Wikimedia Stewards, Blogging about Jimbo and other stewards Options

[JWSchmidt]

I'm blogging about Wikimedia stewards. Does anyone have any good steward stories?

-John Schmidt

[thekohser]

Mike, I knew you wouldn't have the mental capacity to listen.

As I said, my feathers get ruffled when you and others use anonymity as a shield to attack other people who use real names. If you want to be anonymous while you mop the floor and whistle a happy tune, that doesn't really bother me at all.

The rest of this WR community will carry on ignoring your petty squabbling and stabbing, and I shall join them. Keep it up enough and hopefully this account of yours will be shown the door, and you can pick up with one of your other accounts here.

[Gruntled]

[Funny tirade].

Firstly, if, as you believe, you know my real name, in what way am I anonymous? Secondly, why do you assume that everyone you don't like - Lilburne, Beloved Fox, RMHED, powercorrupts, Zoloft., etc - is the same person? (Oh, I can answer that - you picked that habit up from being a WP checkuser.) Thirdly, why is it OK for you to have anonymous accounts on WP but not for others to? Fourthly, I wasn't clear if you are saying that it's OK for admins on WP to be anonymous while they mop the floor and whistle a happy tune. Daniel Brandt may disagree.

Fifthly, let's get this absolutely clear. Is it the case that if a person - especially an admin - you deem anonymous goes out on a limb to help you, then the correct response is to spit in their face solely because they are anonymous?

[thekohser]

[Sputtering rebuttal that lacked any basis in logic.]

[Logical counter-argument that would make sense to most normal human beings, but not cross-dressing statisticians in the London area.]

[JWSchmidt]

[Logical counter-argument]

I never understood why Adambro removed content from this page and called it vandalism.

-John Schmidt

[Abd]

[Logical counter-argument]

I never understood why Adambro removed content from this page and called it vandalism.

-John Schmidt

Lots of things you will never understand, JWS. Must be some thing BAD.

To be sure, there has been excessive use of revision deletion, but it's impossible for ordinary mortals to tell, because we can't read what was removed. And this utterly minor, silly edit is important for us to look at, why? It's Poetister's user page, and if Poetlister isn't offended, why should we be concerned? For all I know, Poetlister asked for the removal and revision deletion, and that would be proper, almost no matter what.

In hiding revisions, sysops often go too far. Normally, as I recall, one could show the user ID of the editor and only hide problem content, and the edit summary is also an option.

I have no clue who made the "vandalism" edits. It's possible that Adambro's action was entirely justified. But his tracks are covered, unless some custodian unhides the revisions, or what part of them is objectionable.

I've been called all kinds of names, including "Muslim scum," on Wikipedia, and nobody ever seemed to think that revision deletion was necessary, including me. But if there was outing involved.... or if Poetlister complained .... sure.

Wikibooks is a great example, JWS, of how to address true administrative abuse. Hint: spending years generating walls of text about "abuse" and "banhammers" and censorship, etc., isn't a significant part of the process, and it can actually impede progress, driving people away.

If that's what you want, to drive people away, carry on. It works. If you are permitted to continue. You won't be, Wikiversity isn't yet that dead.