Hi,
There is one thing I don't really quite understand, and I was wondering if someone could explain this to me in very simple and easy-to-follow terms...
Basically, I seem to be making the following two recurring observations:
(1) Users who are unhappy with some admin action or other post to the mailing list - sometimes angrily, sometimes rationally, but always making explicit that they are annoyed - complaining about what they perceive to be "admin abuse".
(2) Admins sometimes defend their actions by using the argument, "If you've managed to piss off several admins, chances are you've done something wrong."
Given that this massive influx of annoyed complaints plainly demonstrates that users are much more commonly and much more seriously the ones that get annoyed, and supposing that the argument #2 is applicable, doesn't it follow plainly obviously that the admins are doing much more significant wrongs?
The only ways out of this dilemma appear to be either to admit that a larger proportion of users are right in their "cabal" accusations than is widely assumed, OR... to accept that argument #2 is invalid.
If we accept that argument #2 is invalid, then it must logically follow that admins getting annoyed is no indication of user behaviour being wrong. If that is so, then what sort of non-wrong behaviour gets them pissed off and why?
Timwi
I think that #2 is an invalid argument, and the action should be defended by the actual circumstance. If a user is blocked for disruption, and the user complains, the admin should defend his/herself by citing contribs, or some other valid explanation.
Adam
On 7/14/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Hi,
There is one thing I don't really quite understand, and I was wondering if someone could explain this to me in very simple and easy-to-follow terms...
Basically, I seem to be making the following two recurring observations:
(1) Users who are unhappy with some admin action or other post to the mailing list - sometimes angrily, sometimes rationally, but always making explicit that they are annoyed - complaining about what they perceive to be "admin abuse".
(2) Admins sometimes defend their actions by using the argument, "If you've managed to piss off several admins, chances are you've done something wrong."
Given that this massive influx of annoyed complaints plainly demonstrates that users are much more commonly and much more seriously the ones that get annoyed, and supposing that the argument #2 is applicable, doesn't it follow plainly obviously that the admins are doing much more significant wrongs?
The only ways out of this dilemma appear to be either to admit that a larger proportion of users are right in their "cabal" accusations than is widely assumed, OR... to accept that argument #2 is invalid.
If we accept that argument #2 is invalid, then it must logically follow that admins getting annoyed is no indication of user behaviour being wrong. If that is so, then what sort of non-wrong behaviour gets them pissed off and why?
Timwi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Adam Lorenz wrote:
I think that #2 is an invalid argument, and the action should be defended by the actual circumstance. If a user is blocked for disruption, and the user complains, the admin should defend his/herself by citing contribs, or some other valid explanation.
Thank you. I agree, although I believe you are restricting yourself to actions (such as blocking) that are permitted under certain circumstances, but not actions which the policies prohibit (e.g. deleting a page that meets no speedy criteria, protecting a page the admin is involved in a dispute on, etc.). The relevant admin often defends the former actions by citing contribs, and then the latter ones are somehow excused because the only one that complains about them is a user who has been identified as a trouble-maker of sorts.
Timwi
On 7/14/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote: [snip]
Given that this massive influx of annoyed complaints plainly demonstrates that users are much more commonly and much more seriously the ones that get annoyed,
If one one thousandth of the users complained, how many people would that be? What percentage would signify something of significance? What percentage has complained thus far?
Without that information I would have a hard time considering anything a massive influx.
Please keep in mind the scale with which we're working. The sky isn't falling.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/14/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote: [snip]
Given that this massive influx of annoyed complaints plainly demonstrates that users are much more commonly and much more seriously the ones that get annoyed,
If one one thousandth of the users complained, how many people would that be? What percentage would signify something of significance? What percentage has complained thus far?
You have just undermined my argumentation. The amount of annoyed users is obviously strictly greater than the amount of annoyed e-mails we actually see. We actually see an annoyed e-mail from a new user almost every day. But how many similarly annoyed e-mails do you see from admins?
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/14/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote: [snip]
Given that this massive influx of annoyed complaints plainly demonstrates that users are much more commonly and much more seriously the ones that get annoyed,
If one one thousandth of the users complained, how many people would that be? What percentage would signify something of significance? What percentage has complained thus far?
