| |
|
  |
 Petition against IAR abuse, ... a handy list? Maybe not |
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
Indeed. A few of those fools who now talk as if IAR abuse is a bad, bad thing...... have themselves abused IAR in the past. Oh, the comedy. QUOTE # We have enough problems without admins abusing the tools they were entrusted with. -- Banjeboi 04:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC) QUOTE # Democracy rules. Let's end the Wiki-Fascism.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC) QUOTE # The most recent further wheel-warring over the PROD page makes this all the more clear that it needs to be said and said loudly. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
| YellowMonkey |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10
Joined:
Member No.: 14,581
|
There was one person who tried to cite IAR to override NPOV
He actually had a FA
Still does, actually
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MBisanz |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 478
Joined:
Member No.: 5,693
|
QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Mon 25th January 2010, 8:10am) 
I've always loved "Ignore all rules" as a concept. However, there seems to be so much misunderstanding and misinterpretation surrounding it that I'm slowly entering the "mark it as historical" camp.
IAR works very well in small, young organizations where people lack the systems and procedures to resolve most situations, so they need to rely on their intuition of what will move the organization forward since there are no procedures on how to do so. IAR also works very well in highly structured organizations where certain individuals are delegated the power to make discretionary decisions based on their experience that others must follow. Think of a military commander in battle, a CEO deciding on a strategic change, or a newspaper editor selecting which story to run. The problem is that Wikipedia has hundreds of procedures, thousands of editors, and enough experience at operating that it doesn't fall into the first category. But, it lacks a hierarchy of command authority to make unilateral decisions that others will obey for the simple reason that their procedures tell them to do whatever the boss says (think of the movie Office Space). That is where IAR fails. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Eva Destruction |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
|
QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 25th January 2010, 4:23am) see Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse and the talk page. Fascinating. There are some people on there who aren't usually confused. Some. Beyond self-parody. There is a valid point buried in there, that IAR is supposed to be a last-ditch "do what's right, not what the rules say, if you can justify it afterwards", not a general license to act like an asshole. That is, after all, how real life operates. Any valid point would be somewhat more credible if the list of supporters didn't read like a roll-call of Wikipedia's diehard cranks, serial abusers, long-term trolls and extremist nutjobs. There are some legitimate good-faith users buried in that list. Not many. |
|
|
|
|
|
| MBisanz |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 478
Joined:
Member No.: 5,693
|
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Mon 25th January 2010, 5:27pm) QUOTE(Lar @ Mon 25th January 2010, 4:23am) see Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse and the talk page. Fascinating. There are some people on there who aren't usually confused. Some. Beyond self-parody. There is a valid point buried in there, that IAR is supposed to be a last-ditch "do what's right, not what the rules say, if you can justify it afterwards", not a general license to act like an asshole. That is, after all, how real life operates. Any valid point would be somewhat more credible if the list of supporters didn't read like a roll-call of Wikipedia's diehard cranks, serial abusers, long-term trolls and extremist nutjobs. There are some legitimate good-faith users buried in that list. Not many. Yes, that is one of the reasons I tend to avoid commenting in userconduct RFCs and other policy debates on a regular basis. Don't need the "he agrees with that loser" reputation. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lar |
|
"His blandness goes to 11!"
