-----Original Message----- From: steve v [mailto:vertigosteve@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 8:10 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: Article creation (was Re: [WikiEN-l] More fodder
foryoureditcountitis)
I kind of agree with Charles in the sense that some institution computers dont allow cookies to cache - meaning all edits must be IP edits (dont use term 'anon').
It would be interesting to hear from the regular IP community what their concerns are - anonymity, caching, too busy to log in, dont care to have a web ident, dont want to get personal, etc?
SV
I sympathize with this POV for two reasons:
1. Because Steve was recently taken down a peg (he lost his sysop rights) but he STILL is contributing to the encyclopedia and trying to find ways to improve the community.
2. Because Steve is right about the term 'anon'. Actually more than 95% of our contributors are anonymous. Choosing a recognizable pseudonym does not remove the mantle of anonymity; it just substitutes another.
I'm sure no one means anything derogatory by saying 'anon' - it's just convenient shorthand for "non-logged in user". But it still can grate on the ears. It can offend, in the same way that Mark Twain's use of 'nigger' in his otherwise anti-slavery novel [[Huckleberry Finn]] offends. (The relationship of Huck and Jim clearly showed the moral superiority of an adult black man to an adolescent white boy. And Twain would not have put this in his novel, if he hadn't meant Southerners to take the point. It may even be one of the reasons that he moved up north, to Connecticut.)
The marginalized, the downtrodden, the people with no formal education have a voice, and Wikipedia is listening to that voice. We are not storming the citadel of Academia by the gates, but we are (like bloggers rebutting TV networks and Matt Drudge scooping news magazines) LEVELING OUT the playing field. This is democracy in action.
Uncle Ed Former Bureaucrat
Ed Poor wrote
We are not
storming the citadel of Academia by the gates, but we are (like bloggers rebutting TV networks and Matt Drudge scooping news magazines) LEVELING OUT the playing field. This is democracy in action.
Well, it is actually populism. The populist streak in Wikipedianism is important. I'd like to think we do buttals, not rebuttals. I'd like to think we are co-opting academia rather than treating it like the Bastiille.
Charles
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Poor, Edmund W wrote: <snip>
- Because Steve is right about the term 'anon'. Actually more than 95%
of our contributors are anonymous. Choosing a recognizable pseudonym does not remove the mantle of anonymity; it just substitutes another.
<snip>
I try to avoid the term "anon" when talking about IP address editors, but I still think the term is valid in some sense.
A registered editor has said to all who ask, "Hello, for the purposes of editing on Wikipedia my name is $(nick)".
The "problem" with IP editors is akin to knowing people by the barcode or dewey number of the last book they checked out from the local library.
While it might be possible to say "edits A, B and C were done by this IP, and they all look roughly the same, so we can assume that they were all done by the same person", there is also the possibility that they were done by completely different people. Conversely, two IPs might have been used by the same person, or they might have been used by different people. It's very difficult to tell who is doing what.
You can draw all the conclusions you want about an IP by doing WHOIS lookups and the like; you might find that it's a dynamic, static or shared IP, but it actually tells you very little about who is using it.
Going back to the book example: Two people borrow the same book, so they both get the same IP. You can't tell them apart. One person borrows two books. You don't know they're the same person. One person only borrows one book a year. They look like a static IP. A dozen people are in a speed reading club. They look like AOL users.
The greatest problem with IP editors is ease of recognition. Because we think in words, not numbers, it's very easy to recognise and tell apart names; it's not so easy to recognise and tell apart numbers, especially [[dotted quad]]s.
Just wait until we get IPV6 usernames...
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
WTF?
Hardly. *chuckling at the hyperbole*
Puh-LEEZE. Let's not get carried away.
Anonymous is anonymous. It means what it says.
"Nigger" is a whole nutha futha.
deeceevoice
What is a "nutha futha"? I happen to know you can speak rather well, based on your article edits, why do you insist on communicating like a vaudeville charicature? Is it some sort of breaching experiment?
Jack (Sam Spade)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Jack Lynch wrote:
WTF?
Hardly. *chuckling at the hyperbole*
Puh-LEEZE. Let's not get carried away.
Anonymous is anonymous. It means what it says.
"Nigger" is a whole nutha futha.
deeceevoice
What is a "nutha futha"? I happen to know you can speak rather well, based on your article edits, why do you insist on communicating like a vaudeville charicature? Is it some sort of breaching experiment?
1. You didn't quote that correctly 2. You replied to the wrong email
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
I sympathize with this POV for two reasons:
- Because Steve was recently taken down a peg (he
lost his sysop rights) but he STILL is contributing to the encyclopedia and trying to find ways to improve the community.
I have not "lost [my] sysop rights." Anthere (properly) acted to remove my sysop rights on a request (a premature and perhaps partisan one) after the "vote was closed." I had my "RFA" reopened because I thought it should benefit from my input. Hence Anthere's decision to desysop was neutral, and the decision to not immediately resysop was nominal one, and one that I did not object to while the RFA continued.