You have just undermined my argumentation.
Heh, silly typo. I meant to type "underlined", not "undermined"... but actually, let me replace that with "confirmed". :-)
Timwi
On 7/14/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/14/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote: [snip]
Given that this massive influx of annoyed complaints plainly demonstrates that users are much more commonly and much more seriously the ones that get annoyed,
If one one thousandth of the users complained, how many people would that be? What percentage would signify something of significance? What percentage has complained thus far?
You have just undermined my argumentation. The amount of annoyed users is obviously strictly greater than the amount of annoyed e-mails we actually see. We actually see an annoyed e-mail from a new user almost every day. But how many similarly annoyed e-mails do you see from admins?
I suspect you didn't intend to say what you said, and thus you wouldn't enjoy my thanks for admiting your failure.. :)
In any case, You're making a significant logical error.... You are claiming:
*Users get angry if admins take action against them *admins get pissed if users are bad *there are strictly more pissed users than pissed admins thus *Admins are taking action against good users because otherwise we would expect equal numbers of angry users and angry admins.
There are a number of mistakes with this line of reasoning. The most important of which is that admins don't always get pissed when users do bad... The claim you are referring to made is that only if users are bad admins are pissed, not if and only if. Your argument also makes questionable assumptions about the probability of an annoyed person speaking up.
I am quite sure that mistakes are made... and that we even have a few low quality admins. ... But I've seen no information which causes me to believe that this should be considered a high priority problem
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/14/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/14/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote: [snip]
Given that this massive influx of annoyed complaints plainly demonstrates that users are much more commonly and much more seriously the ones that get annoyed,
If one one thousandth of the users complained, how many people would that be? What percentage would signify something of significance? What percentage has complained thus far?
You have just undermined my argumentation. The amount of annoyed users is obviously strictly greater than the amount of annoyed e-mails we actually see. We actually see an annoyed e-mail from a new user almost every day. But how many similarly annoyed e-mails do you see from admins?
I suspect you didn't intend to say what you said, and thus you wouldn't enjoy my thanks for admiting your failure.. :)
Heh, yeah, see my other posting :)
In any case, You're making a significant logical error.... You are claiming:
*Users get angry if admins take action against them *admins get pissed if users are bad *there are strictly more pissed users than pissed admins thus *Admins are taking action against good users because otherwise we would expect equal numbers of angry users and angry admins.
There are a number of mistakes with this line of reasoning. The most important of which is that admins don't always get pissed when users do bad...
I don't see how I'm making this assumption. Quite to the contrary, you now seem to be making the assumption that users always get pissed when admins do bad against them...
The claim you are referring to made is that only if users are bad admins are pissed, not if and only if.
I'm sorry, this sentence does not parse grammatically. Please rephrase? :)
Your argument also makes questionable assumptions about the probability of an annoyed person speaking up.
Does it? Are you alleging that all or most annoyed people speak up? I don't think so.
I am quite sure that mistakes are made... and that we even have a few low quality admins. ... But I've seen no information which causes me to believe that this should be considered a high priority problem
You'd rather continue to have this flurry of angry complaints on this mailing list? :)
Timwi
On 7/14/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote: [snip]
I don't see how I'm making this assumption. Quite to the contrary, you now seem to be making the assumption that users always get pissed when admins do bad against them...
I'm not making any assumptions. My only claim is that we do not have statistically significant information... and that you are complaining about a complaint level which is probably itself too low to be statistically significant.
If my restatement of your position didn't match your thoughts, then I've failed to understand what you are arguing.
The claim you are referring to made is that only if users are bad admins are pissed, not if and only if.
I'm sorry, this sentence does not parse grammatically. Please rephrase? :)
I omitted 'being' before made. Your (2) is effectively: Only if users are bad admins are pissed
It seemed to me that you were reading (2) as : If and only if users are bad admins are pissed.
Does it? Are you alleging that all or most annoyed people speak up? I don't think so.
No, I'm claiming that we have a lot of users and that you've failed to make any attempt to demonstrate that the level of complaint we are seeing is significant.
I am quite sure that mistakes are made... and that we even have a few low quality admins. ... But I've seen no information which causes me to believe that this should be considered a high priority problem
You'd rather continue to have this flurry of angry complaints on this mailing list? :)
They don't bother me. You can always unsubscribe if they bother you.
