I gave Adam Carr a 15-hour block (for abusive language).
But then I read Fred Bauder's remark that: * We do not provide for automatic blocking or banning of persons who make personal attacks. So once again I hereby "place myself on report". I had thought that any of the 415 admins, having the "ability" to block signed-in users, were "authorized" to use that ability to enforce the rules - such as: [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] If I'm wrong, then I hope the first thing the arbcom will do is unblock Adam Carr. In fact, if I'm OBVIOUSLY wrong, than I guess ANY ONE of the 415 admins will reverse the block. Hmm. This is interesting. Let's see what happens. Uncle Ed
I didn't look it up Ed. I don't do a lot of policing myself and have often found myself wrong if I don't carefully examine any policy that becomes an issue. I may once again, in a negative way, sinned by not being fully up to date on what can and cannot be done. Rooting for you though,
Fred
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:16:13 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors
I gave Adam Carr a 15-hour block (for abusive language).
But then I read Fred Bauder's remark that:
- We do not provide for automatic blocking or banning of persons who
make personal attacks. So once again I hereby "place myself on report". I had thought that any of the 415 admins, having the "ability" to block signed-in users, were "authorized" to use that ability to enforce the rules - such as: [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] If I'm wrong, then I hope the first thing the arbcom will do is unblock Adam Carr. In fact, if I'm OBVIOUSLY wrong, than I guess ANY ONE of the 415 admins will reverse the block. Hmm. This is interesting. Let's see what happens. Uncle Ed
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ed Poor wrote
I had thought that any of the 415 admins, having the "ability" to block
signed-in users, were "authorized" to use that ability to enforce the rules - such as: [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
There is a policy about removing personal attacks. That there is policy about 'removing' those doing the attacking is news to me. I wouldn't dream of using admin powers in this way.
Ed Poor shoots from hip, once more. Exactly what kind of place would Wiki-en be if say, 100 of our sysops took this line, on a daily basis?
I don't want to find out. Others please support me, in saying that Ed is out of line here. Policy can't just be made on the hoof, any more. The scare quotes round "authorized" tell me just about all I need to know. Civility is a big plus on WP, but enforcement of this kind goes way beyond what I would accept. Out of hand bans for vandalism, yes.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
I don't want to find out. Others please support me, in saying that Ed is out of line here. Policy can't just be made on the hoof, any more. The scare quotes round "authorized" tell me just about all I need to know. Civility is a big plus on WP, but enforcement of this kind goes way beyond what I would accept. Out of hand bans for vandalism, yes.
I support you. Speaking from personal experience, I find my admin privileges largely useless. Outright vandalism is quite rare, and good civility constrains me from protecting pages, blocking users, and doing outright reverts almost always. I suspect this is as it should be. It is very unfortunate that for some people, losing control amounts to inexcusable outbursts like that. But escalating the situation is unlikely to to any good, and definitely constitutes an abuse of force.
Tom Haws
Charles Matthews wrote:
Ed Poor wrote
I had thought that any of the 415 admins, having the "ability" to block
signed-in users, were "authorized" to use that ability to enforce the rules - such as: [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
There is a policy about removing personal attacks. That there is policy about 'removing' those doing the attacking is news to me. I wouldn't dream of using admin powers in this way.
Ed Poor shoots from hip, once more. Exactly what kind of place would Wiki-en be if say, 100 of our sysops took this line, on a daily basis?
I don't want to find out. Others please support me, in saying that Ed is out of line here. Policy can't just be made on the hoof, any more. The scare quotes round "authorized" tell me just about all I need to know. Civility is a big plus on WP, but enforcement of this kind goes way beyond what I would accept. Out of hand bans for vandalism, yes.
If I were to judge Ed solely by many of the substantive positions that he takes, we should be bitter enemies. :'( Ed does indeed shoot from the hip, but with one big difference. When he realizes that he has made a mistake he is quicker than most to admit it. Yes, Ed was out of line, but so what? I do not support making policy on the hoof, there is already far too much of that. Ed did not do that; he enforced what he believed to be policy, and did his best to undo the damage when he found his mistake. His actions are perfectly understandable when you see the unending parade of shifting policies. Nobody but policy geeks can keep up with it, and policy geeks are notorious for losing sight of project goals.
I don't see any need for further action on this. Ed's repentance tells me all I need to know. Unless we take a forgiving attitude towards this kind of error how can we expect to be forgiven ourselves when the tables are turned.
Ec
On 3/9/05 2:46 PM, "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If I were to judge Ed solely by many of the substantive positions that he takes, we should be bitter enemies. :'( Ed does indeed shoot from the hip, but with one big difference. When he realizes that he has made a mistake he is quicker than most to admit it. Yes, Ed was out of line, but so what? I do not support making policy on the hoof, there is already far too much of that. Ed did not do that; he enforced what he believed to be policy, and did his best to undo the damage when he found his mistake. His actions are perfectly understandable when you see the unending parade of shifting policies. Nobody but policy geeks can keep up with it, and policy geeks are notorious for losing sight of project goals.
