Another thing in the subject of the BADSITES controversy, take a look at this Request for Adminship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenot es
(not to be confused with [[User:Grace Note]], a totally separate person, and one who actually is one of the opposers in the above nomination; interestingly, though "Grace" is usually a girl's name, they're both guys, which shows you can never reliably infer gender from usernames)
This user has been the subject of a massive piling-on of oppose votes, most of them coming simply because he refuses to take a totally politically correct position favoring the draconian, zero- tolerance policy on removing links to so-called "attack sites".
Despite (or maybe because of) this, he's also got more support votes than any other current RfA (it's currently 161 to 60, meaning that 101 more people support him than oppose him), but this might not be a high enough percentage to satisfy whoever closes the RfA (is there a set percentage, or is it just up to a subjective value judgment like most other debate-closing on Wikipedia?)
There are some people in the Support column who are notable for saying that they oppose him on the attack-sites issue but still don't consider it a "litmus test" that bars their support for him (after all, having administrator's tools has little or no connection with one's beliefs or actions regarding attack-site links... adding, dropping, restoring, and edit-warring over such links does not require admin powers). However, a bunch of others seem to be single- issue voters determined to torpedo any prospective admin who doesn't toe the line entirely.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
Another thing in the subject of the BADSITES controversy, take a look at this Request for Adminship:
Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?
It'll be interesting to see if the 'crats ignore the lunacy on either side.
-Jeff
On 5/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Another thing in the subject of the BADSITES controversy, take a look at this Request for Adminship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes
(not to be confused with [[User:Grace Note]], a totally separate person, and one who actually is one of the opposers in the above nomination; interestingly, though "Grace" is usually a girl's name, they're both guys, which shows you can never reliably infer gender from usernames)
This user has been the subject of a massive piling-on of oppose votes, most of them coming simply because he refuses to take a totally politically correct position favoring the draconian, zero- tolerance policy on removing links to so-called "attack sites".
Despite (or maybe because of) this, he's also got more support votes than any other current RfA (it's currently 161 to 60, meaning that 101 more people support him than oppose him), but this might not be a high enough percentage to satisfy whoever closes the RfA (is there a set percentage, or is it just up to a subjective value judgment like most other debate-closing on Wikipedia?)
There are some people in the Support column who are notable for saying that they oppose him on the attack-sites issue but still don't consider it a "litmus test" that bars their support for him (after all, having administrator's tools has little or no connection with one's beliefs or actions regarding attack-site links... adding, dropping, restoring, and edit-warring over such links does not require admin powers). However, a bunch of others seem to be single- issue voters determined to torpedo any prospective admin who doesn't toe the line entirely.
Is it just Wikipedia Review that is the issue in this RFA or are there other attack sites relevant to this RFA. I think there could be good reasons to link to it in a discussion for example an RFA if doing so can make something clear like a candidate's point of view. Of course care should used, but not linking them at all for any reason at all is not productive.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Is it just Wikipedia Review that is the issue in this RFA or are there other attack sites relevant to this RFA. I think there could be good reasons to link to it in a discussion for example an RFA if doing so can make something clear like a candidate's point of view. Of course care should used, but not linking them at all for any reason at all is not productive.
There are no attack sites relevant to this RfA, because removing links to attack sites has nothing to do with the extra tools an admin can use.
On 5/29/07, Chris Howie cdhowie@nerdshack.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Is it just Wikipedia Review that is the issue in this RFA or are there other attack sites relevant to this RFA. I think there could be good reasons to link to it in a discussion for example an RFA if doing so can make something clear like a candidate's point of view. Of course care should used, but not linking them at all for any reason at all is not productive.
There are no attack sites relevant to this RfA, because removing links to attack sites has nothing to do with the extra tools an admin can use.
Right, but answers to questions about that showing a lack of empathy and poor judgement have everything to do with the extra tools an admin can use.
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Right, but answers to questions about that showing a lack of empathy and poor judgement have everything to do with the extra tools an admin can use.
