Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Wikimedia Stewards
> Media Forums > Wikipedia in Blogland
JWSchmidt
I'm blogging about Wikimedia stewards. Does anyone have any good steward stories?

-John Schmidt
Kelly Martin
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Tue 29th March 2011, 5:56pm) *

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

-John Schmidt
For the most parts the Stewards are fairly boring people. This is largely because if they aren't boring they won't get reelected.
thekohser
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Tue 29th March 2011, 6:56pm) *

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

-John Schmidt


Mike Lifeguard trying to enforce a personally-decided Meta ban on me by breaking rules on various other Wikimedia projects was pretty funny. When it became clear that his action was a pointless personal vendetta, he cried a little like a baby, then (mostly) quit around September 2010.
JWSchmidt
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 29th March 2011, 6:19pm) *

Mike Lifeguard trying to enforce a personally-decided Meta ban on me by breaking rules on various other Wikimedia projects was pretty funny. When it became clear that his action was a pointless personal vendetta, he cried a little like a baby, then (mostly) quit around September 2010.


Mike.lifeguard is on my list of stewards to be discussed. I was amazed when he deleted some user page content at Wikiversity. A helpful edit by Mike. I opposed him when he was a candidate for Custodian at Wikiversity. The end.

I need to look at how the Wikibooks community finally got rid of him.

-John Schmidt
thekohser
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Tue 29th March 2011, 10:05pm) *

Mike.lifeguard is on my list of stewards to be discussed. I was amazed when he deleted some user page content at Wikiversity. A helpful edit by Mike. I opposed him when he was a candidate for Custodian at Wikiversity. The end.

I need to look at how the Wikibooks community finally got rid of him.

-John Schmidt


You're joking, right, John?

Mike.lifeguard posted his retirement from Wikibooks on September 9, 2010, about 4.26 hours after I was unblocked there.

He would later sputter the next day with his wet, cry-baby eyes that my status had no bearing on his decision to leave. Sure, Mike. We believe you, buddy.
JWSchmidt
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 29th March 2011, 8:05pm) *

He would later sputter the next day


Thanks for the link. I was told the day that he resigned, but I've never really been in the loop at Wikibooks. I had half an eye on Wikibooks for about a month (Aug-Sept) and saw "QuiteUnusual" dismiss one of Moulton's arguments as "Wikilawyering at its worst" and he said he was willing to leave the block in place. I'm still not sure how the tide was changed.

-John Schmidt
Gruntled
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Wed 30th March 2011, 4:53am) *

I had half an eye on Wikibooks for about a month (Aug-Sept) and saw "QuiteUnusual" dismiss one of Moulton's arguments as "Wikilawyering at its worst"

I assume that this is an expression of praise for QuiteUnusual. It is undoubtedly well deserved; he's a very fine admin; no doubt many here would say he's better than any WMF site deserves.
thekohser
QUOTE(Gruntled @ Wed 30th March 2011, 7:27am) *

I assume that this is an expression of praise for QuiteUnusual. It is undoubtedly well deserved; he's a very fine admin; no doubt many here would say he's better than any WMF site deserves.


He's doing a bang-up job on one area of my casual expertise -- WWII aircraft. I mean, look at that glorious content, all ready to go to be printed in a Wikijunior pamphlet or booklet. If there's any money left, that is.
Adrignola
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Tue 29th March 2011, 9:05pm) *
I need to look at how the Wikibooks community finally got rid of him.

The delinking of the account from the global one to create the possibility of an unblock, allowance of talk page access for self-defense, and respect for community consensus in the two unblock attempts could have come as a shock if nobody had chosen to be confrontational before.

There were only two bureaucrats/checkusers at the time and there was a pre-retirement resignation of CU rights to, as some have suggested, have them removed from the other bureaucrat as a form of retaliation. But someone had to stand up for the principle of the matter. Similar situations likely occurred at other wikis.
thekohser
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Thu 31st March 2011, 2:36pm) *

QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Tue 29th March 2011, 9:05pm) *
I need to look at how the Wikibooks community finally got rid of him.

The delinking of the account from the global one to create the possibility of an unblock, allowance of talk page access for self-defense, and respect for community consensus in the two unblock attempts could have come as a shock if nobody had chosen to be confrontational before.

There were only two bureaucrats/checkusers at the time and there was a pre-retirement resignation of CU rights to, as some have suggested, have them removed from the other bureaucrat as a form of retaliation. But someone had to stand up for the principle of the matter. Similar situations likely occurred at other wikis.


It was probably also shocking to Mike.lifeguard that the content I then published on Wikibooks was far more awesome than any of the crap he ever did there. That would also make a grown man cry and pout the way he did.
Gruntled
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 30th March 2011, 1:49pm) *

He's doing a bang-up job on one area of my casual expertise -- WWII aircraft. I mean, [url=http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II/Aircraft_of_WWII&diff=prev&oldid=2033057]look at that glorious content

Yep, he has a great sense of humor, doesn't he? laugh.gif And he sure knows his editors.

