post has been edited by Abd: Tue 5th October 2010, 12:36am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RMHED
post Tue 5th October 2010, 12:53am
Post #16


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined: Fri 8th May 2009, 8:48pm
Member No.: 11,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 5th October 2010, 1:22am) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Mon 4th October 2010, 7:20pm) *
QUOTE(Abd @ Mon 4th October 2010, 11:15pm) *
Really, folks, people get indeffed for less, and that's what it takes to even get me mildly excited, any more.
Maybe it's time you started using the internet for what it was really intended for, namely PORN.
That might get me more than mildly excited.

On a good night.

I am, after all, 66.

I much prefer, however, a real woman. Thanks, God.

Viagra+Escort agency=Capitalist consumer fulfilment.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pietkuip
post Tue 5th October 2010, 6:26am
Post #17


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun 12th Jul 2009, 9:32pm
Member No.: 12,524

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 5th October 2010, 12:15am) *
Really, folks, people get indeffed for less, and that's what it takes to even get me mildly excited, any more.


Yes, for example the clueless Commons admin Sandstein had suddenly indeffed long-term contributor Elkawe. I asked for unblock here, and it was granted. But there were no consequences for Sandstein. Who still believes to guy should be blocked.

Another example: Commons admin Rama had indeffed the Belgian contributor Hcrepin. His pleas went unheard, until I argued for his case on irc. The reasons for the block were completely incomprehensible, but no consequences for Rama.

The rule book on enwp is overdone, but on Commons there are no rules at all, and admins just do what comes to their mind.

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: 19th 11 17, 10:16am