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined:
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290
|
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 26th January 2010, 7:40am) I've no problem with this petition QUOTE #'''Support, naturally'''. Any "improper use of their tools" should be condemned, as should using them merely for the purpose of "militancy or activism". That’s right. IAR should only be used to enforce the spirit of core policy (including [[WP:BLP]]) over the letter of process (remembering that core policy also says [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a democracy or a bureaucracy]]). I trust arbcom will continue to uphold this important principle.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 12:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Something tells me your support wasn't QUITE what they had in mind. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Too bad. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 25th January 2010, 7:22am) Good night, Irene! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) At what point did Wikipedia become a self-parody? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) Roughly 2006 when Slim added clauses to WP:RS which allowed big newspapers the status of reliable sources. When actually most big newspapers have no time to do anything but call up the "experts" (in WP's case the Kood Aid drinkers) and ask their opinions on "reality". No published science is involved. Once the paper publishes, it becomes a reliable source, WP can quote it, and off you go. See the WP main page, for example, on where this leads. It's WP, telling you about itself. Mostly via regugitated press releases from WMF and WP cultist interviews. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(MBisanz @ Mon 25th January 2010, 11:36am) Yes, that is one of the reasons I tend to avoid commenting in userconduct RFCs and other policy debates on a regular basis. Don't need the "he agrees with that loser" reputation. Which, then, reinforces and verifies the "loser" tag. Even if the "loser" is actually expressing what would be consensus in a broader discussion. I understand MBizanz's reluctance, and it is certainly his right. But attachment to reputation is one of the forces that prevents change, because it causes conformance to some vague and undeliberated "consensus" that never actually confronts and explores and resolves the issues, and thus, through the silence of those who can see the problem, it gets worse and worse, even as it seems to be "quieter" because one side has been banned and blocked. Disputes are never resolved by bans and blocks, that ought to be obvious, so the question, when there is disruption, should always be whether or not there is some approach short of banning that could possibly resolve disputes, and I have seen proposals for such approaches rejected because, allegedly, the editor was hopeless. It's the blame theory of dispute resolution: blame the Bad Guy. It's childish, in fact. Behind this is a false concept of efficiency, that prevents voluntary work on resolution by assuming that it's a "waste of time." Sure. Protect the community at large from wasting its time with useless AN/I reports, etc., but provide mechanisms for otherwise-banned editors to solicit voluntary, informed cooperation from other editors. It's trivially easy to do, and mostly rejected unless the banned editor is, in fact, popular as well. Then, well, for the welfare of the project .... |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
IAR is, of course, the common-law principle of Public policy (T-H-L-K-D). For some reason, there seems to be an idea that IAR is some revolutionary principle, who ever heard of such a thing? There are also strong public policy reasons for the application of law to be predictable, particularly when sanctions are involved. So any judge would balance these considerations. If someone is seen as attempting to protect the public, even if the action is unlawful, this will be considered in determining guilt and, if guilt is found, sanctions. Inference of intention is crucial in many areas of law. In my case, ArbComm took the trouble to note that it is possible sanction behavior that was intended in good faith. This was correct. However, such sanctions should never be punitive, and only purely protective, and ArbComm's failing was in failing to consider solutions that would prevent disruption while allowing continued useful action. For example, an MYOB sanction was passed, banning me from intervening in disputes where I was not an "originating party," except with permission of my mentor, but I was allowed to comment in polls. A few problems with this: "originating party" was not defined, and then, in attempts to enforce the sanction, it was interpreted with insane strictness, where a comment I made in response to personal criticism of me and my actions was considered an MYOB violation because it took place in an overall context where my involvement wasn't immediate, but which clearly existed overall. But there had been a protection: a mentor. But ArbComm did not pass a mentorship requirement. Now, an arbitrator was privately seeking to be recognized as my mentor. No, he was apparently told, arbitrators cannot mentor editors. Apparently ArbComm can make secret rules any time it feels like it. (The arbitrator will likely recuse in any case involving me, anyway, so what, exactly is the problem?) And "poll" was wikilawyered such that blatant polls were not, supposedly, polls, because "we don't make decisions by voting." But, then, what did ArbComm mean by "poll." If it had meant votes -- which only covers ArbComm elections, why didn't it say "votes."