[[User:Raphael1]] (Raphael Wegmann) has literally been droning on
about this issue for MONTHS. He is extremely singleminded about this
to the point of making his issue with the displaying of the
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons very disruptive.
It is very much a pity to see Raphael1 (Wegmann) bring his disruptive
tendencies here to the mail list.
The following bit of his last letter is extremely demonstrative of his
one sidedness here.
</snip>
>Take a look yourself:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/148.81.117.224
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.173.27.37
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.135.119.144
>A single contribution can't be much of editwarring, can it?
>At least you definitely can't violate the 3RR by it.
What Raphael1 (Wegmann) fails to mention is that one of these IPs is a
confirmed open proxy and the other two were part of image blanking
barrages by IP hopping vandals.
Raphael1 has had no qualms taking matters into his hands in terms of
altering the display characteristics of the cartoons on the
[[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] article repeatedly
himself and has been repeatedly blocked for it (thankfully):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:…
Raphael1's latest disruption (for which he's been EXTREMELY correctly
blocked for a week over) was the creation of a list entitled
"Persecutors of Muslims" that listed every single admin who ever
blocked so much as an IP address of those who vandalistically removed
the images (which he subsequently spammed messages providing links to
a group of select editors -without ever even informing the admins
listed on his user page-):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
Raphael1's actions have inspired copy-cat editor who've gone so far as
to impersonate him in efforts to remove the images (never with any
attempt at consensus). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael101
The way Raphael1 is going, much like the extremely disruptive editor
that he recently tried to defend, Resid Gulerdem (see the Admins
causing death of Wikipedia letter thread) and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:…
he'll probably be permanently blocked before too long as well.
Please move on and be less disruptive and help make Wikipedia even
better so that those familiar with your neverending "discussion" won't
first think of the expression "don't feed the trolls" the moment your
name pops into their heads.
-Scott Stevenson (Netscott)
[[User:General Eisenhower]] is in breach of [[WP:USERNAME]] where is states:
Names of VIPs or well-known historical figures ( e.g. Benjamin
Franklin<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin>;
> Chuck Norris <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris>).
On his userpage he claims
I'm General and future president Eisenhower.
I requested he changed his username, as to which a poll was
started<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%253AGeneral_Eisenhower&…>however.
According to GeorgeMoney, it was a bad faith nom : how is this?
Eisenhower said on my talk page: I am not changing my username. General
Eisenhower <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:General_Eisenhower> • ( at war
or at peace <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:General_Eisenhower>)
15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC).
He has not accepted he is in breach of policy, which he is. I am posting
here to seek other people's views (as per [[WP:USERNAME]]) and to possibly
make a namechange compulsory.
Eisenhower would normally have been given a username block, however he
slipped through the net to become fairly estabilished (albeit it not in the
main namespace), which makes it harder.
--
Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
On 5/16/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If people want to deter kids from coming across certain material on the
> internet, it's their responsibility to install blocking software. Wikipedia
> says is in BIG bold letters it's an encyclopedia. It's common sense for
> sexual material to be included so I'm against yet another disclaimer.
>
> Mgm
It's also common sense that an encyclopedia article on [[Fahrenheit
451]] is going to contain, you know, details on the plot of Fahrenheit
451.
So can we please please get rid of [[template:spoiler]] while we're at it?
Hell, I'm going to start a new thread on this, cause I'm serious. I
hate that template.
Anthony
If you are unpopular, then you are doing something wrong. Blocking vandals pisses them off, but earns the support of real Wikipedians. As you raise the userbox issue, if an admin is doing something that the majority of the community does not support then he's doing the wrong thing. If his actions are controversial within only a small part of the community but actually is in accordance with policy, then other wikipedians will come in to support and drown the trolls.
There should be a mechanism to impeach admins without going through ArbCom. Apart from increasing accountability, the next time trolls complain about admin abuse and corrupt ArbCom we can just point to the mechanism and say what are you waiting for? If there is some support in this list I may go ahead and start a proposal. What do you think?
Molu
On Mon, 29 May 2006 22:11:32 +0100 (BST) Nick Boalch wrote:
<snip>
>I do. One can do things without being unpleasant that nevertheless make
>you unpopular. Look at the administrators who have been vilified
>for attempting in all good faith to deal with the userbox problem.
>Cheers,
>N
---------------------------------
Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Yes, he is. Since this is a public list and I will not discuss further.
---- Jeffrey Latham <jeff462(a)centurytel.net> wrote:
> Titoxd@Wikimedia wrote:
>
> >Well, you can see for yourselves:
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel
> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel&diff=56024251&ol
> >did=55557465> &diff=56024251&oldid=55557465
> >
> >Titoxd.