How else could I respond? Even if everything were perfect we'd still get complaints... and if the number of users becomes large enough, we'd still get a lot of complaints in absolute terms. So if lots of complaints bothers you, you should unsubscribe.
Now if you actually think that the complaints are evidence of something that needs improvment, please provide evidence...
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The claim you are referring to made is that only if users are bad admins are pissed, not if and only if.
I'm sorry, this sentence does not parse grammatically. Please rephrase? :)
I omitted 'being' before made. Your (2) is effectively: Only if users are bad admins are pissed
"Only if" is the converse of "if", right? So the above statement means: "If admins are annoyed [at a user], then that user has been bad". This is the argument that is often used here to justify discriminating behaviour against a newbie.
It seemed to me that you were reading (2) as : If and only if users are bad admins are pissed.
No, I'm not. You are thinking of the converse of the above, which is:
"If a user has been bad, then admins get annoyed at that user"
but I am actually saying that (2) implies that
"If users gets annoyed at the admins, then the admins have been bad"
which is a consequence of (2) and the fact that both users and admins are human beings.
Does it? Are you alleging that all or most annoyed people speak up? I don't think so.
No, I'm claiming that we have a lot of users and that you've failed to make any attempt to demonstrate that the level of complaint we are seeing is significant.
Okay -- by that argument, invidivual admins are quick to block and ban users who they are unhappy about, without making any attempt to demonstrate that the other admins' level of unhappiness about the user is significant.
I am quite sure that mistakes are made... and that we even have a few low quality admins. ... But I've seen no information which causes me to believe that this should be considered a high priority problem
You'd rather continue to have this flurry of angry complaints on this mailing list? :)
They don't bother me. You can always unsubscribe if they bother you.
Please don't stray away from the argument. Unsubscribing does not make them go away -- the users would still get annoyed at the admins, and would still complain. I am not bothered by the fact that I *see* the complaints, but about the fact that users are generally unhappy about the admins and their behaviour towards them.
How else could I respond? Even if everything were perfect we'd still get complaints...
Didn't you notice that the complaints we receive are almost all complaining about the same thing (namely, admin abuse)? Didn't you notice that almost all of them complain that the admins do not follow the policies they claim to value so much? They are not random complaints about random things. They are about one very specific issue.
Now if you actually think that the complaints are evidence of something that needs improvment, please provide evidence...
The complaining users have already done that numerous times. All of that evidence is usually brushed under the rug, and the topic changed to collecting evidence of that user's own wrong-doing (the "tu quoque" fallacy). I get the impression that the percentage of people on this mailing list who take any of those evidence-presenting complaints seriously is alarmingly low.
Timwi
On 7/17/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
"Only if" is the converse of "if", right? So the above statement means: "If admins are annoyed [at a user], then that user has been bad". This is the argument that is often used here to justify discriminating behaviour against a newbie.
Let's not use the very subjective term "annoyed" and instead consider it as a fact-finding exercise. The question is, if more than one admin has found a user to have done something wrong, does that make it likely that they have done something wrong? If the admins in question get no obvious benefit out of agreeing with one another (i.e. they are not conspiring), then this is a statement about the ability of independent assessments by people who are classified as being "known to be reliable" to arrive at something like the truth. In a commonsense way this should not be controversial in and of itself.
Okay -- by that argument, invidivual admins are quick to block and ban users who they are unhappy about, without making any attempt to demonstrate that the other admins' level of unhappiness about the user is significant.
Demonstrate where? How? Usually it is pretty obvious from a disruptive user's talk page. And if it needs to be demonstrated (i.e., someone asks), it is usually pretty easy to do so.
Please don't stray away from the argument. Unsubscribing does not make them go away -- the users would still get annoyed at the admins, and would still complain. I am not bothered by the fact that I *see* the complaints, but about the fact that users are generally unhappy about the admins and their behaviour towards them.
