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.

> Cla68 blocked, Cla68:trolling for incompetent administrators?
Abd
post Thu 9th February 2012, 6:36pm
Post #1


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



block review request on AN

So TP (that's a common Americanism for "toilet paper") becomes involved in a dispute with Cla68, and then blocks him. To his credit, it's only a 24 hour block, and he does ask for review. However, given that the discussion was taking place with wide attention, and that it wasn't an emergency, he'd have done far better to merely bring the matter up as a request for neutral review and action.

Too many admins simply don't get recusal policy, and one reason is that the "community" has heavily resisted clarifying it. It could be made quite clear, while still allowing emergency action in spite of a recusal obligation. I tried to establish this at Wikiversity, and it was resisted there, even though the Wikiversity environment is usually less toxic.

Recusal should be required whenever an appearance of involvement will exist for a reasonable observer, and I've claimed that a user claiming bias would be adequate, normally. Exceptions would exist and could be documented. Being involved in a content dispute is obviously involvement, though, with blocking being a means of "winning" the content dispute.

And then any admin could still act in the presence of a recusal requirement, by declaring an emergency, i.e., that harm would ensue if no action is taken. This would then require that the admin recuse from further action in the matter, establish the block reason by evidence, and turn the matter over to the administrative community. Claiming an emergency when there is no emergency, per later judgment, would be an error, and if this became common, there would be grounds for desysopping. But ordinary error, following proper procedure, wouldn't be such grounds.

Cla68 does seem to have been a tad insistent. I never resisted collapsing discussions of mine, provided that the summary was fair. I haven't looked at the situation, it does seem that Cla68 attempted to place a summary, and TP revert warred on that. It would have been far better to negotiate a fair summary. Instead TP insisted on My Way or the Highway.

Incompetent administrator. So new? Next case....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
Abd   Cla68 blocked   Thu 9th February 2012, 6:36pm
TungstenCarbide   Ha ha - pretty soon the only people left at Wikipe...   Thu 9th February 2012, 6:43pm
iii   Ha ha - pretty soon the only people left at Wikipe...   Thu 9th February 2012, 6:51pm
It's the blimp, Frank   Hasten the day! Nothing can destroy Wikipedia...   Thu 9th February 2012, 7:33pm
Abd   [quote name='iii' post='297205' date='Thu 9th Feb...   Thu 9th February 2012, 10:17pm
It's the blimp, Frank   Do you think this is a typo?   Thu 9th February 2012, 8:33pm
Peter Damian   Cla68 does seem to have been a tad insistent. I n...   Thu 9th February 2012, 9:20pm
TungstenCarbide   The community has spoken. They chose a lying, dece...   Thu 9th February 2012, 9:33pm
Abd   [quote name='Abd' post='297202' date='Thu 9th Febr...   Fri 10th February 2012, 12:12am
EricBarbour   You will see more of this in coming months. And j...   Thu 9th February 2012, 10:23pm
Cla68   Ad hominem debating tactics are a plague in Wikipe...   Thu 9th February 2012, 10:44pm
SB_Johnny   Ad hominem debating tactics are a plague in Wikip...   Thu 9th February 2012, 11:17pm
TungstenCarbide   Ad hominem debating tactics are a plague in Wikipe...   Thu 9th February 2012, 11:21pm
Silenteditor   Ad hominem debating tactics are a plague in Wiki...   Thu 9th February 2012, 11:29pm
Cla68   [quote name='SB_Johnny' post='297239' date='Thu 9...   Fri 10th February 2012, 12:40am
iii   Ad hominem debating tactics are a plague in Wikip...   Fri 10th February 2012, 12:48am
Cedric   Ad hominem debating tactics are a plague in Wiki...   Fri 10th February 2012, 4:22am
Abd   (He had personal details on his userpage, and as s...   Fri 10th February 2012, 12:20am
Silenteditor   Mmmm.. I've argued that admins should not Rev...   Fri 10th February 2012, 12:40am
Vigilant   You will see more of this in coming months. And ...   Fri 10th February 2012, 7:55am


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th 4 14, 7:42am