The RFA failed to find consensus to desysop, and more correctly it rejected the Arbcom's use of the RFA (and its 70% threshold) to render a decision which it (admittedly) could not come to --"deadlocked" case, etc. Though I could have waited, I have asked Anthere to restore my sysop status per the "unsuccessful de-RFA aka my "successful RFA", aka the "remand decision."
Sincerely, SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
I'm not sure if it could be termed a "sucessful RfA". The vote tally was *17/29/7/49, *which corresponds to (Support/Oppose/Neutral/Remit to ArbCom). The "remit" votes were explicitly marked as no vote, but an encouragement to ArbCom to retake the case. Therefore, there were a total of 46 countable votes. 17/46 = 36.96%, which doesn't show a consensus for adminship in my or in any bureaucrat's book, I suppose.
-[[:en:User:Bratsche|Ben]]
On 11/2/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
I sympathize with this POV for two reasons:
- Because Steve was recently taken down a peg (he
lost his sysop rights) but he STILL is contributing to the encyclopedia and trying to find ways to improve the community.
I have not "lost [my] sysop rights." Anthere (properly) acted to remove my sysop rights on a request (a premature and perhaps partisan one) after the "vote was closed." I had my "RFA" reopened because I thought it should benefit from my input. Hence Anthere's decision to desysop was neutral, and the decision to not immediately resysop was nominal one, and one that I did not object to while the RFA continued.
The RFA failed to find consensus to desysop, and more correctly it rejected the Arbcom's use of the RFA (and its 70% threshold) to render a decision which it (admittedly) could not come to --"deadlocked" case, etc. Though I could have waited, I have asked Anthere to restore my sysop status per the "unsuccessful de-RFA aka my "successful RFA", aka the "remand decision."
Sincerely, SV
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Bratsche-It means "viola!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ben E. wrote:
I'm not sure if it could be termed a "sucessful RfA". The vote tally was *17/29/7/49, *which corresponds to (Support/Oppose/Neutral/Remit to ArbCom). The "remit" votes were explicitly marked as no vote, but an encouragement to ArbCom to retake the case. Therefore, there were a total of 46 countable votes. 17/46 = 36.96%, which doesn't show a consensus for adminship in my or in any bureaucrat's book, I suppose.
Then again, 29/46 = 63.04% which isn't consensus to de-admin either...
If you count all 102 votes:
- If remit is counted as support, 64.7% support - If remit is counted as oppose, 76.5% oppose - If remit is counted as neutral, 54.9% neutral
- If neutral is counted as remit, 54.9% remit - If support is counted as remit, 64.7% remit - If oppose is counted as remit, 76.5% remit
Bottom line: no consensus.
Of course, you can argue about this as much as you want, but that's what the numbers say. In this case, I think 100-odd votes is enough to be able to say "this is a representative sample".
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 11/3/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Bottom line: no consensus.
I thought the whole idea of the ArbCom decision was to see if there still *was* consensus. If there is no consensus, by normal RfA rules, the user is not an admin. Why should this be different?
Sam
Ben wrote:
Therefore, there were a total of 46 countable votes.
[ie. out of 102 listed responses]
Suffice it to say I think your interpretation of 'what counts and what doesn't' is rather... um... interesting, considering that youre talking about basically throwing out the majority of the total votes.
User:Stevertigo|SV
--- "Ben E." bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if it could be termed a "sucessful RfA". The vote tally was *17/29/7/49, *which corresponds to (Support/Oppose/Neutral/Remit to ArbCom). The "remit" votes were explicitly marked as no vote, but an encouragement to ArbCom to retake the case. Therefore, there were a total of 46 countable votes. 17/46 = 36.96%, which doesn't show a consensus for adminship in my or in any bureaucrat's book, I suppose.
-[[:en:User:Bratsche|Ben]]
On 11/2/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com
wrote:
I sympathize with this POV for two reasons:
- Because Steve was recently taken down a peg
(he
lost his sysop rights) but he STILL is contributing to the encyclopedia and trying to find ways to improve the community.
I have not "lost [my] sysop rights." Anthere (properly) acted to remove my sysop rights on a request (a premature and perhaps partisan one)
after
the "vote was closed." I had my "RFA" reopened
because
I thought it should benefit from my input. Hence Anthere's decision to desysop was neutral, and the decision to not immediately resysop was nominal
one,
and one that I did not object to while the RFA continued.
The RFA failed to find consensus to desysop, and
more
correctly it rejected the Arbcom's use of the RFA
(and
its 70% threshold) to render a decision which it (admittedly) could not come to --"deadlocked"
case,
etc. Though I could have waited, I have asked
Anthere
to restore my sysop status per the "unsuccessful de-RFA aka my "successful RFA", aka the "remand decision."
Sincerely, SV
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Bratsche-It means "viola!" _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On 11/3/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Ben wrote:
Therefore, there were a total of 46 countable votes.
[ie. out of 102 listed responses]
Suffice it to say I think your interpretation of 'what counts and what doesn't' is rather... um... interesting, considering that youre talking about basically throwing out the majority of the total votes.
