Charles Matthews wrote:
> Nobody should kid themselves that there was ever a golden time when
> there was no 'bickering'. If you look at the traffic numbers you
> see huge growth. Every month or so an asocial user kicking up a fuss
> about the way things are handled... it's the price we pay for being
> a radically open community. Remember, this is a big volunteer
> project; all that happens is that some people simply make it too
> hard for them to be accepted as volunteers.
Absolutely right. There was no golden age. :-)
--Jimbo
I have been watching the last week's events with dismay. I have been trying
to compose this email for two hours, but every time I get close, something
else comes up.
I have decided to make this anonymous. I do not know how some of you would
react and I do not wish to take any chance that I would be harassed for
this.
There are two cases that bother me. Jack Lynch aka Sam Spade and Cranston
Snord aka Enviroknot. Both of these cases scare me because of the precedent
that they have set.
In the case of Jack, there was a question of a block war. Administrators
were fighting over what to do with him. This is not a good thing for
Wikipedia editors no matter who they are. It indicates that the user is less
of a concern than something between the two Administrators.
It is the case of Cranston Snord aka Enviroknot that worries me more. This
is the case that has made me take the drastic step of sending an email to
the list anonymously. I had originally been trying to type up a response to
Cranston's concerns about being blocked. I believe that SlimVirgin violated
policy by doing so. Unfortunately for me, such an email would likely now be
a day late and a dollar short.
Cranston was a disruption to the list, but much of that disruption was
caused by other people on this list treating him with incredible disrespect.
I was taken aback by his accusations against administrators but having
looked at the cases in hand I believe that he has a point.
There were emails on this list asking whether anyone was taking him
seriously. This is the height of arrogance, and it is something that
frightens me. Administrators should never be acting as if ordinary editors
do not matter.
As for his complaints about being blocked, the dismissiveness on this board
hurt me. No matter who it is making a complaint, we have a duty to
investigate it. We are listed as the last resort for users who have been
wronged. I took the time to investigate SlimVirgin's blocking of Enviroknot,
and I believe that it is not valid.
By the time I got to the discussion, it was a good series of emails long,
and despite the number of list members who had posted, none save SlimVirgin
had bothered to address Enviroknot's concerns on the block in any way.
SlimVirgin herself made a bad judgement call. An edit made in good faith
should never be considered a reversion, even if it contains some content
that is included in a later reversion.
Instead of acknowledging this fact, the list members were universally
dismissive of Enviroknot from the first email. One went so far as to demand
that the term "rogue admin" not be used, without addressing the reasons that
it had been brought up in multiple cases recently.
We have a problem with administrators exceeding their authority on
Wikipedia. We have a problem with administrators not applying policy
correctly. And we have a problem with arrogance on these lists, with
administrators believing that they are somehow better than others.
With the increased power of administrator access comes a responsibility to
use it fairly and adhere to the established procedures and policies. The
actions of an Administrator should themselves be NPOV. We have stated policy
that when a user is found to be violating policy, if they return and do not
break policy, their previous transgressions should not be held against them.
There are a number of administrators who are failing in that responsibility,
and they are present on this list. One of them, rather than addressing
Enviroknot's concerns in a calm tone and actually going over policy, chose
to kickban Enviroknot entirely.
I have never until today been ashamed to be a part of Wikipedia, but there
it is. Take it as you will.
A.Nony.Mouse, for the purpose of this conversation.
_________________________________________________________________
Create the ultimate online companion - meet the Meegos! http://meegos.msn.ie
User:Scandum has become increasingly a thorn in my side. He is
obviously some sort of neo-eugenicist and he spends all of his time on
here causing problems on eugenics related articles. Put basically, he
questions basic historical facts (such as that the Nazis used eugenic
rhetoric to justify their racial policies) and tries to edit them out
of articles. When he is advised to look at the many dozens of
references given in the article -- all to scholarly works, all
available on Amazon.com, all available at a standard library -- he
claims he has never read them and cannot get access to them. He does
not cite anything to justify his own opinions, and apparently has
never read anything on the topic. If you do give him a web source, he
disregards it as a "random source" or simply disagrees with it.
