I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at
[[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:
1. Any given use of administrative powers cannot be reverted or
reversed by another admin unless the issue is brought to adequate
discussion.
1. a. Blocks may be extended without discussion, but they cannot be
shortened or lifted.
1. b. 1RR is strictly enforced on protected pages.
2. Any administrator who reverses another administrator's use of
admin powers without any discussion shall be desysopped immediately
without further review.
3. Once discussion is opened, a final decision cannot be made until
either the parties involved have reached Wikipedia:Consensus or a
specific intervening decision is made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration
Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Directors. (This means that mere interpretation or extrapolation of
something Jimbo said previously does not warrant admin reversion.)
Any administrator who reverts another admin's use of administrative
powers before this has happened shall be desysopped immediately
without further review.
4. Administrators desysopped under this policy must wait three months
before starting the process to regain admin status.
--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
Let me get this straight:
1. A few editors suggest we should start blocking people on sight for
their sexual orientation
2. One editor blocks a newbie who claimed to be a pedophile, alongside
claims to being a mutant, a potential believer of the flying spaghetti
monster, approved of by mr rubber ducky, and needing more cowbells
3. This user was unblocked
4. Jimbo re-blocks the user for voting Keep on a TfD (for a week!),
thus starting a wheel war
5. Chaos ensues
6. Jimbo re-blocks and de-syspos a half-dozen editors for continuing
the above wheel war.
Am I right to be embarrassed for Wikipedia? Have I missed something or did a
bunch of clowns start running the place?
Do correct me if I've made a mistake.
Sam
--
Asbestos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos
Now I'm not condoning pedophilia or anything of the sort. It's deplorable to the last. But to disallow editing based on this (given that they don't parade around their POV in articles) strikes me as immediately arbitrary. I daresay that we've had criminals of all sorts edit Wikipedia.
--Ryan
> From: Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson(a)worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: No more blocking people for who they
> *are*?
>
> Ryan W. (Merovingian) wrote:
> > Although I think you're right, I don't think any admins blocked people just
> > for believing certain things. Those who were blocked were acting in a way
> > that justified their I-hate-to-call-it-punishment.
>
> I think you might be wrong about that.
>
> Carbonite: "The userbox Template:User pedophile (edit · talk · links ·
> history · watch) is a great way of identifying those users who consider
> themselves to be pedophiles. I plan on indefinitely blocking any user
> who includes this template. I've already blocked the only user to
> include this template, Joeyramoney (talk contribs page moves block
> user block log). Wikipedia has no obligation to permit deviants to edit."
>
> Jimbo Wales: "They said that pedophiles should be banned from editing
> Wikipedia. That's a very respectable position."
--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Gallagher" <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Should we be declaring war on vandals?
> That is an excellent point --- but it's not just Cool_Cat. In fact
> Cool_Cat himself is quite good when it comes to vandals; he's written the
> vandalism-sensing bot which I gather is quite useful, raised awareness of
> the problem of vandalism, and done other neat stuff that I'm sure I'd
> remember if I hadn't just returned from a hard night of softball. I
> haven't noticed any harmful interactions between him personally and
> vandals.
>
> The problem is that his "war on vandals!" attitude is shared by the
> "Counter-Vandalism Unit". Now, CVU boasts quite a few great people, who
> are calm and efficient and cluey and would really be doing the same job
> whether CVU existed or not. But it *also* includes many newbies who've
> arrived, seen an interesting-looking clique, and signed on, jumping into
> the vandal-fighting thing without really knowing anything else about
> Wikipedia. These people, as well as being bloody annoying when they get
> underfoot (such as demanding admins speedy articles or block users on
> their say-so, regardless of policy or, more importantly, Common Sense),
> are also the ones most likely to bite newbies.
Agreed, I've seen this happen. I've been active in the CVU quite a while,
and I've seen both the 'few great people' and the 'newbies' that Mark is
referring to. I always hope that the CVU provides ways for the first group
to help and correct the latter, and I've seen evidence of those newbies
turning into quite useful vandal fighters after some helpful hints. However,
I do agree and recognise that the current structure, name and ways that the
CVU presents itself, could be displeasing to other people.
People in the CVU, like Cool Cat but also some others have been, very
helpful in limiting the amount of harm vandals, testing school kids and
other 'less helpful editors' do. In fact, I think the good the group is
doing, outweighs the bad by far. I also see some value in having some
structure, as opposed to some others on this list, since problematic newbie
vandal 'fighters' will always exist. I personally rather see them join a
group in which their actions can be seen and, if necessary, corrected, then
doing so on their own, undetected, in the wrong way for who knows how long.
In my opinion, CVU activities and people could benefit from another name and
structure (and there are people working on that), but regarding CVU as the
source of all evil, like the Cunctator appears to do, is not likely the way
to accomplish anything...