User:Stevertigo|SV
Bureaucrats don't count the neutral votes as actual "votes" (i.e. adding to the percentage), see [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 26#Ending times]]. The section that contained the "remit to Arbcom" clearly said in bold letters "No vote - remit to Arbcom". Many of those who listed their name their, including myself, made that more clear by putting '''No Vote''' ~~~~. That is how I got the "countable" votes, for the sake of a better word.
Also, your RfA was to be treated as a normal one, based on the quote from [[User:Raul654]] (an arbitrator) on the bottom of the page in the "Comments" section found in centered italics:
His RFA it to be treated like any other - less than 70% and he loses his sysophood, between 70 and 80% is the bureacrat's call, and greater than 80% is approval. →Raul654 01:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Under those qualifications, your RfA was closed early by Theresa knott as
failed, and the case was sent back to the Arbitration Committee.
--[[:en:User:Bratsche|Ben]]
-- Bratsche-It means "viola!"
--- "Ben E." bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
Bureaucrats don't count the neutral votes as actual "votes." Also, your RfA was to be treated as a normal one.
This is at the heart of the matter, and why the majority voted to punt it back: Under no circumstances would a post-RFAR RFA possibly be considered to be a "normal one." Ask yourself, Benjamin: how is the community to make heads or tails of an RFA as a remedy for a case which the Arbcom itself could only find generic 'findings of fact'?
James F., who supported the RFA idea, argued against Theresa's desysop vote, saying "but we massively prejudice a community vote by suspending his priviledges." This is highly interesting (not sarcastic) because any simplistically rendered "findings of fact" likewise "massively prejudice a community vote." While veteran member Theresa and I quibbled about the "morality" of unblocking oneself (she was reasonably responsive to comments though), she nevertheless stood firm for a decisive decision. Gotta give the lady credit.
...based on the quote from [[User:Raul654]] (an arbitrator) on the bottom of the page in the "Comments" section found in centered italics:
...
Under those qualifications, your RfA was closed early by Theresa knott as failed, and the case was sent back to the Arbitration Committee.
Wait a minute. It wasnt an 'RFA to sysop,' because I already was one. It was an RFA to 'desysop,' which, if you only count oppose/non-oppose votes (29 out of 102), was indeed rather successful, IIDSSM.
Respectfully, what youre really complaing about is not the outcome, but the indecision inherent to that kind of remedy --"mob justice" FLOABT. All of this confusion is the direct result of Arbcom's unique remedy, which is the direct result of an inability to even define the nature of the case: There was (and probably still is) disagreement within the Arbcom about not just the remedy, but the nature of the offense: * Jayjg: "I think the wording needs to be modified to something like "gain undue advantage with respect to a dispute etc...." * James: "I absolutely, vehemently disagree. The use of the rollback button must always be used only for reverting pure vandalism..." * Fred: "I don't think this is about using rollback for a revert. It is about unblocking yourself after a 3RR block then editing a protected page...."
The rub, for those who missed it: There should be some agreement on what the actual offense is before deciding on a penalty. The errors made in my case would get the whole thing thrown out in a normal judicial process, where theres a more keen understanding of how misjudgements can do more harm than the original offense.
But with that said, I do feel for the Arbcom and their "thankless job." Fred was correct when he said that the Arbcom needs Defenders to assist defendants in making their cases, and Prosecutors to make a case thats coherent enough to begin with, with a targeted remedy. Life isnt black and white, people.
SV The weakest link is a pillar of strength.
__________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On 11/4/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
This is at the heart of the matter, and why the majority voted to punt it back: Under no circumstances would a post-RFAR RFA possibly be considered to be a "normal one." Ask yourself, Benjamin: how is the community to make heads or tails of an RFA as a remedy for a case which the Arbcom itself could only find generic 'findings of fact'?
I think the somunity made it's feelings pretty clear at the RFC but no matter.
You are the second admin to end up on arbcom after pulling a 3RR block I placed on them, In neither case has arbcom had the guts to make a straight descission.
-- geni
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I think the somunity made it's feelings pretty clear at the RFC but no matter.
You are the second admin to end up on arbcom after pulling a 3RR block I placed on them, In neither
case > has arbcom had the guts to make a straight descission.
Wait a minute. Everybody agrees that the ruling lacked decisiveness, but to say the Arbcom lacks "the guts" is over the line and nothing short of a personal attack.
And since were on the subject, though youre a relative newbie, theres no excuse for you to have failed to apply 3RR properly, meaning you should have blocked CJK too.
What penalty should you suffer for making an improper block in the first place? I would prefer to just let that go, but my time in the stocks and your own "lacking" (of accountability), has soured my impression of you.
Stevertigo
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
On 11/4/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I think the somunity made it's feelings pretty clear at the RFC but no matter.
You are the second admin to end up on arbcom after pulling a 3RR block I placed on them, In neither
case > has arbcom had the guts to make a straight descission.
