It's more complicated than that. Sitting arbiters were on the list. ****** No, it's quite simple. I made a bad block. No grand super-secret cabal ordered me to make it. And even if they had, list behavior is off-wiki and outside ArbCom's purview.
If you sincerely believe that list actions are blockable, then would you consent to a level 2 warning for WP:POINT and WP:AGF? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
-Durova
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 22:17 -0800, Durova wrote:
It's more complicated than that. Sitting arbiters were on the list.
No, it's quite simple. I made a bad block. No grand super-secret cabal ordered me to make it. And even if they had, list behavior is off-wiki and outside ArbCom's purview.
When off-wiki list behaviour affects one's action on-wiki, it is / should no longer be outside community and ArbCom's purview.
KTC
On 27/11/2007, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 22:17 -0800, Durova wrote:
It's more complicated than that. Sitting arbiters were on the list.
No, it's quite simple. I made a bad block. No grand super-secret cabal ordered me to make it. And even if they had, list behavior is off-wiki and outside ArbCom's purview.
When off-wiki list behaviour affects one's action on-wiki, it is / should no longer be outside community and ArbCom's purview.
How do you feel about IRC?
Peter
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 17:01 +1000, Peter Ansell wrote:
On 27/11/2007, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 22:17 -0800, Durova wrote:
It's more complicated than that. Sitting arbiters were on the list.
No, it's quite simple. I made a bad block. No grand super-secret cabal ordered me to make it. And even if they had, list behavior is off-wiki and outside ArbCom's purview.
When off-wiki list behaviour affects one's action on-wiki, it is / should no longer be outside community and ArbCom's purview.
How do you feel about IRC?
Generally, it's a good place for people with similar interest to hang out and chat, and also to help people in real time if they have questions / needing help etc.
In terms of what I said above. The principle ought to apply similarly. One can't say what happened on X media shouldn't be taken into account, if what happened on X is what caused you to carry out certain action on wiki.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:44:34 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
In terms of what I said above. The principle ought to apply similarly. One can't say what happened on X media shouldn't be taken into account, if what happened on X is what caused you to carry out certain action on wiki.
So: if one had evidence that, say, a banned user had asked an admin in some external forum to undelete an article he had created while evading his ban (CSD G5), and that admin then went on to undelete the article for the banned user, do you think that should be actionable?
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 27, 2007 5:49 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:44:34 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
In terms of what I said above. The principle ought to apply similarly. One can't say what happened on X media shouldn't be taken into account, if what happened on X is what caused you to carry out certain action on wiki.
So: if one had evidence that, say, a banned user had asked an admin in some external forum to undelete an article he had created while evading his ban (CSD G5), and that admin then went on to undelete the article for the banned user, do you think that should be actionable?
It *is* actionable. People have been desysopped for conspiring with banned users.
Kirill
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:12:26 -0500, "Kirill Lokshin" kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
So: if one had evidence that, say, a banned user had asked an admin in some external forum to undelete an article he had created while evading his ban (CSD G5), and that admin then went on to undelete the article for the banned user, do you think that should be actionable?
It *is* actionable. People have been desysopped for conspiring with banned users.
That's my view as well. But it would look rather vindictive, since that person has made something of a habit of digging away at me.
Guy (JzG)
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 5:49 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:44:34 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
In terms of what I said above. The principle ought to apply similarly. One can't say what happened on X media shouldn't be taken into account, if what happened on X is what caused you to carry out certain action on wiki.
So: if one had evidence that, say, a banned user had asked an admin in some external forum to undelete an article he had created while evading his ban (CSD G5), and that admin then went on to undelete the article for the banned user, do you think that should be actionable?
It *is* actionable. People have been desysopped for conspiring with banned users.
Bullshit! Such an action merely gives greater weight to the content of an article than to the person who wrote it. Just as we don't accept that editors should have ownership over an article, so too should we not be granting ownership to the banned user. By undeleting the article the particular admin accepts responsibility for the contents of the article irrespective of who originally wrote it.
Assuming that he is conspiring solely because of his undeletion requires a significant assumption of bad faith.
Ec
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 11:37 -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
It *is* actionable. People have been desysopped for conspiring with banned users.
Bullshit! Such an action merely gives greater weight to the content of an article than to the person who wrote it. Just as we don't accept that editors should have ownership over an article, so too should we not be granting ownership to the banned user. By undeleting the article the particular admin accepts responsibility for the contents of the article irrespective of who originally wrote it.
Assuming that he is conspiring solely because of his undeletion requires a significant assumption of bad faith.
But we do give (limited) ownership over an article to editors if the article only substantial content was by that editor.
[[WP:CSD#G7]] - "'''Author requests deletion''', if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. ......"
It is clear policy that a page created by a banned user while they were banned (with no substantial other edits) is a criteria for deletion.
[[WP:CSD#G5]] - "'''Banned user'''. Pages created by banned users ''while they were banned'', with no substantial edits by others."
If the admin knows full well that the request was made by a banned user over an article the user created while banned, and was then deleted under G5, then the admin is going against clear policy in carrying out the undelete. In that case, it is not an assumption of bad faith to say the admin is conspiring with a banned user to evade clear policy.
If one want to take responsibility for the content, then one can recreate the article and post said content under their own name, giving credit to the fact that it was originally by a banned user if appropriate.