The question is whether the complaints are valid. Sometimes they are. Often they are not. We need to take care to differentiate between the two, which I generally do on the basis of whether or not admin opinions have been completely one-sided. If there is significant and well-reasoned disagreement among admins, though, then it is something which should be taken at least somewhat seriously. But if all admins come to more-or-less the same conclusion, then the likelihood is the complaint is "not valid" (which can mean a number of things, usually "is not resonant with the way things are done on Wikipedia", which is a relatively non-normative way of putting it).
The complaining users have already done that numerous times. All of that evidence is usually brushed under the rug, and the topic changed to collecting evidence of that user's own wrong-doing (the "tu quoque" fallacy). I get the impression that the percentage of people on this mailing list who take any of those evidence-presenting complaints seriously is alarmingly low.
I try to take them seriously, but most of the time it becomes abundantly clear that the complaining user is, at best, trying to use technicalities of rules to game the system, or has absolutely no regard for any of our core policies. Again, I think complaints should be evaluated seriously, and admins should not uncritically leap to the defense of other admins, but I don't find your argument as stated very compelling.
FF
Fastfission wrote:
Let's not use the very subjective term "annoyed" and instead consider it as a fact-finding exercise. The question is, if more than one admin has found a user to have done something wrong, does that make it likely that they have done something wrong?
Yes, I do not deny that. Now -- if a user finds an admin to have done something wrong, does that make it likely that the admin has done something wrong? Obviously you'll say 'no' because there's only one user complaining, and everyone else sides with the admin. But read on...
If the admins in question get no obvious benefit out of agreeing with one another (i.e. they are not conspiring), then this is a statement about the ability of independent assessments by people who are classified as being "known to be reliable" to arrive at something like the truth.
But we have already established on this mailing list that admins *do* conspire, albeit on a very subtle and subconscious level, without knowing it. Someone (not me!) gave this analogy with noblemen in the Middle Ages, who rarely if ever accused each other of a crime even if they knew about such a crime. If an ordinary citizen were to accuse a nobleman of anything, all the noblemen (who were "known to be reliable" and supposedly had "ability of independent assessments") would side with their fellow nobleman and all come to the same conclusion in his favour.
It is within human nature to perceive agreeing with members of one's own social class as beneficial, and to make it harder for "lower humans" who disagree with them to enter their class. Now, why is this the case? Read on...
The question is whether the complaints are valid. Sometimes they are. Often they are not. We need to take care to differentiate between the two, which I generally do on the basis of whether or not admin opinions have been completely one-sided.
A-ha! Doesn't this explain the above effect then? If a majority of admins agree with a decision, then the decision is less likely to be questioned (and, consequently, the complaining user is taken less seriously). Therefore, admins will agree with each other in order to reduce the likelihood of being questioned. This is the "benefit of agreeing with each other" that you were looking for. :)
If all admins come to more-or-less the same conclusion, then the likelihood is the complaint is "not valid" (which can mean a number of things, usually "is not resonant with the way things are done on Wikipedia", which is a relatively non-normative way of putting it).
Now, does "the way things are done on Wikipedia" refer to the spirit of the policies, or the behaviour of admins in practice? We all know that there are significant differences between those two.
If you mean "the spirit of the policies", then I disagree with you: admins can very easily come to the conclusion that one of their fellow admins "did okay" when a more impartial observer (which in reality doesn't exist) would say the action was clearly beyond the borderline set out by the policy. Especially when that action becomes more and more common, more and more admins get away with it, and thus it becomes more and more accepted.
If you mean "the way admins behave in practice", then you have confirmed my theory. Several admins come to the same conclusion, /therefore/ you do the same (and presumably accept and defend their arguments but not the complaining user's).
The complaining users have already done that numerous times. All of that evidence is usually brushed under the rug, and the topic changed to collecting evidence of that user's own wrong-doing (the "tu quoque" fallacy). I get the impression that the percentage of people on this mailing list who take any of those evidence-presenting complaints seriously is alarmingly low.
I try to take them seriously, but most of the time it becomes abundantly clear that the complaining user is, at best, trying to use technicalities of rules to game the system, or has absolutely no regard for any of our core policies.
Such as?
Of course it is easy for you to claim that someone has "absolutely no regard for policy XYZ", but surely most of the time it is more likely a misunderstanding of the spirit of the policy (by either side!), or just complete ignorance of a less obvious policy. It is, for example, not intuitive that we should have a policy on "notability" or "verifiability", so why should anyone look that up?
