MZM back on RFA, voters already handing him his ass Options

[Anonymous editor]

I'd take that bet.

[A Horse With No Name]

I'd take that bet.

Great! If you win, I'll give you NuclearWarfare to be your free housekeeper/cook/valet for the next month. If I win, I'll get NW as free housekeeper/cook/valet for the next month. Deal?

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Fri 27th August 2010, 3:04pm

[Kelly Martin]

Two of the person(s) asking the question(s) about his "previous admin incarnations" (wtf kind of word-choice is that?) characterized the incident that led to his last "desysopping" as "helping a banned user vandalize unwatched BLPs." That, right there, shows just how utterly clueless, sheep-like, and insular the WP Faithful really are, at least as far as BLP issues are concerned.

It's more a measure of how much more important to them it is that "banned means banned" than it is to ensure that Wikipedia isn't used as a defamation engine. Only a subset of Wikipedians are in favor of using Wikipedia as a defamation engine; most of the rest simply don't care.

[Doc glasgow]

Two of the person(s) asking the question(s) about his "previous admin incarnations" (wtf kind of word-choice is that?) characterized the incident that led to his last "desysopping" as "helping a banned user vandalize unwatched BLPs." That, right there, shows just how utterly clueless, sheep-like, and insular the WP Faithful really are, at least as far as BLP issues are concerned.

It's more a measure of how much more important to them it is that "banned means banned" than it is to ensure that Wikipedia isn't used as a defamation engine. Only a subset of Wikipedians are in favor of using Wikipedia as a defamation engine; most of the rest simply don't care.

It isn't that they don't care, it is just that they struggle to tell Wikipedia's virtual world from reality.

Thus unfairness towards [[User:Mynameisninja]], the danger of biting him, or inferring a lack of trust in some pseudonym with 50edits, is actually weighted against the risks of defaming or distressing someone out there. Since it is always easier to be sympathetic to "people you know", than people you don't, the balance again tends to favour the rights of [[User:Mynameisninja]] over the BLP subject. It isn't that the BLPs subject's interests don't count, it is just that there are being weighed against something that ought to be a feather against an elephant.

And the excuse if often what the implied reader "needs" or "is entitled to".

[taiwopanfob]

Trust comes first and foremost. People are not willing to vote for someone who they can't trust. RfA voters want to feel that he won't repeat the things he did in the past, and from what he's said, it sounds like he's not interested in changing anything. People can forgive, but not when the candidate violates trust again and again without even admitting to doing anything wrong.

Except McBride did nothing wrong.

I'll agree that "trust" is important when it comes to elections, but you neglect to mention just what the electorate is "trusting" the candidate to do.

In this case, it is clear that the electorate is not trusting McBride to not make absolute and total fools of them. Once again.

As per other comments here, as far as I can tell, McBride should indeed be installed as CTO. I'll go on and say that about 2/3rd of the admins should be released from duty (aka "fired"). You can begin with all the "oppose" voters here, and follow on with their friends and such.

[Anonymous editor]

Except McBride did nothing wrong.

Now that's a matter of opinion. Many would disagree with you.

[thekohser]

...characterized the incident that led to his last "desysopping" as "helping a banned user vandalize unwatched BLPs." That, right there, shows just how utterly clueless, sheep-like, and insular the WP Faithful really are, at least as far as BLP issues are concerned.

Was what I did to those 4 or 5 BLPs really "vandalism"? If inserting incorrect information on a temporary basis as a testing measure is a crime, then Jimmy Wales himself needs to be desysopped.

[Doc glasgow]

...characterized the incident that led to his last "desysopping" as "helping a banned user vandalize unwatched BLPs." That, right there, shows just how utterly clueless, sheep-like, and insular the WP Faithful really are, at least as far as BLP issues are concerned.

Was what I did to those 4 or 5 BLPs really "vandalism"? If inserting incorrect information on a temporary basis as a testing measure is a crime, then Jimmy Wales himself needs to be desysopped.

Messing with an infobox style is hardly the same as inserting falsehoods into a BLP.