KTC
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:29:03 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
If the admin knows full well that the request was made by a banned user over an article the user created while banned, and was then deleted under G5, then the admin is going against clear policy in carrying out the undelete. In that case, it is not an assumption of bad faith to say the admin is conspiring with a banned user to evade clear policy.
Especially when other evidence indicates a financial or business relationship between the banned user and the article subject, which is the case in this particular instance.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:29:03 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
If the admin knows full well that the request was made by a banned user over an article the user created while banned, and was then deleted under G5, then the admin is going against clear policy in carrying out the undelete. In that case, it is not an assumption of bad faith to say the admin is conspiring with a banned user to evade clear policy.
Especially when other evidence indicates a financial or business relationship between the banned user and the article subject, which is the case in this particular instance.
Where was financial interest previously mentioned in the thread. You're referring to facts that were not on the table. You can't expect others to take into account what has not been said.
Ec
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:45:25 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If the admin knows full well that the request was made by a banned user over an article the user created while banned, and was then deleted under G5, then the admin is going against clear policy in carrying out the undelete. In that case, it is not an assumption of bad faith to say the admin is conspiring with a banned user to evade clear policy.
Especially when other evidence indicates a financial or business relationship between the banned user and the article subject, which is the case in this particular instance.
Where was financial interest previously mentioned in the thread. You're referring to facts that were not on the table. You can't expect others to take into account what has not been said.
Irrelevant. CSD G5 is unambiguous.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/27/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
It *is* actionable. People have been desysopped for conspiring with banned users.
You might correct that by saying "banned users not named 'Daniel Brandt'".
Bullshit! Such an action merely gives greater weight to the content of an article than to the person who wrote it. Just as we don't accept that editors should have ownership over an article, so too should we not be granting ownership to the banned user. By undeleting the article the particular admin accepts responsibility for the contents of the article irrespective of who originally wrote it.
Excellent points again. Of course, the only alternatives to undeleting the article would be: 1. to re-create it entirely from scratch (i.e. such that one's new version is not derived from any previous one) lest one run afoul of the GFDL by failing to properly attribute the previous author(s) for their work. 2. not to have an article at all, ever. In the majority of cases, this is not an appropriate solution to consider.
—C.W.
List behavior is off-wiki and outside ArbCom's purview.
Uhhh-- that's a BIG no. See [[WP:CANVASS]]. Off-wiki behavior is considered ALL THE TIME. Are you sincerely saying, after all the uproar about the methodology, that the people who "enthusasticly" endorsed the block don't need to have their actions looked at?
If you sincerely believe that list actions are blockable, then would you consent to a level 2 warning for WP:POINT and WP:AGF?
1. Who said anything about blocking? I say that you made a mistake, and at least five other people fell for the similar mistake, and the community needs to know who they are, so we can devote extra attention to double-checking their math in the future (as well as in the past).
Suppose five different doctors consult with each other, and each one agrees the patient needs surgery for stomach cancer. The patient goes under the knife, and it turns out that the patient just heartburn, and the surgery was malpractice. Sure, only one of the five doctors actually performed the surgery, but all five made the same stupid mistake, and all five need to have their licenses looked at.
It's not about "blocking" anyone, it's not about blame-- it's about prevention. The fact is-- anyone who looked at the "secret evidence" and enthusiasticly endorsed a block probably shouldn't be in the business of blocking people anymore. At the very least, the community has to know who those people were, so we can keep an eye on their actions in the future to make sure they don't repeat sorts of the same mistakes.
.
If you sincerely believe that list actions are blockable, then would you consent to a level 2 warning for WP:POINT and WP:AGF? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Whoa whoa whoa-- Are you saying that you think my merely discussing this subject is a violation of "Disrupting Wikipedia to Prove a Point"?!!?!?
Durova-- four days ago, you were practically guaranteed to be an Arbiter. Today you're no longer an admin. This is BIG stuff, it is VERY important, and it is HIGHLY worthy of discussion. I can't believe you would seriously try to tell me that I shouldn't be discussing this subject.
That's the thing about your "militia" members still don't seem to get. You didn't get desysopped because you made one tiny bad block for 75 minutes-- that's not the issue.
The issue is-- you shouldn't be engaging in anything like this in the first place. In a secret kangaroo court, you were BOUND to screw up and execute an innocent man. It was only a matter of time.
It's like the drunk driver who crashes into a tree and says "So I swerved off the road a little bit-- big deal! It was just a harmless little accident-- why are you suspending my license?" The problem isn't that the drunk driver accidently hit a tree-- it's that he was engaging in behavior that was BOUND to hurt someone sooner or later, but doesn't have the judgment to realize that driving drunk is a problem.
As far as Assuming Good Faith-- every word I've said is backed up by your own statements. You've told us there are lists, you've told us about secret evidence, you told us about the five other sleuths and the fact that the arbiters were involved. I'm not Assuming Bad Faith-- I'm Assuming You're Tellling the Truth.
Alec
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:39:26 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
List behavior is off-wiki and outside ArbCom's purview.
Uhhh-- that's a BIG no. See [[WP:CANVASS]]. Off-wiki behavior is considered ALL THE TIME.
In that case, Alec, consider yourself warned for trolling and personal attacks.
Guy (JzG)