Again, I think complaints should be evaluated seriously, and admins should not uncritically leap to the defense of other admins, but I don't find your argument as stated very compelling.
Not very but at least a little? ;-)
Timwi
On Jul 17, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Timwi wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
Let's not use the very subjective term "annoyed" and instead consider it as a fact-finding exercise. The question is, if more than one admin has found a user to have done something wrong, does that make it likely that they have done something wrong?
Yes, I do not deny that. Now -- if a user finds an admin to have done something wrong, does that make it likely that the admin has done something wrong?
Certainly it does. If no-one has objected to an action, it's more likely that action is correct than if anyone has. There - the rest of your argument has just foundered on the rock of people not behaving as you predicted. Sorry.
Obviously you'll say 'no' because there's only one user complaining, and everyone else sides with the admin. But read on...
As I said - sorry - you guessed wrong.
If the admins in question get no obvious benefit out of agreeing with one another (i.e. they are not conspiring), then this is a statement about the ability of independent assessments by people who are classified as being "known to be reliable" to arrive at something like the truth.
But we have already established on this mailing list that admins *do* conspire, albeit on a very subtle and subconscious level, without knowing it. Someone (not me!) gave this analogy with noblemen in the Middle Ages, who rarely if ever accused each other of a crime even if they knew about such a crime.
Mailing list archive citation? Or at least a name, or a subject line? Otherwise I'll have to consider that it *was* "you" you gave this analogy, with all the lack of support that entails. In any case, consider this a specific, direct statement that we have NOT "established on this mailing list that admins *do* conspire". Provide a citation if you wish to claim otherwise.
<snip>
It is within human nature to perceive agreeing with members of one's own social class as beneficial, and to make it harder for "lower humans" who disagree with them to enter their class.
Wait, wait - now you are jumping to claim that admins agree with each other to prevent people from getting through RfA? Evidence? Argument? Something other than "proof by assertion"? Please?
Now, why is this the case? Read on...
The question is whether the complaints are valid. Sometimes they are. Often they are not. We need to take care to differentiate between the two, which I generally do on the basis of whether or not admin opinions have been completely one-sided.
A-ha! Doesn't this explain the above effect then? If a majority of admins agree with a decision, then the decision is less likely to be questioned (and, consequently, the complaining user is taken less seriously). Therefore, admins will agree with each other in order to reduce the likelihood of being questioned. This is the "benefit of agreeing with each other" that you were looking for. :)
Why is this a benefit? As far as I can see, a lack of questioning is a detriment to proper functioning, and the benefit of Wikipedia.
If all admins come to more-or-less the same conclusion, then the likelihood is the complaint is "not valid" (which can mean a number of things, usually "is not resonant with the way things are done on Wikipedia", which is a relatively non-normative way of putting it).
Now, does "the way things are done on Wikipedia" refer to the spirit of the policies, or the behaviour of admins in practice? We all know that there are significant differences between those two.
Sigh. Not this again. "the way things are done on Wikipedia" means the practices which typically occur on the website with the DNS address of http://en.wikipedia.org. Drop the dead horse, please.
<snip>
Of course it is easy for you to claim that someone has "absolutely no regard for policy XYZ", but surely most of the time it is more likely a misunderstanding of the spirit of the policy (by either side!), or just complete ignorance of a less obvious policy.
Well, ignorance doesn't fly after the policy has been pointed out, but I agree with you that misunderstandings are far more common than actual malice - although we get plenty of that, too.
It is, for example, not intuitive that we should have a policy on "notability" or "verifiability", so why should anyone look that up?
Maybe because someone else has said - "I noticed you made an edit that didn't agree with our policy on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] - please read that page and follow it in any future edits you make. Thanks for volunteering your time working on Wikipedia!" (paraphrase of one of our standard notes to new users).
Jesse Weinstein
Jesse W wrote:
On Jul 17, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Timwi wrote:
Yes, I do not deny that. Now -- if a user finds an admin to have done something wrong, does that make it likely that the admin has done something wrong?
Certainly it does. If no-one has objected to an action, it's more likely that action is correct than if anyone has. There - the rest of your argument has just foundered on the rock of people not behaving as you predicted. Sorry.