The opposes "per SlimVirgin" were on her dissatisfaction with him not supporting banning all links to all "attack sites". Read the RFA. Question 4 and Oppose 2.
- d.
On 5/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Right, but answers to questions about that showing a lack of empathy and poor judgement have everything to do with the extra tools an admin can use.
The opposes "per SlimVirgin" were on her dissatisfaction with him not supporting banning all links to all "attack sites". Read the RFA. Question 4 and Oppose 2.
As you keep citing this, here is what I wrote:
<s>Oppose.</s> Strong oppose. I have to oppose based on Gracenote's answer to my question about attack sites. I feel that websites that out and defame Wikipedians should never be linked to; I certainly can't think of a single encyclopedic reason they would ever have to be. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Changing to strong oppose, because some of GN's responses and his contribs have caused me more concern. The candidate has made only 343 edits to article talk, suggesting very low community interaction over content, against 5,700 edits to articles, many or most of which now appear to have been made by a bot, [3] which means they can be racked up in a matter of hours, and the bulk of the edits were made this month. [4] I'm also concerned that the bot is being used without bot approval, but Gracenotes says above that it's not a bot (which is either wrong, or it means that he sits mindlessly hitting a button hundreds of times for hours on end), and I'm not keen on the facetious response above when I asked GN why he'd redirected his user page to Gurch's. All this, combined with the attack sites thing, his posting to Wikipedia Review that that site shouldn't be added to the spam blacklist, and his apparent inability to give straightforward and clear answers to questions, is enough to cause me major concern. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
month. [4] I'm also concerned that the bot is being used without bot approval, but Gracenotes says above that it's not a bot (which is either wrong, or it means that he sits mindlessly hitting a button hundreds of times for hours on end),
I'm doing this myself of late with {{spoiler}} tags, so I find it quite believable.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
month. [4] I'm also concerned that the bot is being used without bot approval, but Gracenotes says above that it's not a bot (which is either wrong, or it means that he sits mindlessly hitting a button hundreds of times for hours on end),
I'm doing this myself of late with {{spoiler}} tags, so I find it quite believable.
I've actually been called a bot before, IIRC based on some work I was doing with categories at the time. Sometimes it can actually be quite relaxing to sit on Wikipedia for a few hours just edit-paste-edit-pasting my way through hundreds of articles in a massive cleanup binge.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I've actually been called a bot before, IIRC based on some work I was doing with categories at the time. Sometimes it can actually be quite relaxing to sit on Wikipedia for a few hours just edit-paste-edit-pasting my way through hundreds of articles in a massive cleanup binge.
Yeah, people who feel it is implausible that a person could hit a button 5-10 times a minute for hours on end with reasonable quality control have apparently not ever had a modern manufacturing job.
William
On 30/05/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I've actually been called a bot before, IIRC based on some work I was doing with categories at the time. Sometimes it can actually be quite relaxing to sit on Wikipedia for a few hours just edit-paste-edit-pasting my way through hundreds of articles in a massive cleanup binge.
Yeah, people who feel it is implausible that a person could hit a button 5-10 times a minute for hours on end with reasonable quality control have apparently not ever had a modern manufacturing job.
Clicking the button on AWB is an excellent way to pass the time with a week-old baby on one's arm, when sleep cycles are something that happens to other people. Back to work on Friday ...
- d.
On 5/30/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I've actually been called a bot before, IIRC based on some work I was doing with categories at the time. Sometimes it can actually be quite relaxing to sit on Wikipedia for a few hours just edit-paste-edit-pasting my way through hundreds of articles in a massive cleanup binge.
Yeah, people who feel it is implausible that a person could hit a button 5-10 times a minute for hours on end with reasonable quality control have apparently not ever had a modern manufacturing job.
I doubt that anyone with a modern manufacturing job would do it without pay, William.
On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Yeah, people who feel it is implausible that a person could hit a button 5-10 times a minute for hours on end with reasonable quality control have apparently not ever had a modern manufacturing job.