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 31st March 2011, 7:56pm) *

It was probably also shocking to Mike.lifeguard that the content I then published on Wikibooks was far more awesome than any of the crap he ever did there. That would also make a grown man cry and pout the way he did.

And he really appreciates the modesty and humility of some of his editors.
Gruntled
QUOTE(Gruntled @ Wed 30th March 2011, 12:27pm) *

QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Wed 30th March 2011, 4:53am) *

I had half an eye on Wikibooks for about a month (Aug-Sept) and saw "QuiteUnusual" dismiss one of Moulton's arguments as "Wikilawyering at its worst"

I assume that this is an expression of praise for QuiteUnusual. It is undoubtedly well deserved; he's a very fine admin; no doubt many here would say he's better than any WMF site deserves.

And just to prove that I'm not alone in my opinion of QuiteUnusual, his RfB is currently running at 13/0/0 [wb]Wikibooks:Requests for permissions[/wb].

Hmmm ... why don't [wb]Wikibooks tags[/wb] work?
JWSchmidt
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Thu 31st March 2011, 11:36am) *


...delinking of the account


Can anyone provide an account of how Pathoschild became involved?
Adrignola
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Sun 3rd April 2011, 7:05am) *

Can anyone provide an account of how Pathoschild became involved?

The global account log shows that it was an effort to allow individual wikis to decide to block/unblock Thekohser. A compromise between nothing and a full-blown account lock. But the lock was put back in place, "per discussion".
thekohser
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Sun 3rd April 2011, 11:59am) *

But the lock was put back in place, "per discussion".


And, if I recall, when Mike.lifeguard was asked about that "discussion" (with whom? when? where? on whose authority?), the questions were met with either silence or cry-baby tears (I can't remember which, maybe both).
Zoloft
It's not often you see someone who calls himself 'lifeguard' holding someone's head underwater.
JWSchmidt
QUOTE(Adrignola @ Sun 3rd April 2011, 8:59am) *

the lock was put back in place, "per discussion".


"after discussing with drini" <-- Did any of these discussions take place in a public forum? I thought steward actions were supposed to be transparent.
Kelly Martin
"Per discussion" is wikispeek for "for a reason we don't want to talk about". I'd actually be fine with that, if they would just stop lying about it.
EricBarbour
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Mon 4th April 2011, 1:35am) *

QUOTE(Adrignola @ Sun 3rd April 2011, 8:59am) *

the lock was put back in place, "per discussion".


"after discussing with drini" <-- Did any of these discussions take place in a public forum? I thought steward actions were supposed to be transparent.

Once again, it amazes me that you would be "surprised" by Mike.lifeguard pulling shit.
He's done it so many times, no one can count them up anymore.

Go ask Abd, or Moulton, what kind of abuse Mike's tried on WB or WV.
Gruntled
QUOTE(Gruntled @ Sun 3rd April 2011, 9:47am) *

And just to prove that I'm not alone in my opinion of QuiteUnusual, his RfB is currently running at 13/0/0.

Update: he passed at 16/0/0. Given how few editors there are on WB, that's pretty impressive, especially as one editor failed to vote.

The thing about QuiteUnusual is that he's passionate about his cause, and will go to great trouble, out on a limb if necessary, to help anyone else who supports his cause, even if they don't reciprocate. I think there's a moral for all of us there.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 5th April 2011, 6:27am) *

Go ask Abd, or Moulton, what kind of abuse Mike's tried on WB or WV.

I suspect that QuiteUnusual won't stand idly by if that sort if thing recurs.
thekohser
QUOTE(Gruntled @ Wed 6th April 2011, 7:57am) *

...especially as one editor failed to vote.


Does "QuiteUnusual" have a real name, Mike? (I mean, other than "Neil", of course.) I try not to vote for people who are playing their roles from behind pseudonymous shields.
Gruntled
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 6th April 2011, 1:00pm) *

I try not to vote for people who are playing their roles from behind pseudonymous shields.

Well, obviously if he'd used some silly pseudonym like Wikipedia Review, or some of the other names used by that character (including an admin account on WP) he'd be open to criticism.
thekohser
QUOTE(Gruntled @ Wed 6th April 2011, 11:28am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 6th April 2011, 1:00pm) *

I try not to vote for people who are playing their roles from behind pseudonymous shields.

Well, obviously if he'd used some silly pseudonym like Wikipedia Review, or some of the other names used by that character (including an admin account on WP) he'd be open to criticism.


I don't even understand how that's a retort, but I'll just say that the silly pseudonym Wikipedia Review does repeatedly point across the Internet to a known individual who is fairly open about his real name, home address, employer, church, and even cell phone number.

Who are you, Mike? Who is Neil?