He hasn't broken any rules, but he's wasting a lot of time. The POV he
is pushing is completely uninformed about the articles he is trying to
push it into, he seems to purposely not understand direct responses to
his queries, he repeats the same old schtick no matter how carefully
the other editors attempt to reason with him and show him their
sources. Those who disagree with him he labels "bullies".
It is clear to me, anyway, that he knows nothing reliable about the
topic and is just a crank. The changes he wants to institute are ones
which anybody with even a mild education in the subject matter knows
are at worst untrue and at best historically and logically incoherent.
As an example, he filed a POV warning because he wanted a line change
from saying that part of what put eugenics into disrepute was a
reaction to the Nazi eugenic programs, to saying that what put
eugenics into disrepute was the UN Human Rights Declaration. The
latter doesn't specifically mention eugenics but even then it was
*caused* by a reaction to the Nazis. He doesn't seem to understand the
difference, it is clear he just wants to remove any reference to the
Nazis.
I'm getting pretty fed up, after three weeks it is clear that
reasoning with him isn't going to get anywhere, and he is really
wasting a lot of my time and the time of others on here. Anybody have
any advice? If anybody wanted to read the small novel of talk at
[[Eugenics]], I'd appreciate any specific insight as well. I'm trying
to be civil -- failing at times -- but I get pretty annoyed when some
crank pushing what I consider to be a pretty ugly and revisionist POV
(into an article which has been carefully written so as to minimize
its own judgments and POV -- it doesn't say "eugenics is a Nazi
philosophy" as it easily could, it is about perceptions and rhetoric)
cuts back on time which I could be spending writing or editing better
articles because I have to explain things to him that he would have
known if he had done any actual reading in the subject. (And mind you,
I don't mind explaining things -- I do mind when I am sure that my
efforts are wasted because my explanations will not be read)
Hopefully this doesn't come off as too elitist, anti-user, whatever. I
think if you look at his contribs list though you can see his agenda
pretty well, and I try to assume good faith with people for at least
the first week of their work. You can see, if you look, that I've
tried to rewrite various things in the article to be more clear and
precise, and have for the most part tried to take everything he said
at least seriously enough to give it a real response (up to the point
of repetition). Again, he hasn't broken any rules, I don't see any
real grounds for mediation, I'm just getting very frustrated, and
justifiably so, I think.
FF
>Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com>
>--- SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> What the fuck are you smoking?
>Knock off the attacks on the mailing list. I'd like
>to mention that SPUI is also a member of the GNAA.
>RickK
SPUI's involved in this? and what's the GNAA?
Rickyrab
Dan Grey (Dan100) [mailto:dangrey101@yahoo.co.uk] wrote:
> I'd like to know what my options are after Ambi called
> me a jerk:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbit
> ration#Everyking_3_deadlock.3F
>
> Now, before I make a fool of myself making an
> inappropiate fuss on the wiki, maybe someone could
> tell me if there are any proper channels of redress
> for this kind of thing, whether or not Ambi is
> 'untouchable' and therefore it's not worth me
> defending myself.
Wikipedia policy does NOT provide users the right of "redress".
Ignore it the first time or so. After that, ask the person POLITELY to
stop calling you names. If they persist, ask others for help, such as a
senior admin.
(Yes, I know: all admins have the same "rank". I mean someone who's been
around a long time and knows everybody, like me or Anthere or
maveric169. Sheesh! Do I have to spell this out?)
If peer pressure from admins fails, you make a request for arbitration.
BUT - note this carefully! - you must leave a "clean audit trail". In
all your dealings with the person who is bothering you, make sure that
you do not retaliate. Ignore this guideline at your own risk!
Any attempt to change others' behavior on this wiki by "doing unto them
what they have done to you" AUTOMATICALLY lowers your chance of
prevailing. This is not junior high school: tit for tat does not apply
here.
Your behavior must be exemplary (like mine ;-) and then everyone is
bound to treat you well.
Why does this work? Well, take me for example. My personal views are
considered "extreme" (even offensive) by many other contributors -
including admins and arbcom members. But I avoid PERSONAL ATTACKS, and
I'm gracious and yielding at all times.