I doubt that anyone with a modern manufacturing job would do it without pay, William.
Yet it's amazing what people will do for a volunteer enterprise.
My favourite personal example is the [[Puffing Billy Railway, Melbourne]]. Volunteers reliably turn up every morning at threeish to get the steam engine cleaned and heated up. Jobs that were previously an incentive for socialism are now something that volunteers will do because they love the cause.
You seem to be implying that you actually find this so implausible that you can't believe Gracenotes wasn't lying. Is that what you're saying?
- d.
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to be implying that you actually find this so implausible that you can't believe Gracenotes wasn't lying. Is that what you're saying?
Not at all. My point in all this is the one I've made elsewhere in this thread, or maybe there are two threads going about this, namely that I feel uneasy about seeing people promoted who've racked up high edit counts by using automated or semi-automated scripts, but who have very little article-talk interaction.
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to be implying that you actually find this so implausible that you can't believe Gracenotes wasn't lying. Is that what you're saying?
Not at all. My point in all this is the one I've made elsewhere in this thread, or maybe there are two threads going about this, namely that I feel uneasy about seeing people promoted who've racked up high edit counts by using automated or semi-automated scripts, but who have very little article-talk interaction.
But you do not use the admin tools to interact in article-talk. They *are* used for vandalism-fighting and protection. ~~~~
Gabe Johnson wrote:
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to be implying that you actually find this so implausible that you can't believe Gracenotes wasn't lying. Is that what you're saying?
Not at all. My point in all this is the one I've made elsewhere in this thread, or maybe there are two threads going about this, namely that I feel uneasy about seeing people promoted who've racked up high edit counts by using automated or semi-automated scripts, but who have very little article-talk interaction.
But you do not use the admin tools to interact in article-talk. They *are* used for vandalism-fighting and protection. ~~~~
Our saner editors can also find other uses, even if the use is only occasional.
Ec
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to be implying that you actually find this so implausible that you can't believe Gracenotes wasn't lying. Is that what you're saying?
Not at all. My point in all this is the one I've made elsewhere in this thread, or maybe there are two threads going about this, namely that I feel uneasy about seeing people promoted who've racked up high edit counts by using automated or semi-automated scripts, but who have very little article-talk interaction.
As someone who has done large numbers of minor edits in the past, completely unaided by scripting*, I'm disappointed that you feel this way. These edits are often the formatting and style edits that make Wikipedia look and feel like an encyclopedia. And yet you implied that anyone who does mass-editing is either using a script or is "mindlessly hitting a button". Was that necessary?
*I'm on the AWB-approved list, or was last I checked, but this is in the mostly vain hope that AWB gets ported to any platform whatsoever that isn't Windows. ;_;
Michael Noda wrote:
As someone who has done large numbers of minor edits in the past, completely unaided by scripting*, I'm disappointed that you feel this way. These edits are often the formatting and style edits that make Wikipedia look and feel like an encyclopedia. And yet you implied that anyone who does mass-editing is either using a script or is "mindlessly hitting a button". Was that necessary?
Same here. I've racked up something like 50,000 article edits over the years and I've never touched AWB. The most automation I've ever used is Cyde's reference converter from time to time, and that requires copying and pasting from an external text field so it's not very automated.
On 5/30/07, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
As someone who has done large numbers of minor edits in the past, completely unaided by scripting*, I'm disappointed that you feel this way. These edits are often the formatting and style edits that make Wikipedia look and feel like an encyclopedia. And yet you implied that anyone who does mass-editing is either using a script or is "mindlessly hitting a button". Was that necessary?
Michael, I'm sorry if you felt offended by what I wrote. I just feel it's an issue that's going to have to be addressed at some point. My impression is that the focus on RfAs now seems to be on vandalism fighting and AfD voting. (This is based only on the RfAs I've looked at over the last few months, and not a proper study.) The result is that people are being promoted who *seem* to be very experienced editors because they have thousands of edits. But in fact they know little or nothing about the policies; they may have contributed nothing to project space other than AfD; and they may have very little article talk interaction. This raises a number of issues, primarily that we're promoting people who may not be experienced editors and who don't know their way around the community, and secondly that there's a high risk of promoting people who already have admin accounts, because it's very easy to get one if you're willing to spend a few weeks sticking to the formula. It'd be harder if we required candidates to have interacted on talk, engaged in writing articles and so on. That's all I was trying to get across, not that making formatting edits is a useless thing to do.