Regards,
JoanneB
Hi,
Good point. But still an issue. In many countries, calling for illegal activity on Wikipedia is technically a violation of exisiting laws. Not writing text about people who call for illegal activity, however, since that is not incitement (I hope).
How about:
"post material in which they personally call for criminal activity that would harm human beings or seriously damage property, or suggest that a person or group of persons are inferior or deserve harm."
...thus leaving out minor infractions and civil disobedience.
Arguably child molestation seriously harms a human being.
There has to be a way to write this...
:-)
-Cberlet
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of Ray Saintonge
Sent: Wed 2/8/2006 4:43 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] No more blocking people for who they *are*?
Chip Berlet wrote:
>It's all about the Social Contract.
>
>1. Wikipedians must never post material that calls for illegal activity or the harming of human beings or, through inaction, allow such text to remain unchallenged.
>
But "illegal activity" is open to interpretation. There are obvious
illegal activities, but there are many more whose illegality is
questionable, or whos legality may vary from one place to another.
Ec
To Whom it May Concern:
My usename has been blocked, and I believe that it is not in violation of
the WP:Username policy.
The originator of the block, Karmafist, tells me that he believes that it is
in violation according to this rule:
2. any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or
endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure.
I belive that "any name that may be seen as potentially offensive" is
all-encompassing, as even the username for the originator of the block could
definitely be seen as "potentially offensive," as I am sure many other
usernames could be. My username is also not "endorsing or opposing the
politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure." I'm not using the
username "Jesussucksballs" or "Jesusisgreat" or anything like that. I am
using a hnadle that I have used online for almost 10 years with no problems
until I came here.
Thank you in advance for reviewing this case, and please get back to me to
let me know your thoughts. I would love to make contributions to Wikipedia,
and I love the idea of an online data source that is ediatble to anyone, and
thus kept very unbiased.
--
David H. Altmayer
It's all about the Social Contract.
Using the cubicle analogy, it's always better in an office to make it clear what is acceptable in writing, and then posting it for all to see. That's the whole idea of an employee contract in the workplace. "Harassment based on race or gender will not be tolerated." Is a typical rule in the workplace.
We need to make our boundaries more clear and have a few more rules of use, especially about user pages and their content. I just went through an arbitration that resulted in one editor being banned for a year, not for our editing conflict, but because he turned his user page into a shrine for personal attacks on me.
Maybe we need an Asimov corollary based on the Three Rules of Robotics.
1. Wikipedians must never post material that calls for illegal activity or the harming of human beings or, through inaction, allow such text to remain unchallenged.
2. Wikipedians must follow the posted guidelines and defend Wikipedia as a collaborative community without violating rule 1.
3. Wikipedians have a right to defend their edits and protect their reputation in a reasonable and collaborative way without violating the other rules.
We do not block people for who they are, but for what they post and for behavior that threatens Wikipedia as a community.
Calling for attacks on Jews or any group, suggesting illegal activity, calling for terrorism, all fall outside the boundaries of the above rules.
-cberlet
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of Peter Mackay
Sent: Wed 2/8/2006 8:26 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] No more blocking people for who they *are*?
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
<<SNIP>>
How do we maintain NPOV and avoid charges that we are a haven for
paedophiles, neo-Nazis and supporters of terrorism?
Peter (Skyring)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Dear All,
Well, I found the site. There is a proposed project called "Stable Versions" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stable_versions
This is a site where various options are being discussed. As I said before, this was mentioned in the current edition of PC Magazine.
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: rose.parks(a)att.net
> Dear All,
>
> Interesting. In the February 21, 2005, issue of PC Magazine, it mentions
> that Jimmy will soon establish a Stable Versions systems. " There is another
> independent project in the works, that requires a change to MediaWiki software
> that Wikipedia uses. This can be found at:
> [http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stable_versions]
> But, when I go there, I don't find it.
> Anybody?
>
> As Ever,
>
> Ruth Ifcher
>
> --
>
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
> > On 2/7/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Wait, wait? Is the code both insecure and and non-optimal? That's two
> > > very excellent reasons not to implement it.....
> > >
> > > --Oskar
> > >
> >
> > We don't know how optimal it would have been since we never gave it a
> > test run. Last I heard it was being rewriten in a different way which
> > should be more secure.
> > --
> > geni
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind
On 2/8/06, SPUI wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_…
> We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political
> correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into
> disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to
> the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more
> "disreputable" until I am blocked.
Glad you've noticed. This is what a stream of short-lived and quickly-purged visitors to Wiki have already known for months. When it is recognised by former core devotees of Wiki, that's because its truth has been demonstrated more and more.
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.