I don't see any need for further action on this. Ed's repentance tells me all I need to know. Unless we take a forgiving attitude towards this kind of error how can we expect to be forgiven ourselves when the tables are turned.
My problem with this response is that Ed has done this repeatedly.
1. He screws up royally by abusing the privileges he's been given 2. He professes that he had no idea that he screwed up 3. After numerous people explain carefully how he screwed up, he apologizes. Contritely. And professes earnestly his deep, abiding good faith and his intention never to screw up again. 4. People cheer Ed's contrition and praise his good works. He is not punished and his privileges are not removed. 5. After a few weeks have passed, Ed has forgotten any mistakes he's ever made and is happy to announce that he's always been successful in any actions he's taken to help Wikipedia.
Rinse, wash, repeat.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 3/9/05 2:46 PM, "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If I were to judge Ed solely by many of the substantive positions that he takes, we should be bitter enemies. :'( Ed does indeed shoot from the hip, but with one big difference. When he realizes that he has made a mistake he is quicker than most to admit it. Yes, Ed was out of line, but so what? I do not support making policy on the hoof, there is already far too much of that. Ed did not do that; he enforced what he believed to be policy, and did his best to undo the damage when he found his mistake. His actions are perfectly understandable when you see the unending parade of shifting policies. Nobody but policy geeks can keep up with it, and policy geeks are notorious for losing sight of project goals.
I don't see any need for further action on this. Ed's repentance tells me all I need to know. Unless we take a forgiving attitude towards this kind of error how can we expect to be forgiven ourselves when the tables are turned.
My problem with this response is that Ed has done this repeatedly.
- He screws up royally by abusing the privileges he's been given
- He professes that he had no idea that he screwed up
- After numerous people explain carefully how he screwed up, he apologizes.
Contritely. And professes earnestly his deep, abiding good faith and his intention never to screw up again. 4. People cheer Ed's contrition and praise his good works. He is not punished and his privileges are not removed. 5. After a few weeks have passed, Ed has forgotten any mistakes he's ever made and is happy to announce that he's always been successful in any actions he's taken to help Wikipedia.
Rinse, wash, repeat.
Yeah, that's Ed alright! He's a known quantity, and he's been like that for the entire three years that I've been here. The funny thing is that there are others toward whom I do not feel as tolerant.
Ec
Ed, I am sure you know there is a blocking policy at [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. Like most Wikipedia policies, it is weasely, but even so I think you would have to read between the lines to find the right for administrators to block people for personal attacks without a community consensus.
Administrators are supposed to be there for doing custodial tasks that require somewhat sensitive privileges that can only be given to people after they have established their trustworthiness. They are supposed to be janitors. They are not cops, and they are certainly not cops and judges rolled into one, even though blocking people for violation of the 3RR and for vandalism blurs this somewhat. For policy enforcement and disciplinary sanctions, there is the RfC/RfAr process. Administrators generally should take their fingers off the banning button, except in the case of obvious vandalism. Let the RfC/RfAr mechanism do what it is supposed to do. That is the mechanism by which the community expresses its consensus about the behaviour of members and administrators should think long and hard before the short-circuit it.
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:16:13 -0500, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
I gave Adam Carr a 15-hour block (for abusive language).
But then I read Fred Bauder's remark that:
- We do not provide for automatic blocking or banning of persons who
make personal attacks. So once again I hereby "place myself on report". I had thought that any of the 415 admins, having the "ability" to block signed-in users, were "authorized" to use that ability to enforce the rules - such as: [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] If I'm wrong, then I hope the first thing the arbcom will do is unblock Adam Carr. In fact, if I'm OBVIOUSLY wrong, than I guess ANY ONE of the 415 admins will reverse the block. Hmm. This is interesting. Let's see what happens. Uncle Ed
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I gave Adam Carr a 15-hour block (for abusive language).
But then I read Fred Bauder's remark that:
- We do not provide for automatic blocking or banning of persons who
make personal attacks. So once again I hereby "place myself on report". I had thought that any of the 415 admins, having the "ability" to block signed-in users, were "authorized" to use that ability to enforce the rules - such as: [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] If I'm wrong, then I hope the first thing the arbcom will do is unblock Adam Carr. In fact, if I'm OBVIOUSLY wrong, than I guess ANY ONE of the 415 admins will reverse the block. Hmm. This is interesting. Let's see what happens. Uncle Ed
I have done it myself on a totally unreasonable editor. In this case there should have been an RFC, I feel. Please consider the circumstances of this case.
Incidently, I don't condone the language that Adam used.
TBSDY