Except when I lose it! And when I'm having a bad day I withdraw, mull
things over and undo or take back what I did or said. Generally with
copious, self-abasing apologies.
And why not? Am I here for the honor and glory of being respected by a
multitude - or did I come here to Help. Build. An encyclopedia. For the
benefit of the world.
Figure out why YOU are here, and act accordingly. (I can coach you, if
requested.)
Uncle Ed [[User:Ed Poor]]
I'd like to know what my options are after Ambi called
me a jerk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Everyk…
Now, before I make a fool of myself making an
inappropiate fuss on the wiki, maybe someone could
tell me if there are any proper channels of redress
for this kind of thing, whether or not Ambi is
'untouchable' and therefore it's not worth me
defending myself.
Thanks in advance,
Dan100
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
> I don't know what you expect, Björn, but a certain degree of
> protection is needed for anyone who's been submitted to an arbcom
> complaint. We can't just let anyone accuse someone without the arbcom
> being given evidence of the violations in question.
I think that is unrelated to the fact that The System, as it currently
is constructed, does not work for an editor being harassed by an
admin. Besides, there is ample evidence in the diffs. Evidence that
has been collected and also ignored.
> Secondly, a lot of users go straight onto the attack of a blocking or
> reverting admin while simply asking to undo their actions or asking
> for an explanation would be much more helpful.
Very true - many admins exploit that fact. Some admin blocks a user,
that user comes back in another form and sprouts insults around
him/her, the admin can then defend its decision by the bad behaviour
the user exhibited IN REPSONSE to the harassment. But the fact you
mention is not really pertinent and can not defend bad actions from
admins.
> Also, you can't expect admins to be infallible all the time. I've made
> some bad decisions, but I've always been open to discussion.
I don't "expect" that. :) I know that each and every sysop is about
100 times more secure in their position than the average user because
of admin cameradiereship (sp?). But I would have very much preferred a
system in which one bad decision is enough. If one admin goes down,
there is 100 other users to replace him/her.
> BTW Arbcom complaints don't need to be signed by someone else, that RFCs.
I didn't know that. Has it changed recently? Last time I checked the
procedure was exactly as I described. I even witnessed first-hand a
user trying the ArbCom route and failing because he/she could not get
a second user involved in the dispute to back him/her up. Which wasn't
very strange because there really only was he/she and the admin
involved..
I must also add so I don't offend someone to much. I think that even
if you replaced all misbehaving cowboy-sysops with good well-behaved
ones, nothing would change. Why? Because it's the System man, the
System!
--
mvh Björn
<br>>> PS: Nice try on changing the "Reply to:" to avoid<br>> seeing my response on the list. It didn't work. <br>><br>>I have no idea what you're talking about. I clicked<br>>"Reply" on Yahoo as I always do.<br>><br>>RickK
Then I apologize for that. That very well could have been (and probably was) a result of me using an unfamiliar webmail interface. When I originally replied to MacGyverMagic/Mgm, the list was included.
I had originally subscribed to this list with no intention of ever posting to it, but since you didn't reply to any of my messages on your talk page, (except the last, which I've already mentioned) I decided to join the conversation here.
Again, I am sorry for having included that PS line on my previous email.
Now that we are corresponding, I want to know; is it your position that ANY suggestion to VfD nominators that they do cursory research before nomination is a "personal attack"?
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused
_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
<br>>> FYI: I checked it earlier; Falling Up's album rates in at about #8700<br>>> on Amazon's album sales list. This is far from a garage band playing<br>>> church gigs.<br>>><br>><br>><br>>I'm not sure how to take that. Number eight thousand, seven hundred? <br>>Really?<br>>
Well, it was earlier today, then I checked again and found it at around #11,700. I don't have a clue how they calculate that or how much their hourly updates can swing the numbers, but apparently a lot.
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused
_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
FYI: I checked it earlier; Falling Up's album rates in at about #8700 on Amazon's album sales list. This is far from a garage band playing church gigs.
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused
_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com