Wait a minute. Everybody agrees that the ruling lacked decisiveness, but to say the Arbcom lacks "the guts" is over the line and nothing short of a personal attack.
Maybe. But in both cases they had a descission to make. In both they fudged it.
And since were on the subject, though youre a relative newbie, theres no excuse for you to have failed to apply 3RR properly, meaning you should have blocked CJK too.
No one reported him. Time is a finite resource. Cheacking for a 3RR violation takes time. Now I can be contacted by email. You could have used this to report CJK. You did not. Many other admins can be contacted by email. As far as I know you did not. You were unlbocking your self. You could have used the time to report CJK. You did not (in fact no report against CJK was ever filed [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive39#3RR]]).
What penalty should you suffer for making an improper block in the first place? I would prefer to just let that go, but my time in the stocks and your own "lacking" (of accountability), has soured my impression of you.
Stevertigo
I'm accountable just as you are. In the overwelming majority of cases only one side has broken the 3RR. Thus it isn't worth cheacking stuff unless it is brought to your attention (it can easly take 15 mins to do a complete check). For pretty clear reasons most people do make sure to report stuff. Especially if they themselves have already been reported.
-- geni
Your contention was considered by the arbitration committee and rejected; both offenders were blocked, if by different people. You are in the same position as someone who is caught and disciplined then claims, "No fair, so and so was doing it too and was not punished as quickly as I was." You are an administrator and expected to more or less follow Wikipedia policies and if you can't or won't ought to gracefully accept the consequences.
Geni is to be commended, not "suffer a penalty"!
Fred
On Nov 4, 2005, at 12:14 AM, steve v wrote:
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I think the somunity made it's feelings pretty clear at the RFC but no matter.
You are the second admin to end up on arbcom after pulling a 3RR block I placed on them, In neither
case > has arbcom had the guts to make a straight descission.
Wait a minute. Everybody agrees that the ruling lacked decisiveness, but to say the Arbcom lacks "the guts" is over the line and nothing short of a personal attack.
And since were on the subject, though youre a relative newbie, theres no excuse for you to have failed to apply 3RR properly, meaning you should have blocked CJK too.
What penalty should you suffer for making an improper block in the first place? I would prefer to just let that go, but my time in the stocks and your own "lacking" (of accountability), has soured my impression of you.
Stevertigo
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Regardless of some uncertainty among us regarding the specifics we made a finding of fact that you had abused your position as an administrator.
I see. So now I'm Richard Nixon. "Abused your position" isnt a finding of fact - its an opinion, which should be based on facts. If you dont bother to hold specific and nuanced judgement of fact, or come to agreement on those facts, how does the Arbcom come to an agreement based on only a superficial (and unexplained) set of "findings"?
While the incident was relatively minor your subsequent activities show you continue to maintain that you believe you did little wrong and that nothing ought to be done.
No. I agree that I violated 3RR, and that my self-unblocking (which one?) was among the many 'violations of community trust' made by various parties related to the incident (including, ironically enough, the Arbcom). I even agree that my '10 minute' block on Ta bu (to make a point about his reflexive re-blocking of me) was gratuitous. Put the events of one hour in a thimble and it admittedly looks a bit sour. Throw those violations in with my three years of contributions, and the water barely turns a little grey. Throw my violations in with the whole slew of comedic errors made by various other parties, and my water tastes a little hard, but is quite fit to drink. In that context, there is a non-absolutist remedy which is fair and proper.
- SV (contd...)
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
It is not at all hard to decide on a remedy under these circumstances. No amount of wikilawyering, however sophisticated, is going to work.
Theres no "wikilawyering" here -- this is called discussion -- though I admittedly could have just shut up and not responded to Ben's questions, which seemed sincere. "Sophisticated?" Please.
Ive only commented here and about because I had lost some trust (in violation AGF perhaps) in the Arbcom's ability to 1) investigate 2) respond 3) deliberate 4) decide. The RFA would seem to agree with this, but at the same time that issue also opened wide any internal Arbcom problems to the public -- it's hit on the vital point that the Arbcom needs to be more responsive in its process, and that the community (LION) has the defacto authority to correct it. Even if Arbcom responses reveal some inappropriate bitterness, its least something that I (overwhelmed defendant) and the community can respond to.
Your contention was considered by the arbitration committee and rejected; both offenders were blocked, if by different people.
You are in the same position as someone who is
caught
and disciplined then claims, "No fair, so and so was doing it too and was not punished as quickly as I >
was."
You miss the point entirely. The whole point of 3RR, and the only reason why I ever went out of my way to defend the idea (when it had little support on quickpoll) was that it could work (in the context of the time) if it was applied equitably. Otherwise, (now with 600 admins running loose) how can there be any reasonable assurance that, in the context of an edit dispute, blocks would not be used by POV admins for POV reasons. I cant claim that the enforcers in this case were POV, but even they state that the enforcement was improper according to the process. Your characterization of "not punished as quickly" is again besides the point, if enforcers can enforce policy any way they want including in a manner not described in the policy. Thats vigilanteeism, and though established people like to have their loopholes (WP:IAR - what a farce), you seem to be supporting a violation of WP:CIVIL in responding to a violation of 3RR and Blocking. Which rule/policy/guideline supercedes? As a lawyer, you yourself know these things are best sorted out --does the Arbcom not have a role in striking down bad policy/clauses/ as well as 'bad people?'
-SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
It's more that we search for a way to practically implement policy as it is applied to specific situation. If we were into striking down bad policy we would be onto Requests for Administratorship and Requests for Deletion, both broken.
Fred
On Nov 4, 2005, at 11:07 AM, steve v wrote:
--does the Arbcom not have a role in striking down bad policy/clauses/ as well as 'bad people?
Geni is to be commended, not "suffer a penalty"!
Well, Geni seems like he's just a kid and I didnt mean to pick on him. I would prefer to have just let the issue go, but hes basically claiming that:
'I dont need to give due attention or make intelligent discernments when I take upon myself enforcer duties -- I just need to robotically respond to requests on WP:AN/I and hope that people are equal in tattling on each other.'
Like you said 'the violations were minor' -- is this all because I argued with an improper block, one which Geni himself said was done improperly, and done under "time constraints", and limited only to "reported violations" (which was never in any 3RR draft that Ive read/edited):
I stand by my initial block under the 3RR. Yes I should have blocked the other party but it wasn't reported and due to time restriants I only cheak reported violations. I was contacterble by email for as long as the block lasted. Geni 10:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
You are an administrator and expected to more or
less > follow Wikipedia policies and if you can't or won't
ought to gracefully accept the consequences.
Well, sure -- the case system is, just like Geni's inerpretation of the blocking system, means singling people out. And even though there were other policy violations, those can be overlooked because my lack of "gracefulness" tips the scales in your view. I'll go run and consult the Virgin. (Why not just add sarcasm to the charges?)
All good things must come to an end.
Yes, this open discussion about a matter to be decided in private has gone on long enough. As with past matters, I can only hope that my making a fool of myself thusly has some broad and postive, though perhaps embarrasing, effects.
Respectfully, SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
On 11/4/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Geni is to be commended, not "suffer a penalty"!
Well, Geni seems like he's just a kid and I didnt mean to pick on him. I would prefer to have just let the issue go, but hes basically claiming that:
'I dont need to give due attention or make intelligent discernments when I take upon myself enforcer duties -- I just need to robotically respond to requests on WP:AN/I and hope that people are equal in tattling on each other.'
It's a pretty safe assumption. I've run across two cases where it was not the case (if we exclude false reports which are really a different issue). If you belive you could do a better job than me on inforceing the 3RR you were free to do so (technicaly you still are however I don't think it would look too good if you tried). A less robotic aproach doesn't help your case because I could take the following into account:
You are an admin and should know better You reverted more times The page is protected so CJK can't revert it anyway
Result? Well logicaly I should block you for longer than CJK.
Like you said 'the violations were minor' -- is this all because I argued with an improper block, one which Geni himself said was done improperly, and done under "time constraints", and limited only to "reported violations" (which was never in any 3RR draft that Ive read/edited):
I stand by my initial block under the 3RR. Yes I should have blocked the other party but it wasn't reported and due to time restriants I only cheak reported violations. I was contacterble by email for as long as the block lasted. Geni 10:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
You didn't argue. You pull the block. You could have contacted me by email. You could have contacted almost any admin by email (if you know of any any admins who can't be contacted by email please tell me so I can leave polite notes on thier talk pages). In fact contacting another admin to unblock you is probably the best move since I don't know of any case where an admin has not has thier block pulled early as a result.
Well, sure -- the case system is, just like Geni's inerpretation of the blocking system, means singling people out.
Singleing people out? I've probably carried out over 100 3RR blocks
And even though there were other policy violations, those can be overlooked because my lack of "gracefulness" tips the scales in your view. I'll go run and consult the Virgin. (Why not just add sarcasm to the charges?)
Because useing test would have to be outlawed.
-- geni
Ah, I do believe I see your point. I believe encephelon said it best on your RfA: The remedy did not follow from the findings of fact (Admins are held to higher standings, your actions, etc) and the principles (admins can be de-sysopped if they abuse their position) didn't give an appropriate remedy. I agree as well to your point how the community should not and cannot be expected to make their own findings of fact and remedy in the RfA.
What we had was a transfer of the duties of ArbCom to the community, seemingly against their own principles and ours at [[Wikipedia:Administrators]], which shows that adminship can only be removed by Jimbo Himself or by that very ArbCom.
However, I still disagree with your idea that the RfA was one to de-sysop; rather, it was more of a confirmation. But that's just quibbling over terms ;). Hopefully, the committee can expand and define the case to completely reflect it and the community's wishes.
Regards, [[:en:User:Bratsche|ben]]
On 11/3/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- "Ben E." bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
Bureaucrats don't count the neutral votes as actual "votes." Also, your RfA was to be treated as a normal one.