Obviously you'll say 'no' because there's only one user complaining, and everyone else sides with the admin. But read on...
As I said - sorry - you guessed wrong.
I'll be frank: you appear a little conceited here. If you agree with the original statement, you are only confirming my theory even more, but you are blindly assuming that contradicting me makes you "win" and so you say "sorry, you lost, nee-ner".
But we have already established on this mailing list that admins *do* conspire, albeit on a very subtle and subconscious level, without knowing it. Someone (not me!) gave this analogy with noblemen in the Middle Ages, who rarely if ever accused each other of a crime even if they knew about such a crime.
Mailing list archive citation? Or at least a name, or a subject line? Otherwise I'll have to consider that it *was* "you" you gave this analogy, with all the lack of support that entails.
If it had been me, I would obviously be more likely to know precisely what I typed, especially the subject line. This way, however, all I remember is the gist of the thought, not the subject line and not the author's name. Also, Google's coverage of the mailing list archive appears to be notoriously incomplete (searching for a randomly-chosen subject line from last month gives no results), so it is no surprise that I cannot find it. It is unfair of you to allege that this means it doesn't exist.
Wait, wait - now you are jumping to claim that admins agree with each other to prevent people from getting through RfA? Evidence? Argument? Something other than "proof by assertion"? Please?
What do you expect? A link to an RfA in which someone says, "Oppose -- If I gave support for this one, I'd be less popular in the admin community so I better side with everyone"???
Rather, look at the kinds of arguments that are brought forward to justify the rejection of candidates who have never done anything wrong. These arguments go something like, "We don't need that many admins", "We already have enough admins", "There is no point in making him admin if he's not going to be active", etc. Everyone copies these arguments from everyone else, and nobody actually thinks about them to realise that these arguments are stupid and make no sense.
Anyway. I do not follow RfA. The only RfA I have followed closely is the only one I have ever nominated myself. That RfA (Spottedowl, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Spottedowl) is a prime example of adminship refused solely on the basis of edit count (which I'm sure you'll agree is not an indication of any wrong-doing and therefore not a valid criterion for opposition). By extension, it's an example where admins collectively act contrary to the spirit of policies ("adminship is not supposed to be a big deal") and all of them get away with it because only one person complains about it (me) and everyone else defends each other.
A-ha! Doesn't this explain the above effect then? If a majority of admins agree with a decision, then the decision is less likely to be questioned (and, consequently, the complaining user is taken less seriously). Therefore, admins will agree with each other in order to reduce the likelihood of being questioned. This is the "benefit of agreeing with each other" that you were looking for. :)
Why is this a benefit? As far as I can see, a lack of questioning is a detriment to proper functioning, and the benefit of Wikipedia.
It is a benefit to _them_ (their social standing in the community), not to Wikipedia. If you assert that people subconsciously act solely and only for the benefit of Wikipedia, you are quite naïve.
Now, does "the way things are done on Wikipedia" refer to the spirit of the policies, or the behaviour of admins in practice? We all know that there are significant differences between those two.
Sigh. Not this again. "the way things are done on Wikipedia" means the practices which typically occur on the website with the DNS address of http://en.wikipedia.org. Drop the dead horse, please.
I'm surprised at this reaction... and slightly offended, because I have never argued this way before, and don't consider it a particularly often-cited argument. Either way, your reaction indicates that you understand "the way things are done" to mean "the way people actually behave in practice", irrespective of what policy dictates people should behave like. Therefore my argument, which you conveniently removed, applies:
If you mean "the way admins behave in practice", then you have confirmed my theory. Several admins come to the same conclusion, /therefore/ you do the same (and presumably accept and defend their arguments but not the complaining user's).
.
Of course it is easy for you to claim that someone has "absolutely no regard for policy XYZ", but surely most of the time it is more likely a misunderstanding of the spirit of the policy (by either side!), or just complete ignorance of a less obvious policy.
Well, ignorance doesn't fly after the policy has been pointed out
With something like 3RR, you are right. The rule is dead clear and spot-on. However, with something like "notability" or "verifiability" or even "no personal attacks", this is a bit unfair. There is no clear logical definition for those rules, therefore it is obvious that a large number of people will come up with a large variety of interpretations. The variation in interpretations is much smaller in admins because they are selected to be the type of people that is prepared to learn from the "more experienced ones", and so they homogenise their "experience" with each other.