? In any case, I'm currently blocked for a week for violating one admins idea of the sanction, one which has little considered support. Really, I wonder. Do these people realize that by blocking me, in a situation where a reason for recusal on the part of the blocking admin was clear (the post I was blocked for criticized that admin's actions and threats), I am now an "originating party" and can file any process as such, like user RfC or an RfAr? I'll say this much: I was surprised to be blocked, because I didn't think that the admin was that stupid. (I also didn't think that WMC would be so stupid as to block me during the RfAr I filed against his 'ban"). If my edit had been actually a violation, he'd have taken it to AE and requested action, and I might have been blocked for a day. Or not. Instead, even though this was an ArbComm sanction, with a stated pattern of escalating blocks, he blocked me for a week, which should have been down the road. It was clearly excess response, even if the triggering incident had been a true violation. So I have a case. I put it off because being blocked, it becomes disruptive to try to act, so, with a delay of only a week, why bother? I did request unblock so I could respond to the pending RfAr/Clarification, but that was denied, even though I made a restriction to that purpose binding on myself in the request, or offered to follow any other request by the unblocking admin. That's what I mean: reasonable remedies that protect the community are rejected, in favor of stronger remedies that add no additional protection, and which, then, can only be seen as punitive. My own case is trivial, I'm not harmed by being blocked, at all. The question is whether or not the project is harmed. It's even possible that it benefits, but not by the removal of me from the situation, rather through making the nature of the problem clear. The cabal that I named in RfAr/William M. Connolley is now embattled, WMC seems to be trolling to be blocked, JzG was actually blocked (he wasn't named in the RfAr, because he was inactive at the time, and the only purpose of naming the cabal was to properly frame the pile-on that was taking place, not to "prosecute" the cabal members -- the ArbComm majority completely missed this), issues that I raised in the RfAr have, in some cases, been addressed by the community and resolved, quite as I'd argued against an avalanche of cabal editors in the RfAr. For example, the kind of ban WMC asserted against me at Cold fusion is now more clearly contrary to policy. Individual administrators, outside of ArbComm discretionary sanctions, cannot ban, they can only warn or block. But the cabal is still active and dangerous. GoRight is indef blocked currently, basically for standing up for editors banned without cause, with a defective close, presenting reasoned evidence that was considered "beating a dead horse," which is the cabal's favorite term for any argument against what they have done. The cabal frequently manages to pull in neutral editors by presenting reasonable-sounding arguments, JzG was very good at this. It doesn't matter that the arguments have no substance behind them, or fail to note ameliorating circumstances. Such as the editor to be banned, supposedly for POV-pushing, was COI, an employed researcher in the field, and was not editing the article at all, and only engaging in some mild advocacy of his expert position on the Talk page. By citing reliable sources. GoRight asked for evidence justifying a ban. It was not provided. But lots of editors popped in to support a ban not supported by evidence. Now, how does that happen? Doesn't really matter. It happens all the time. People will !vote without researching and confirming evidence for themselves. That is, indeed, part of the problem, that such !votes count for anything at all other than as some diffuse measure of the unpopularity of a position or editor. The admin who "closed' the underlying ban discussion (Future Perfect at Sunrise), after having argued for ban, also blocked another editor based on that editor having the same POV. There was a confused reliance, as well, on an SSP report that had been closed mysteriously, and without a sock finding. What was really happening, as had happened before, was that a POV was being banned without actual disruptive behavior. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 26th January 2010, 2:48pm) IAR is, of course, the common-law principle of Public policy (T-H-L-K-D). For some reason, there seems to be an idea that IAR is some revolutionary principle, who ever heard of such a thing? The reference you want is actually Necessity. However, what it is about Wikipedia that corresponds to medical emergencies in the real world, is not clear. I think some people think WP is bleeding to death if their favorite info is deleted. Nor do they care about damage WP does in the real world, as we see in the fight over the hosting of defamatory BLP, in which the reputations and sometimes even the freedom of real persons may be harmed, whereas the "harm" to Wikipedia is no more than the tender feelings of some editors, which are bruised when they cannot write about their favorite goalkeeper in their favorite on-line database. Poor things. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) How shall we balance these two tragedies? How tragic you see loss of a bad BLP is, seems to depend on whether or not it's YOURS. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I think Cyclopia would look better in a handlebar mustache, don't you? And he needs an earring. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