This is at the heart of the matter, and why the majority voted to punt it back: Under no circumstances would a post-RFAR RFA possibly be considered to be a "normal one." Ask yourself, Benjamin: how is the community to make heads or tails of an RFA as a remedy for a case which the Arbcom itself could only find generic 'findings of fact'?
James F., who supported the RFA idea, argued against Theresa's desysop vote, saying "but we massively prejudice a community vote by suspending his priviledges." This is highly interesting (not sarcastic) because any simplistically rendered "findings of fact" likewise "massively prejudice a community vote." While veteran member Theresa and I quibbled about the "morality" of unblocking oneself (she was reasonably responsive to comments though), she nevertheless stood firm for a decisive decision. Gotta give the lady credit.
...based on the quote from [[User:Raul654]] (an arbitrator) on the bottom of the page in the "Comments" section found in centered italics:
...
Under those qualifications, your RfA was closed early by Theresa knott as failed, and the case was sent back to the Arbitration Committee.
Wait a minute. It wasnt an 'RFA to sysop,' because I already was one. It was an RFA to 'desysop,' which, if you only count oppose/non-oppose votes (29 out of 102), was indeed rather successful, IIDSSM.
Respectfully, what youre really complaing about is not the outcome, but the indecision inherent to that kind of remedy --"mob justice" FLOABT. All of this confusion is the direct result of Arbcom's unique remedy, which is the direct result of an inability to even define the nature of the case: There was (and probably still is) disagreement within the Arbcom about not just the remedy, but the nature of the offense:
- Jayjg: "I think the wording needs to be modified to
something like "gain undue advantage with respect to a dispute etc...."
- James: "I absolutely, vehemently disagree. The use
of the rollback button must always be used only for reverting pure vandalism..."
- Fred: "I don't think this is about using rollback
for a revert. It is about unblocking yourself after a 3RR block then editing a protected page...."
The rub, for those who missed it: There should be some agreement on what the actual offense is before deciding on a penalty. The errors made in my case would get the whole thing thrown out in a normal judicial process, where theres a more keen understanding of how misjudgements can do more harm than the original offense.
But with that said, I do feel for the Arbcom and their "thankless job." Fred was correct when he said that the Arbcom needs Defenders to assist defendants in making their cases, and Prosecutors to make a case thats coherent enough to begin with, with a targeted remedy. Life isnt black and white, people.
SV The weakest link is a pillar of strength.
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Bratsche-It means "viola!"
--- "Ben E." bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
What we had was a transfer of the duties of ArbCom to the community, seemingly against their own principles and ours at [[Wikipedia:Administrators]], which shows that adminship can only be removed by Jimbo Himself or by that very ArbCom.
Hopefully, the committee can expand and define the case to completely reflect it and the
community's > wishes.
To resurrect a case requires dabbling in the sinister arts -- not often associated with justice or fairness. I would argue that 're-deciding' a case cannot be fairly done without actually 're-hearing' the case.
Understandably, the Arbcom would prefer to make things easy on themselves (theyve been through a lot after all), but --just to cheer things up --I contend that a re-deciding an old case without re-hearing it is improper -- putting aside the /double-jeopardy/ hung-jury/ mistrial/ precedents involved.
-Stevertigo "If it doesn't fit, you must aquit."
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
All good things must come to an end.
Fred
On Nov 4, 2005, at 12:41 AM, steve v wrote:
To resurrect a case requires dabbling in the sinister arts -- not often associated with justice or fairness. I would argue that 're-deciding' a case cannot be fairly done without actually 're-hearing' the case.
Understandably, the Arbcom would prefer to make things easy on themselves (theyve been through a lot after all), but --just to cheer things up --I contend that a re-deciding an old case without re-hearing it is improper -- putting aside the /double-jeopardy/ hung-jury/ mistrial/ precedents involved.
-Stevertigo "If it doesn't fit, you must aquit."
A number of problems are cropping up with the deletion of images.
1. Many of the images being deleted are valid but simply wrongly categorised. Often the problem is simply that the information requested at the time was less detailed than what we rightly request now. (for example {{fairuse}} rather than {{fairusein| }} )
2. Some people doing deletions aren't checking to make sure that the deletion will not make a mess of some articles. Is it that hard to clean up problems a deletion may leave in individual articles?
For example, all images in a template were deleted because they were down as fairuse. They were simply wrong categorised. They should have been in as crowncopyright given the source that was listed on the image, and crowncopyright images are explicitly allowed to be used in templates under their legal conditions. A whole series of templates were turned into blank boxes with red names by the failure of the deleter to simply checking the sources of the images first. (It took 30 seconds to establish that all the images were from the same source, which was crowncopyright.) But by then a template used widely was a mess, and the pages it was in turned into an amateurish shambles. (The deleter didn't even bother to remove the template from pages.)
