Ray wrote:
> What might be an interesting approach when accusations are made would
be
> to have the promoter of a failed accusation serve the same fate that
he
> sought to have applied on the accused. Thus if he seeks to have
someone
> de-sysopped and fails he would be de-sysopped; if seeks to have the
> person banned for a month and fails he would be banned for a month.
etc.
>
> It might put an end to all the whining. ;-)
Now I don't know if Eclecticology was kind of joking around here, but if
so it sounds like what we hackers call "ha, ha, only serious".
I would be happy to adopt such a system and I volunteer myself as a test
case. I thought a Blocking War should be stopped with temp desysopping,
but the community said, "No." All right, de-sysop me for the same period
of time (1.5 hours). Shucks, go whole hog and de-sysop 1.5 hours for
EACH of the 4 users I de-opped. Let's see how the math works out for
that:
4 x 1.5 = 6
Okay, de-sysop me for 6 hours. I can handle that.
Now for a more serious example. I'm on the verge of giving William
Connolley or X a one-hour time-out for violating the "No personal
remarks" rule. If the arbcom reviews my block and decides I was wrong, I
got blocked and/or de-sysopeed for the same period of time. Fine with
me!! I'll take the chance.
I think a lot of people would applaud a Sheriff who "puts his money
where his mouth is".
Uncle Ed <=== Just rented "Hang 'Em High" last week
Fred Bauder wrote:
>No, calling other Wikipedia users "morons" will get you in trouble,
>especially if you try to excuse yourself with the explanation that you
>thought the other user "really was a moron".
To be clear, I never claimed that my belief that the other user "really was
a moron" is a defense.
I stated that I knew that the fact that I believed this is not going to
help me (in other words, it is not a valid defense).
I stated that although I did believe this at the time, I no longer do and
regret that I used this word (which some members of the ArbCom seem to
think constitutes another personal attack).
I have not tried to offer any defense. I have, however, offered mitigating
factors -- first, that I felt provoked by a nasty attack on Wikipedia, and
second, that the words I used are more mild than the words used against
others and against me.
Having made these two points, I then wrote that I nevertheless admit that
what I said was a personal attack and that I regret this. I have also
posted more explicit apologies for these and other remarks. Perhaps I was
mistaken to believe that others would interpret my apology as an admission
of wrongdoing, rather than a defense.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
> Anthere wrote
>
> > So, I really do not hold grunge against him.
>
> Indeed, it is hard to see how Ed Poor can be held responsible
> for Nirvana.
>
> He does, though, seem to think he is in some kind of
> old-timer WP heaven, where procedures are at best tenuous.
> Accountability rocks.
>
> Charles
Darn it, you beat me to the punch with your "grunge" pun! :-)
But don't get me wrong: I really LIKE accountability. I didn't just
shoot from the hip, blow the smoke off mah trusty six-shooter and ride
off into the sunset.
I brought attention to the issue of Blocking Wars, and I wish that would
get as much attention as the WAY the issue came up. Our goal is not to
create an increasingly rigid and powerful bureaucracy, but to create a
free and open encyclopedia.
Everything that contributes to Wikipedia's goals should be classed as
"good" and encouraged (within obvious reasonable limits). Stealing
copyrighted text isn't good, because its unethical (oh, and against the
law, too, I guess). Having a GodKing like Larry Sanger (or a board of
GodPrinces) endorsing particular article versions isn't good.
But everything that detracts from Wikipedia's goals should be classed as
"bad" and discouraged. And we need something quicker than the cumbersome
"dispute resolution" process. Trying to cast rules violations as a "you
vs. him" dispute is a problem.
Having 415 deputy sheriffs and no marshalls is a problem.
I am not a loose cannon (although I admit to going off half-cocked
occasionally). I have always been accountable to the community. Jeez,
you guys would never have trusted me with root access to the server, or
allowed me to run SQL UPDATE queries directly on the database, if I
hadn't earned your trust. And don't forget, I'm the one who started the
tradition of Bureaucrats and above running for office. (Another
developer simply appointed himself and a few other "Bureaucrat"; I ran
for election and when I won it I refused to promote myself BECAUSE WE
NEED TO PROVE TO THE COMMUNITY THAT WE ARE TRUSTWORTHY AND ACCOUNTABLE
TO THEM.