Are you prepared to identify even confidentially to the bureaucrats the people you think are undeclared sockpuppet admins, or are you saying you just think it possible that there might be some. The abuse would be important enough for desysopping, and I'd think that those who wanted to preserve the integrity of WP would fully support your doing it, in private -- or in public, as for any sockpuppet. DGG
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
As someone who has done large numbers of minor edits in the past, completely unaided by scripting*, I'm disappointed that you feel this way. These edits are often the formatting and style edits that make Wikipedia look and feel like an encyclopedia. And yet you implied that anyone who does mass-editing is either using a script or is "mindlessly hitting a button". Was that necessary?
Michael, I'm sorry if you felt offended by what I wrote. I just feel it's an issue that's going to have to be addressed at some point. My impression is that the focus on RfAs now seems to be on vandalism fighting and AfD voting. (This is based only on the RfAs I've looked at over the last few months, and not a proper study.) The result is that people are being promoted who *seem* to be very experienced editors because they have thousands of edits. But in fact they know little or nothing about the policies; they may have contributed nothing to project space other than AfD; and they may have very little article talk interaction. This raises a number of issues, primarily that we're promoting people who may not be experienced editors and who don't know their way around the community, and secondly that there's a high risk of promoting people who already have admin accounts, because it's very easy to get one if you're willing to spend a few weeks sticking to the formula. It'd be harder if we required candidates to have interacted on talk, engaged in writing articles and so on. That's all I was trying to get across, not that making formatting edits is a useless thing to do.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 30/05/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Are you prepared to identify even confidentially to the bureaucrats the people you think are undeclared sockpuppet admins, or are you saying you just think it possible that there might be some. The abuse would be important enough for desysopping, and I'd think that those who wanted to preserve the integrity of WP would fully support your doing it, in private -- or in public, as for any sockpuppet.
Note that the ArbCom just did a Stark Fist of Truth on Runcorn et al - see [[WP:AN]].
- d.
Good start. But I think that I and SV had in mind something even worse--running more than one admin account--if that might really be out there we need some kind of strategy. But I'm sure the more experienced people are aware, so it doesnt have to be public. DGG~~~~
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Are you prepared to identify even confidentially to the bureaucrats the people you think are undeclared sockpuppet admins, or are you saying you just think it possible that there might be some. The abuse would be important enough for desysopping, and I'd think that those who wanted to preserve the integrity of WP would fully support your doing it, in private -- or in public, as for any sockpuppet.
Note that the ArbCom just did a Stark Fist of Truth on Runcorn et al - see [[WP:AN]].
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 31/05/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Good start. But I think that I and SV had in mind something even worse--running more than one admin account--if that might really be out there we need some kind of strategy. But I'm sure the more experienced people are aware, so it doesnt have to be public. DGG~~~~
Every bad scenario you can think of has probably already happened, including admins on crack.
- d.
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 5/30/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Yeah, people who feel it is implausible that a person could hit a button 5-10 times a minute for hours on end with reasonable quality control have apparently not ever had a modern manufacturing job.
I doubt that anyone with a modern manufacturing job would do it without pay, William.
I think Mark Twain said it best:
"If he had been a great and wise philosopher, like the writer of this book, he would now have comprehended that Work consists of whatever a body is OBLIGED to do, and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do. And this would help him to understand why constructing artificial flowers or performing on a tread-mill is work, while rolling ten-pins or climbing Mont Blanc is only amusement. There are wealthy gentlemen in England who drive four-horse passenger- coaches twenty or thirty miles on a daily line, in the summer, because the privilege costs them considerable money; but if they were offered wages for the service, that would turn it into work and then they would resign."