You see, attaching identity to opinions lends all sorts of credibility. You lack credibility. That seems to be fine by you. It's fine by me, too, up until that point where you start poking real people and their reputations. What you do is, in a word, cowardly.
Gruntled
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 6th April 2011, 7:52pm) *

Who are you, Mike? Who is Neil?

You see, attaching identity to opinions lends all sorts of credibility. You lack credibility. That seems to be fine by you. It's fine by me, too, up until that point where you start poking real people and their reputations. What you do is, in a word, cowardly.

Ah, the old "let's attack the person rather than consider what the person says" reply. Yes, I'll agree that anything said by say Cool3, someone completely anonymous while he said it, should be disregarded.

Of course all admin actions by anonymous people like QuiteUnusual are wrong, and you will express your revulsion at his unblocks on WB and press on WB for them to be reversed. Won't you?

How about this - list in this thread every name you are currently using on the Internet, and if you are using them on any WMF site then state clearly on their userpage that they are you, promise to do that for all your future names, and I'll agree that you are not being hypocritical and that your opinions carry greater weight than those of mine, Somey's, HK's, Gomi's and all the other anonymous people here.

Obviously you must agree that it is cowardly for anyone to edit WMF sites while hiding behind unacknowledged pseudonyms.
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.
JWSchmidt
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 7th April 2011, 4:07am) *

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.


I've never understood "the wikipedia review". Why do some participants here have a link to their Wikipedia user page while others do not?

-John Schmidt
Gruntled
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 7th April 2011, 12:07pm) *

[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
QUOTE(Gruntled @ Fri 8th April 2011, 8:05am) *

[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
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 8th April 2011, 6:42am) *

[Logical counter-argument]


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

-John Schmidt
Gruntled
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 8th April 2011, 2:42pm) *

[Totally off-beam, childish ad hominem attack.]

So, proof that thekohser regards everyone he doesn't like as the same person. He really is an ideal admin for Wikipedia, a site he so enjoys editing anonymously while despising others who also dare to edit anonymously.

Also, proof that he concedes the argument. I rest my case.
SB_Johnny
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Fri 8th April 2011, 6:11pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 8th April 2011, 6:42am) *

[Logical counter-argument]


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

-John Schmidt

Did you consider maybe asking poetlister? fear.gif

I know what was deleted and why, and it's frankly none of your business. rolleyes.gif
JWSchmidt
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 11th April 2011, 2:17pm) *

it's frankly none of your business. rolleyes.gif


What I expect to hear from a sysop who calls good faith edits "vandalism".

Jimbo dun learned these boys good how to falsify log entries.

-John Schmidt
SB_Johnny
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Tue 12th April 2011, 4:18pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 11th April 2011, 2:17pm) *

it's frankly none of your business. rolleyes.gif

What I expect to hear from a sysop who calls good faith edits "vandalism".

Oh, fine then. It was all about you, like everything else. laugh.gif
Abd
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Fri 8th April 2011, 6:11pm) *
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 8th April 2011, 6:42am) *
[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.

Abd
QUOTE(JWSchmidt @ Tue 12th April 2011, 4:18pm) *
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 11th April 2011, 2:17pm) *
it's frankly none of your business. rolleyes.gif
What I expect to hear from a sysop who calls good faith edits "vandalism".

Jimbo dun learned these boys good how to falsify log entries.

This can, and will, go on forever. Jimbo is almost totally irrelevant now, as to Wikiversity (and all this is about Wikiversity, really).

"Falsification of log entries" is JWS-speak for a log entry or edit summary that JWS thinks is wrong. Adambro, in another place, used rollback to remove a JWS edit from the top of a Wikiversity policy page, which was, indeed, vandalism. That is, an edit which defaces the page, subverting it from its purpose, to make a political point. JWS made a huge stink about "rollback is only for vandalism," which counts as a peak example of pure wikilawyering, since the exact tool used to revert an edit is about as significant as bird poop.

Rollback is discouraged from use for non-vandalism because it leaves behind a single, non-explanatory edit summary, and rollback guidelines deprecate this. But when the reason for the reversion is patently clear, there is no need for a detailed edit summary. The substance of the policy is satisfied, if not the letter. Yet JWS has repeated this argument, and has given the example, God knows how many times.

It's all about him, I agree with SBJ.

It is possible for there to be "good faith vandalism." That's the missing element in JWS' logic.

I wish the extent of administrative abuse were making incorrect edit summaries! But sometimes these summaries that JWS complains about aren't clearly incorrect, and the making of "correct edit summaries" isn't the goal of editorial work, it's merely a support for part of it. It is difficult or cumbersome to correct edit summaries, and if they were that important, that would be fixed.

And if an edit is made in a place where it is obviously inappropriate, where it will definitely be reverted, and the editor knows this and has no overriding policy reason to make the edit, that's a form of vandalism
EricBarbour
This thread is sooooo exciting........my nipples are gettin' hard just thinking about it. (not)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.