Sorry for shouting and rambling, but it's been a rough 24 hours.
Uncle Ed
-------------- Original message --------------
> >
> > This deference of the privileged to the privleged is apalling.
>
> You are missing the point. It's not a question of deference.
>
> >172 should
> > have been desysopped the first time he unblocked himself.
>
> But _who_ do you want to decide if an admin should lose his
> privileges? The community or one person (Ed Poor for example)
This sounds like something that can be automated, turn the unblock command into a desysop command when an admin is blocked, so effectively he would desysop himself.
> >and desysopping is not as severe as blocking
> > someone,which any sysop is allowed to do.
>
> Not permanently, sysops are only able to temp block people.
He could be reelected, unless the arcom also bans that.
> > It might even be a good idea to sunset
> > sysop powers, say every three months (although not all sysops at once) to see
> > if the sysop can get elected again.
>
> I'm not sure that's a good idea at all.
I can agree with this, there is already enough of a burden on the community with all the votes already, so participation is low, and making every sysadmin go through re-election would overburden the system, and the quality of the voting decisions is already questionable. However, desysoping should not have a high threshold, because presumably, just occasionally would there need to be another reelection. Hopefully the admin him/herself would realize they are not admin material and not even run.
> > 172 had been engaged in other abuses of his sysop power, and had even
> > been disciplined by the arb committee (as a user not a sysop I believe),
> > but desysoping him (or her) should be been an easy and trivial addition
> > to the discipline at that time. It is not like sysop powers are some right.
>
> I agree that sysop powers are a privilege and not a right. But I do
> think that the AC or the community (via a RFC) should be the ones to
> make the decision.
Desysoping is too minor an action and abuse of sysop powers is too serious an offense to wait for the arbcom or community all the time.
Any serious mistakes can be corrected later.
-- Silverback
> We desysoped a couple of people in the past year. Some on en, a serious
> lot on de, very recently on ja. And a good bunch of tired wikipedians in
> need of a break.
>
> In short, except for urgency, no desysoping should take place on the
> english wikipedia without first arbcom decision.
This deference of the privileged to the privleged is apalling. 172 should
have been desysopped the first time he unblocked himself. It is not
a difficult evidentiary matter, and desysopping is not as severe as blocking
someone,which any sysop is allowed to do. After sysop powers are just
a privlege, an opportunity to serve. It might even be a good idea to sunset
sysop powers, say every three months (although not all sysops at once) to see
if the sysop can get elected again.
172 had been engaged in other abuses of his sysop power, and had even
been disciplined by the arb committee (as a user not a sysop I believe),
but desysoping him (or her) should be been an easy and trivial addition
to the discipline at that time. It is not like sysop powers are some right.
-- Silverback
Email discussion between myself and Tom about the Wikipedia 1.0 idea
and [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]], forwarded with his
permission. I've removed email addresses and some names (not secret,
just that the discussion in question is at the named page, not here).
Note that I've also created [[Category:Wikipedia 1.0]], a project
category which is pretty much for use as a working set of 1.0
documents, rants and so forth.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:23:37 +0000
Subject: Re: Wikipedia reputation
To: Tom Haws
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:21:56 -0700, Tom Haws wrote:
> I noted with that same sinking feeling [XXX]'s response to your note
> at [[Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]]. It seems the
> conventional way of talking about 1.0 is to add an impossible burden of
> review work on top of the Wiki miracle. But what you and I are thinking
> of is not much more than a programming effort to harness the miracle of
> the Wikipedia dilettantism mill to automatically tell us which articles
> (or article versions) are suspect/trusted, adult/family fare,
> fledgling/mature, or any of a selected group of qualifiers that could be
> used as selectors for various purposes. As you, I am confident the wiki
> editing process would rate the entire encyclopedia on even multiple
> aspects within days or weeks. This doesn't have to go on for months.