Another example, a featured article lost a series of fine images taken by the article writer simply because as a newbie, though he had explicitly 'given' the images to WP, they were categorised as source unknown. All the deleter had to do was read what was in the file to know the user meant them to be covered by GDFL. (The information could be read on a copy of our page, still with the images in situ, on another website.)
Can we please remind the deleters that (a) old images may be valid but were downloaded when the commands weren't as informative as we have now. They can easily be fixed in ten seconds, rather than blanket deleted. Check to make sure there really are copyright problems.
(b) have some cop-on about sources. A user may have innocently used the wrong category. (I rarely download images but at this stage I know in many cases automatically if the source of a politics or history image is genuinely fair use, should be crown copyright, or is clearly a copyright breach.)
(c) For God's sake read the notes people have typed in the file. The copyight category is often wrong. If in doubt check a source.
(d) if you delete images, remove them from articles first. Otherwise you'll leave articles in a mess with red boxes where an image once was. Too many articles are being turned into messes because no-one bothered to do any follow up when an image was deleted.
Thom
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
On 10 Nov 2005, at 23:41, Tom Cadden wrote:
A number of problems are cropping up with the deletion of images.
- Many of the images being deleted are valid but
simply wrongly categorised. Often the problem is simply that the information requested at the time was less detailed than what we rightly request now. (for example {{fairuse}} rather than {{fairusein| }} )
There have been a lot of complaints of this. I have myself never seen one; I guess it does happen occasionally and these are probably slightly harder images to retrieve. I dont think I have ever seen an old image in a speedy delete category though. Being labelled {{fairuse}} rather than {{fairusein| }} is not currently a reason to delete - there is just a warning on {{fairuse}} that it is obsolete.
- Some people doing deletions aren't checking to make
sure that the deletion will not make a mess of some articles. Is it that hard to clean up problems a deletion may leave in individual articles?
The suggestion is that articles should have the image removed; I always do with article space (though not always I admit with user galleries and suchlike). With tens of thousands of images needing deleting a few failures to remove from articles are ind of excusable. Not ideal.
For example, all images in a template were deleted because they were down as fairuse. They were simply wrong categorised. They should have been in as crowncopyright given the source that was listed on the image, and crowncopyright images are explicitly allowed to be used in templates under their legal conditions. A whole series of templates were turned into blank boxes with red names by the failure of the deleter to simply checking the sources of the images first. (It took 30 seconds to establish that all the images were from the same source, which was crowncopyright.) But by then a template used widely was a mess, and the pages it was in turned into an amateurish shambles. (The deleter didn't even bother to remove the template from pages.)
I dont think crown copyright images should be in templates either. Anything in template space should be free.
Another example, a featured article lost a series of fine images taken by the article writer simply because as a newbie, though he had explicitly 'given' the images to WP, they were categorised as source unknown. All the deleter had to do was read what was in the file to know the user meant them to be covered by GDFL. (The information could be read on a copy of our page, still with the images in situ, on another website.)
There should be enough people reviewing in FA to sort out newbie errors.
Can we please remind the deleters that (a) old images may be valid but were downloaded when the commands weren't as informative as we have now. They can easily be fixed in ten seconds, rather than blanket deleted. Check to make sure there really are copyright problems.
No they cant. I often leave them, but often they have absolutely no source information that anyone can make any reasonable judgement from. We cannot read the mind of the downloader.
(b) have some cop-on about sources. A user may have innocently used the wrong category. (I rarely download images but at this stage I know in many cases automatically if the source of a politics or history image is genuinely fair use, should be crown copyright, or is clearly a copyright breach.)
There is no automatic fair use. Crown copyright is in many cases non commercial and not allowed.
(c) For God's sake read the notes people have typed in the file. The copyight category is often wrong. If in doubt check a source.
If people have written notes I usually recategorise rather than delete. Usually however this just means I move from {{nosource}} to {{unknown}} as there may be a source but no actual details so it is a speedy delete a week later.
(d) if you delete images, remove them from articles first. Otherwise you'll leave articles in a mess with red boxes where an image once was. Too many articles are being turned into messes because no-one bothered to do any follow up when an image was deleted.
Most people do this. Complain to them personally if they dont.
I have seen this complaint before. Please name names and pages if this is a real problem. There are many thousands of images to delete on current policy so vague accusations dont help.
Justinc
--- Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
I dont think crown copyright images should be in templates either. Anything in template space should be free.
The legal position is clear. CC images can be used in any medium or format once the legal conditions, which cover things like accuracy and acknowledgement, are covered. So once one doesn't disrepect the image by using them in a POV manner (eg, creating a "War mongering bastards" template and put a CC image of Blair in, or create a 'murderers of Diana" template and put the Prince of Wales in it), and the image when one enters it contains all required info (an acknowledgment that it is CC, etc) then its usage is fully legal under the relevant legislation. WP's legal interpretation of the law on fairuse for templates is questionable.