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Although I know nothing for certain, it seems highly plausible that
> [[User:Amorrow]] was involved in this. One of the forum members on
> Wikipedia Review claims to have recieved correspondence from Mr. Morrow
> that could possibly be related to this. I really can't say more at this
> time, but it is a regrettable situation.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But that is an exceptional case, when Jimbo hands out a decree from the top against community consensus, and it doesn't happen very often. It can't be taken as the general situation. In general, what is good for the Wikipedia is determined by the community and not some omnipotent being with an absolute and unquestionable benchmark of appropriateness. We ARE here to build an encyclopedia, but since it is WIKIpedia and not Nupedia, there can be no encyclopedia without the community. The community builds the encyclopedia. Except for certain special authorities like Jimbo, it is the community that must decide whether an admin's actions are in the best interests of the encyclopedia, we shouldn't take the admin's words for it.
Look at it this way, we rely upon the community to decide who will work best for the encyclopedia in the first place. What miracle suddenly happens after the RfA concludes that the very admins who were chosen by the community get the power to disregard the community? It's like "Now you know you made a mistake and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. I AM THE TYRANT MUHUHAHAHA!!!"
And for the trolls complaining about corrupt ArbCom, ofcourse they whine about it because the ArbCom tends to rule against trolls. But if we have an avenue of removing those invalid criticisms without any negative effects, and have as an additional benefit the direct accountability of the admins to the community without going through the indirect and unnecessarily resource consuming process of ArbCom or even worse, Jimbo himself.
Molu
On Tue, 30 May 2006 11:04:00 +0100 Nick Boalch wrote:
>This is simply not the case. If an admin is acting in the interests of
>the encyclopaedia then he is doing the right thing, regardless of what
>the majority of the community thinks.
>We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a community. Usually the
>interests of the encyclopaedia and those of the community go hand in
>hand. Where they don't, the encyclopaedia comes first. Always and
>without exception.
>[[:m:Instruction creep]]. Such a mechanism would be totally unnecessary.
>Trolls complain about ArbCom being 'corrupt' because, rightly if they're
>trolls, they don't get the results they want from it.
>Cheers,
>N.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
You know as well as I do that that's not going to work. There is no old guy with a beard sitting on top of the Wikipedia servers and determining who is acting on WIkipedia's interest and who is not. WIkipedia is not a textbook, it's a real thing and we need to give operational definitions instead of unrealisable abstract ones. The key point here IS whether there is some sort of backing for the action taken, not whether the action was 'clear-sighted', because the only available measure of whether the action was clear-sighted is whether it has the backing of the community.
Molu
On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:57:07 +0100 "charles matthews" wrote:
>If admin A is actually acting in WP's interests, then of course that is
>fine. If A is not, but is acting under some delusion, then that is not fine
>at all.
>The key point here is not whether there is some sort of backing for the
>option taken, but whether the action is clear-sighted or otherwise. I don't
>see that the logic has to be smudged here. Admins are given discretion. If
>they foul it up, they are poor admins and eventually they should have their
>mop retired.
>Charles
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
An interesting and insightful essay (one I may have read before), but why did you quote my message above it? I don't see how your message has anything to do with anything I said, unless that last sentence is directed at me?
Molu
On Tue, 30 May 2006 21:26:42 +0100 (BST) "Redvers @ the Wikipedia" wrote:
>People who whine on about admins and admin abuse
>broadly seem to fall into two categories. Either
>they're people with an agenda (or a model for the
>'pedia that the majority don't support) to push or
>they're admin-wannabies who see the post as some sort
>of reward and want it for themselves and are
>frustrated they don't think they'll get it blah blah...
><snip>
>The company you keep often tells more about you than
>you do yourself, I find.
>-> REDVERS
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:45:04 +1000 Mark Gallagher wrote:
>Nonsense. Admins make calls all the time that are recognised by the
>community as necessary, but still make one unpopular with certain
>subsections nonetheless. RfAs are extraordinarily easy to stack, as
>opposers count for more than supporters and the wider community does not
>generally take an interest in them. Requests for adminship tend to
>involve only a very small subset of the community, who, fortunately, are
>usually considered sane (editcountitis notwithstanding); requests for
>confirmation will have all the problems of RfA, with the added drawback
>of being inhabited by trolls and idiots who are too concerned with
>advancing their own agendas to bother learning what admins do and why.
Why are you bringing vote stacking into this? That's a completely different issue. This is not about vote stacking.
>I am not the only person who has noticed that, in your brief time on
>this list, you have rarely posted anything that could not be considered
>"nonsense". I would like to suggest you spend more time on Wikipedia,
>attempting to learn what we're about and how we work, before you try to
>instruct the Wikipedia Grannies in advanced egg-sucking procedures. The
>views of someone ignorant of Wikipedia procedures can be useful, at
>times; fresh eyes, etc., but at others it's damned annoying to see
>someone who doesn't know what he's talking about attempt to lecture us.
>Please, give it a rest, and fill your head instead of this list.
Thank you for your kind suggestions. You'll have to excuse me as I ignore them.
Molu
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
That is what I was suggesting.
Molu
On Tue, 30 May 2006 15:13:59 -0600 Fred Bauder wrote:
>This kicking out business is not cool, but we could require periodic
>reaffirmation of administrator status.
>Fred
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com