The only difference I see 150 years later is that constructing artificial flowers and using treadmills are now also play.
Also consider World of Warcraft. Most people play it for fun; gold farmers play it for money. As far as I can tell it's no more boring than the kind of cleanup that Gracenotes was doing, and he was actually accomplishing something.
William
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 5/30/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I've actually been called a bot before, IIRC based on some work I was doing with categories at the time. Sometimes it can actually be quite relaxing to sit on Wikipedia for a few hours just edit-paste-edit-pasting my way through hundreds of articles in a massive cleanup binge.
Yeah, people who feel it is implausible that a person could hit a button 5-10 times a minute for hours on end with reasonable quality control have apparently not ever had a modern manufacturing job.
I doubt that anyone with a modern manufacturing job would do it without pay, William.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That's somewhat of an interesting statement coming from someone with over 50,000 edits. It can't be that implausible that someone would do it entirely for free.
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin wrote:
Yeah, people who feel it is implausible that a person could hit a button 5-10 times a minute for hours on end with reasonable quality control have apparently not ever had a modern manufacturing job.
I doubt that anyone with a modern manufacturing job would do it without pay, William.
Somewhat tangentially, but relevant, I think... is what some sociologists are referring to as the "AOL effect". For years, AOL used unpaid "Community Leaders" in a massive capacity to host chat areas, patrol user boards, host and guide tours of the service, etc. Arguably, these volunteers actually created the feeling of community that made AOL work (at least in the early years). AOL was able to use the power of contributing to community to get volunteers to do work that it may not have been cost effective to use internal employees for. In some cases, volunteers amassed huge numbers of hours in return for (at first) free dial up access. Toward the end the free access wasn't such a big deal anymore because of unlimited connection times for one monthly fee, and AOL braced themselves for the inevitable exodus of Community Leaders.... which didn't happen.
People were willing to work - yes, real work with schedules and some pretty crappy jobs - in exchange for little more than the recognition of their work as Community Leaders.
AOL had some interesting interactions with the Labor Department over it (though I don't recall that it ever actually went anywhere), but the lesson that was driven home was that given a large enough user base, you'll find folks to do just about anything, if you tell them they're a leader.
Again, certainly not a direct comparison, but an interesting tangential aside.
Philippe
Bryan Derksen wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
month. [4] I'm also concerned that the bot is being used without bot approval, but Gracenotes says above that it's not a bot (which is either wrong, or it means that he sits mindlessly hitting a button hundreds of times for hours on end),
I'm doing this myself of late with {{spoiler}} tags, so I find it quite believable.
I've actually been called a bot before, IIRC based on some work I was doing with categories at the time. Sometimes it can actually be quite relaxing to sit on Wikipedia for a few hours just edit-paste-edit-pasting my way through hundreds of articles in a massive cleanup binge.
Consistency is a predictable symptom of bots.
Ec
On Wed, 30 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
month. [4] I'm also concerned that the bot is being used without bot approval, but Gracenotes says above that it's not a bot (which is either wrong, or it means that he sits mindlessly hitting a button hundreds of times for hours on end),
I'm doing this myself of late with {{spoiler}} tags, so I find it quite believable.
You seem to think this is a good thing. It's not, especially with the claim that there's "consensus" for removing spoiler warnings because nobody reverts thousands of edits.
(And how in the world can you read each edit individually and decide on its merit when doing this?)
jayjg wrote:
Right, but answers to questions about that showing a lack of empathy and poor judgement have everything to do with the extra tools an admin can use.
I'd be interested to see an example.
On Mon, 28 May 2007 09:31:43 -0400, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
(not to be confused with [[User:Grace Note]], a totally separate person, and one who actually is one of the opposers in the above nomination; interestingly, though "Grace" is usually a girl's name, they're both guys, which shows you can never reliably infer gender from usernames)
's a musical term, innit. I was not confused for a minute :-)
Guy (JzG)