CC is an open and shut case. Once the legal requirements of CC are met (and in templates they are dead easy to meet, because one is creating a template heading so one can ensure it avoids POV) CC images are OK for templates. So one can, for example, create a template for UK prime ministers in the 20th century and legally use CC images once they are of PMs from the UK in the timespan covered, and the images have the required info in the files when one hits the images. One would only be breaching CC if the image was not of a PM from the UK in the 20th century in that case (which would fall foul of our own accuracy rules anyway), if the template was POV (which would break our own NPOV rules) or if it wasn't recorded as a CC image, which also would break our rules. If we follow OUR own rules, CC images are covered totally for such usage.
___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tom Cadden stated for the record:
The legal position is clear. CC images can be used ....
The legal position is clear. In answer to my specific query, I have received a letter from HM Stationery Office stating the opinion of HM Government: that Crown Copyright is incompatible with the GFDL, and that we did not have permission Crown Copyright material in Wikipedia.
CC is an open and shut case.
I agree. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BRP#the_Epopt.27s_letter_to_HMSO
- -- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org
Regardless of some uncertainty among us regarding the specifics we made a finding of fact that you had abused your position as an administrator. While the incident was relatively minor your subsequent activities show you continue to maintain that you believe you did little wrong and that nothing ought to be done. It is not at all hard to decide on a remedy under these circumstances. No amount of wikilawyering, however sophisticated, is going to work.
Fred
On Nov 3, 2005, at 8:12 PM, steve v wrote:
- Jayjg: "I think the wording needs to be modified to
something like "gain undue advantage with respect to a dispute etc...."
- James: "I absolutely, vehemently disagree. The use
of the rollback button must always be used only for reverting pure vandalism..."
- Fred: "I don't think this is about using rollback
for a revert. It is about unblocking yourself after a 3RR block then editing a protected page...."
The rub, for those who missed it: There should be some agreement on what the actual offense is before deciding on a penalty.
On 11/2/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: steve v [mailto:vertigosteve@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 8:10 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: Article creation (was Re: [WikiEN-l] More fodder
foryoureditcountitis)
I kind of agree with Charles in the sense that some institution computers dont allow cookies to cache - meaning all edits must be IP edits (dont use term 'anon').
It would be interesting to hear from the regular IP community what their concerns are - anonymity, caching, too busy to log in, dont care to have a web ident, dont want to get personal, etc?
SV
I sympathize with this POV for two reasons:
- Because Steve was recently taken down a peg (he lost his sysop
rights) but he STILL is contributing to the encyclopedia and trying to find ways to improve the community.
- Because Steve is right about the term 'anon'. Actually more than 95%
of our contributors are anonymous. Choosing a recognizable pseudonym does not remove the mantle of anonymity; it just substitutes another.
I'm sure no one means anything derogatory by saying 'anon' - it's just convenient shorthand for "non-logged in user". But it still can grate on the ears. It can offend, in the same way that Mark Twain's use of 'nigger' in his otherwise anti-slavery novel [[Huckleberry Finn]] offends. (The relationship of Huck and Jim clearly showed the moral superiority of an adult black man to an adolescent white boy. And Twain would not have put this in his novel, if he hadn't meant Southerners to take the point. It may even be one of the reasons that he moved up north, to Connecticut.)
The marginalized, the downtrodden, the people with no formal education have a voice, and Wikipedia is listening to that voice. We are not storming the citadel of Academia by the gates, but we are (like bloggers rebutting TV networks and Matt Drudge scooping news magazines) LEVELING OUT the playing field. This is democracy in action.
Uncle Ed Former Bureaucrat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If we shouldn't call them "anon" then what should we call them? It could be worse. We could call them Anonymous Cowards like some forums do. The problem I have with non-logged-in users is that when you find one (or several?) engaging in edit wars or other anti-social behaviour, it's very difficult to address them by name, let alone hold them accountable for their edits. Particularly when the similar edits come from within a block of ip addresses. Could be one person using different terminals on campus, or getting different ip's via a dhcp server, or a group of separate people who just 'look' the same.
-- Anonymous Coward
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
sockmonk@gmail.com wrote: <snip>
If we shouldn't call them "anon" then what should we call them? It could be worse. We could call them Anonymous Cowards like some forums do. The problem I have with non-logged-in users is that when you find one (or several?) engaging in edit wars or other anti-social behaviour, it's very difficult to address them by name, let alone hold them accountable for their edits. Particularly when the similar edits come from within a block of ip addresses. Could be one person using different terminals on campus, or getting different ip's via a dhcp server, or a group of separate people who just 'look' the same.
Increasingly I've seen email addresses being used as usernames, which is probably a VERY BAD IDEA given how widely mirrored our content is (check out #wikipedia-en-newusers on freenode sometime). Is this some kind of bug in the software, where the registration form is taking the email address (if given) and using that as the username, or are the instructions not clear enough on the login form?
And yes, I agree with all of the above points about telling one IP editor (for lack of a better term) from another.
And no, we shouldn't go down the path that Livejournal and others have taken of "only registered users can comment", because then we will get 10,000,000 "registered user" with one edit each, because people will be making throwaway accounts just so they can fix a typo.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \