[WikiEN-l] Featured editors?

[Relata Refero]

On Nov 15, 2007 1:39 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net>
wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:51:32 -0500, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com>
> wrote:
>

>Of the subsequent edits before he was blocked, I didn't see any 'pushing'
> of
> >the COIanalyst theory. The most he said was "As a consultant with what
> looks
> >to be money riding on your participation in this endeavor" to Jehochman,
> >which, as has been pointed out on AN/I, is an unfortunate interpretation
> >that could be made by someone glancing through Jehochman's userpage, if
> >someone hadn't read the subpage in which he addresses those issues.
>
> Quite.  So it was an allegation picked up "somewhere" and not
>
investigated with any diligence whatsoever.  I have a word for
>
that...


It appears it was an understandable, if non-AGF error based on a cursory
reading of his blocking admin's userpage. Are you really getting on your
high horse about that?

>It's precisely the lack of nuance that causes this to be interpreted in the
>manner in which Guy has which has concerned so many people. This is not
>sympathizing with disruptive users, this is not seeking to disrupt the
>project, this is simply a concern that some people are getting so heated
>that they are losing some of their judgment.
>So, yes. Under these circumstances I would have hoped for more than "five
or
>ten seconds". I would have hoped for a quiet, drama- and hyperbole-free
>discussion of whether the IP's edits were block-worthy, and then we could
>have moved on. That this did not happen was not because of the IP.

Which we had, except for the Tor nodes and sockpuppets which heated
>
the debate, and the admin who repeated the allegation about Durova
>
also without bothering to check the facts *at all*.
>

Just a quick question for you here: for how long does an
>
unsubstantiated allegation made by our detractors and brought to us
>
through Tor nodes have to be discussed?


Missed the point, Guy. I was talking about the original complaint of
blocking, which was not investigated. The reason it was not investigated was
that the person who made the complaint also appeared to make an assumption
on the basis of Jehochman's userpage which is similar to, but nowhere near
as pernicious as, accusations levelled by a banned user. In addition, it
appears that long-term good-faith users have made the same error on the
basis of Jehochman's userpage.  In other words, someone came with a
complaint, everyone said "sock! sock! block! block!", and the discussion
descended into levels of drama and confusion to which the original non-TOR
IP did not contribute. To repeat: the subsequent confusion did not need to
be discussed. It needs to have been avoided. However, nowhere in the entire
thread did the original block/complaint get discussed rationally. The fault
for this, again, lies not with the original IP, but with the over-reactors
and sockpuppets.
Of course, it's the original IP that got blocked for causing drama, without
sensible discussion. That's the sort of problem that muddy thinking gets
you.


> >> Alec, do you actually have any idea how patronising that sounded?
>
> >I suspect he did.  And I wondered if you'd take it that way.
> >Do you have any idea how stubborn and single-minded you're
> >sounding, by so consistently missing the points people are
> >trying to make?  (I'm not talking specifically about Alec,
> >but rather about everyone in this whole, extended debate.)
>
>
>
> I am, however, somewhat frustrated by the continual arrival of
> newcomers to old discussions, each requiring that the whole thing be
> gone through again.
>

As I was forced to tell someone on a policy page the other day, if you do
not want to explain yourself over and over again, then we have a problem.
Wikipedia will expand further, new people will arrive with the same
questions. Someone will have to answer them politely. If you cannot do it,
then do not subvert the process by hanging around in the background assuming
that just because someone you don't like asked the question before, these
are the same people.


>
>
> - - 8< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> >The complaint is not that the real trolls and vandals don't need
> >banning.  The complaints are instead about things like the
> >transparency with which the bannings and ancillary actions are
> >carried out.
>
> Some of those methods won't be discussed in detail.  If we tell the
> abusers how we pick them up, it will help them evade detection.
>
> And some of it is blindingly obvious.  When an anonymous editor
> comes along and starts a debate on a baseless allegation made by a
> banned user and already addressed by the individuals concerned, in
> some detail, then a degree of scepticism is perfectly reasonable.
>
Yes. Of course, once again, this is not relevant to the specific example I
brought up, and if it is supposed to be relevant, is an awful exaggeration.


>
> >We have some admins -- you are one of them -- who are regularly
> >perceived as acting in a callous, high-handed manner.  THIS IS A
> >PROBLEM.  It may not be a big problem, it may not be a problem
> >that is worth solving or is possible to solve, it may not be a
> >problem that you are willing to admit exists, but it is a problem.
>
> And we have some users who routinely make querulous complaints about
> things that are blindingly obvious to anyone who is familiar with
> the problem, and insist on colouring every action with a filter of
> their pre-existing belief that such-and-such an action MUST be in
> support of a policy proposal they hate and which does not in fact
> have any current force.
>

It is far worse for the project to act in an apparently callous and
high-handed manner than to apparently make complaints. Particularly when
there is a power differential involved. Please do get that straight.


RR