[Abd]

Very strange to see opposes based on his allegedly abusing the tools last time. What tools did he abuse? The problem was the provision of information he got from toolserver. Did he need admin access on WP to get that information? I thought not, but maybe I'm wrong.

Strange? Well, not really. Lots of WP discussion and voting is of this quality.

[Abd]

Messing with an infobox style is hardly the same as inserting falsehoods into a BLP.

Sounds terrible, doesn't it? But ... depends on the "falsehood." Also depends on whether or not it's a BLP, actually.

It was a test of how quickly false information would be found, it ran for a very short time, compared to how long false information frequently stands up. The overall effect was positive, in fact, or neutral, and if there was any real damage (highly unlikely that even one single person was "deceived,") it was nothing compared to the flood of crap coming in every day.

But we hear this mantra over and over. "Inserted falsehoods in BLPs." Actually, he didn't. And anyone who thinks he did is completely nuts and didn't pay attention to what actually happened.

The same testing could have been done but less efficiently and less accurately, without his participation. His participation guaranteed that any possible damage was highly transient. In other words, he improved the situation, he didn't make it worse.

But Wikipedia has long been overwhelmed by Must Follow The Rules types, even when there are no rules. (MZM did not break rules, apparently, but only "expectations." I.e., "He should have known better." Which is a catch-all for "I and my friends don't like it." But, of course, lots of people didn't like it, based on wildly inaccurate descriptions of what happened that circulated in the usual places, where nothing is ever examined closely, unless if someone does, in which case that person gets dinged for writing a tome. Nobody likes to read these complicated descriptions of actual reality. It's much easier to just scream "How horrible! Inserted false information into BLPs!"

Like, biography of woman who was active, was it around 1930?, then an addition of a link to her recently winning a beauty contest or something like that. Person with same name, of course.

This kind of crap gets inserted all the time, except it isn't so obvious. And that's what was being shown, the effect of a lack of any serious review process, with sensible fact-checking, and only dependence on RCP, which is lousy at this kind of thing. An RCPer would look at that diff and say, hey, sourced, harmless at worst, and give it a pass. And no responsibility. Nobody keeps track of what was looked at, and what wasn't. And what was actually checked and what was merely glanced at.

[thekohser]

...we hear this mantra over and over. "Inserted falsehoods in BLPs." Actually, he didn't. And anyone who thinks he did is completely nuts and didn't pay attention to what actually happened.

...

Like, biography of woman who was active, was it around 1930?, then an addition of a link to her recently winning a beauty contest or something like that. Person with same name, of course.

This kind of crap gets inserted all the time, except it isn't so obvious. And that's what was being shown, the effect of a lack of any serious review process, with sensible fact-checking, and only dependence on RCP, which is lousy at this kind of thing. An RCPer would look at that diff and say, hey, sourced, harmless at worst, and give it a pass. And no responsibility. Nobody keeps track of what was looked at, and what wasn't. And what was actually checked and what was merely glanced at.

Here are some handy links for those who want 'em.

Ron_Hunt_(footballer)
Viewed ~55 times per month
SELF-REVERTED
Error attributing event to another namesake.

Petter_Schjerven
Viewed ~55 times per month
SELF-REVERTED
Nothing false whatsoever added. A "good" Cirt-level edit, by Wikipedia standards, as it is simply additional factual drivel about the subject.

Eileen_MacDonagh
Viewed ~45 times per month
Error attributing event to another namesake.

András_Fejér
Viewed ~75 times per month
Nothing false whatsoever added. A "good" Cirt-level edit, by Wikipedia standards, as it is simply additional factual drivel about the subject.

Tanakorn_Santanaprasit
Viewed ~30 times per month
Nothing false whatsoever added. A "good" Cirt-level edit, by Wikipedia standards, as it is simply additional factual drivel about the subject.

Patrick_McDonnell_(actor)
Viewed ~475 times per month
Error attributing event to another namesake.

Anne_Katrin_Walter
Viewed ~165 times per month
Error attributing event to another namesake.

Lydia_R._Diamond
Viewed ~95 times per month
Nothing false whatsoever added. A "good" Cirt-level edit, by Wikipedia standards, as it is simply additional factual drivel about the subject.

Omar_Pene
Viewed ~340 times per month
Nothing false whatsoever added. A "good" Cirt-level edit, by Wikipedia standards, as it is simply additional factual drivel about the subject.

If you want to full story about how this BLP testing project got started, there's a thread for that, too.

High crimes against the Wikipedia, indeed. Harumph, harumph!

[Anonymous editor]

Very strange to see opposes based on his allegedly abusing the tools last time. What tools did he abuse? The problem was the provision of information he got from toolserver. Did he need admin access on WP to get that information? I thought not, but maybe I'm wrong.

someone addressed this on the rfa.

on en wiki, they can't do anything about what global rights he has on the toolserver. they can simply vote on whether he should have added rights on en wiki. they don't trust him.

I'm sure most of them would vote to remove his toolserver access, but that isn't their call.

really, what tools he used isn't that relevant because, again, it comes down to whether people trust him to use the tools the right way.

[taiwopanfob]

really, what tools he used isn't that relevant because, again, it comes down to whether people trust him to use the tools the right way.

Once again, this must be translated into normal English: "if comes down to whether people trust that he will not make them look like the flamin' fools they actually are".

In other words, they are protecting their own asses, not BLP subjects, not the project's, or for any other reason. Trying to save their own useless, nitwit, faces from the cream-pie of embarrassment they so richly deserve.

Not too competently either, as one can consider the premature vote closure as yet another attempt at damage control.

Honestly, most admins needs to be taken out wiki-back and and wiki-shot: strip them of their Precious Bit. They are the project's worst enemy.

[Ottava]

Except McBride did nothing wrong.

Ahahahahahaha.

Hahahahahaha.

Hahaha.

Ha.

Sigh.

<3

[A Horse With No Name]

What tools did he abuse?

Does onanism count?

[Milton Roe]

What tools did he abuse?

Does onanism count?

Dororthy Parker had a parakeet she called Onan, since he spilled his seed on the ground so much.

Personally I think that all WP administrators are tools, and Jimbo abuses all of them.

No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.

[MZMcBride]

It's more a measure of how much more important to them it is that "banned means banned" than it is to ensure that Wikipedia isn't used as a defamation engine. Only a subset of Wikipedians are in favor of using Wikipedia as a defamation engine; most of the rest simply don't care.

It's been suggested that people would have been less upset had I vandalized the biographies myself. I find it all a bit mind-boggling.

[EricBarbour]

Once again, this must be translated into normal English: "if comes down to whether people trust that he will not make them look like the flamin' fools they actually are".
In other words, they are protecting their own asses, not BLP subjects, not the project's, or for any other reason. Trying to save their own useless, nitwit, faces from the cream-pie of embarrassment they so richly deserve.

Thank you. Took the words right outta my mouth.

"Trust". What a goddamned joke. McBride is supposed to "gain the trust" of the "Community"?
A community that can, at random times of the day, include blithering AN/I-trolling nitwits like
Cyclopia (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Baseball_Bugs (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Rodhullandemu (T-C-L-K-R-D) ,
SarekOfVulcan (T-C-L-K-R-D) , and Sandstein (T-C-L-K-R-D) ??

I would not pay any of these freaks to wipe my anus properly.
I would not "trust" them anywhere near my lower regions.
No "real encyclopedia project" would allow these idiots into the building,
much less give them positions of high trustworthiness and considerable
abusable power. Only the Wikipedia Freak-Show can do that.

And yet, to become an admin, it is most critical to "gain their trust"??
Ha. Ha. Ha.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sat 28th August 2010, 8:22am

[Moulton]

And yet, to become an admin, it is most critical to "gain their trust"?? Ha. Ha. Ha.

Where was I just reading about trust and control?

[thekohser]

It's been suggested that people would have been less upset had I vandalized the biographies myself. I find it all a bit mind-boggling.

There we go again with that "vandalism" word. So a few mistaken namesake attributions and a bunch of Cirt-style additions of factual information to BLPs is "vandalism" these days?