I've answered [XXX] trying to explain why editorial committees are
unlikely to scale. I can't see them working - I know how damned hard
it is to get *one* article past WP:FAC, in areas I'm a subject matter
expert in!
I think editorial committees are an exercise in futility, but the
people fond of such an approach can't be told otherwise. As such, I'd
probably leave them to it and see if they come up with anything
useful.
> Of course the first item of business is to discover the relevant forum
> to spread and build consensus on such a manner of thinking. I would
> think Jimbo (having experienced it all) would be thinking in the same
> direction as us, but from all I have seen, he has been pretty
> tight-lipped. I hopefully imagine that his silence (assuming I haven't
> simply missed the "right" places like the mailing list) is indicative of
> dismay with the conventional proposals. I wonder if there perhaps is a
> way to get his honest ideas, which of course we would value highly
> without quoting him as an "authority".
I think Jimbo is waiting for others to get on with it ;-)
Presumably when it happens, it'll be simple and elegant and obvious in
retrospect.
Asking him really does work ;-) wikien-l is a good place to sound out ideas.
> Other than getting into Jimbo's mind, and dedicating my own front page
> to the issue (which I have done some time ago, and am willing to revise
> per your thoughts), I don't know where to go with this. Who and what is
> relevant to this issue?
I've created [[Category:Wikipedia 1.0]]. Possibly others will add
stuff to it. e.g. their own userspace thoughts pages.
One thing: I really don't think our technical tools (MediaWiki
features) are up to the job.
URGENT:
- rating system. May scale, editorial committees don't.
VERY USEFUL:
- references syntax (many mooted, none implemented).
I should start a page on meta to this effect ...
> I see this issue as urgent because of the fund-raising implications it has.
I don't actually see it as urgent in that sense. I see it as something
to get *right*, because if we don't do that it's going to splutter
anyway.
> I hope we can discuss specifics in a wider forum soon.
I'll be taking it to wikien-l myself. Mind if I send this mail there?
Or you can :-)
> p.s. Your response will be bounced by my server, but excuse and ignore
> the mistreatment. I will let your mail through.
Ooooh, whitelists. Evil! I use Bayesian, of course, because
Thunderbird and gmail do ;-)
- d.
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:44:49 +0600
>From: "Arno M" <redgum46(a)lycos.com>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] A nasty and weird site
>Here's a site that is rather critical of wikipedia. In fact, its very critical.
>
> <a href="http://www.wikipediasucks.com/
">http://www.wikipediasucks.com/
</a>
>out 149 instead. And whats all this about Sollog, the Temple of 'Hayah, and a $10 million fine for
>"religious hate crimes"? Bizarre!
Take a look at the article on Sollog and all will become clear. He's widely regarded as... well, read the article and all will become clear. He tried to plant a self-promoting article, tried and failed to stop it from being NPOV-ed, boasted about how he was going to bring down Wikipedia, and created the wikipediasucks site in spite.
I don't think it's getting much traction.
After the RfAr resulted in a one year block for WikiUser I started
getting numerous password reminders from Wikipedia. The IP address
stated (217.204.65.210) is the same one used by WikiUser and it's
clearly him.
I wouldn't really mind but it's happened 30+ times now. It's not
causing me any problems other than seeing my inbox fill up with the
mails. Anyone know of any way we can stop him from doing this?
Perhaps a block from him even viewing Wikipedia?
~~~~ Violet/Riga
I'm not sure where the most effective place to post recommendations
is, but here are two I have:
1. If you currently click the "Search" or "Go" button without typing
in a query, you get an ugly MySQL error. It ought to dump you into a
generic "Search" page or something like that. I can see no advantage
in giving the user a "badly formed search query" error. Surely this
can't be too hard to change?
2. If you put in a Wiki URL without the /wiki/ you get an ugly Error
404 and then a 5 sec. redirect. (i.e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Albert_Einstein ->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein). Why? I see no reason
why it shouldn't just automatically redirect, unless there is some
tangible benefit for telling people that they left out the "wiki"
(when it doesn't seem to affect anything). Is there anything else they
could have possibly meant when typing in that query? Why chastise them
if we can fairly guess their intention?
FF