It is, for example, not intuitive that we should have a policy on "notability" or "verifiability", so why should anyone look that up?
Maybe because someone else has said - "I noticed you made an edit that didn't agree with our policy on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] - please read that page and follow it in any future edits you make. Thanks for volunteering your time working on Wikipedia!" (paraphrase of one of our standard notes to new users).
I have never seen a message of this kind. The kinds of messages I see on User talk pages, especially those for IPs, sound more like "You have repeatedly violated the [[WP:XYZ]] rule. Further violations will be sanctioned with a block. You have been warned."
Timwi
I may respond to the rest of the message at a later time, but I just couldn't pass this up. On Jul 18, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Timwi wrote:
Jesse W wrote:
Maybe because someone else has said - "I noticed you made an edit that didn't agree with our policy on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] - please read that page and follow it in any future edits you make. Thanks for volunteering your time working on Wikipedia!" (paraphrase of one of our standard notes to new users).
I have never seen a message of this kind. The kinds of messages I see on User talk pages, especially those for IPs, sound more like "You have repeatedly violated the [[WP:XYZ]] rule. Further violations will be sanctioned with a block. You have been warned."
You prompted me to do some research - I looked at RC for the last few minutes, in the User_talk namespace, and clicked on various IPs talk pages to see what was on them. Here are my results:
On http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk: 198.53.166.66&oldid=64574374 was the following (standardized) message:
[[Image:Stop hand.svg|left|30px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]], and if you continue in this manner you may be '''[[Wikipedia:blocking policy|blocked]] from editing without further warning'''. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. <!-- Template:Blatantvandal (serious warning) --> [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]]</ sup> 00:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
On http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk: 64.180.183.181&oldid=64574305 was one of Tawkerbot's warnings:
==Your edit to [[Grom Hellscream]]== Your recent edit to [[:Grom Hellscream]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Grom_Hellscream&diff=64574269&oldid=64560008 diff]) was reverted by an '''automated bot''' that attempts to recognize and repair [[Wikipedia:vandalism|vandalism]] to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. '''[[User:Tawkerbot2/FAQ|Click here]]''' for '''frequently asked questions''' about the bot and this warning. // [[User:Tawkerbot4|Tawkerbot4]] 00:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
On http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk: 67.172.174.120&oldid=64574240 was a spam warning:
Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia is not]] a vehicle for [[Wikipedia:Spam|advertising]] or a mere collection of [[Wikipedia:External links|external links]]. You are, however, [[m:When should I link externally|encouraged to add ''content'' instead of links]] to the encyclopedia. See the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] to learn more. Thanks. <!-- Template:Spam --> —--[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>([[User:AudeVivere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AudeVivere|contribs]])</small> 04:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
At least to me, "Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] if you would like to learn more about contributing.", " If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies", and "See the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] to learn more. Thanks." do not seem like assuming that new users are all bent on destroying Wikipedia.
And as for linking to [[WP:XYZ]] - none of the above messages use any of the WP:WP shortcuts - they all explain what the policy is on Wikipedia, and link to further explanations. What more would you have us do?
Jesse Weinstein
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:15:27 -0700 Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
Jesse Weinstein
That's what you call a biased sample, its a statistical fallacy. They're all warnings automatically produced by bots. These are supposedly more elaborate than what the average admin does when someone edits an article he has an interest in.
Jesse W wrote:
You prompted me to do some research - I looked at RC for the last few minutes, in the User_talk namespace, and clicked on various IPs talk pages to see what was on them. Here are my results:
[.......]
At least to me, "Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] if you would like to learn more about contributing.", " If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies", and "See the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] to learn more. Thanks." do not seem like assuming that new users are all bent on destroying Wikipedia.
Yep -- well selected. Now let *me* do *my* selections from *your* samples (I've replaced boldface with capitals):
unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be BLOCKED FROM EDITING WITHOUT FURTHER WARNING.
Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others.
Your recent edit [...] was reverted by a BOT that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism.
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links.
Do these sound inviting or welcoming to you? To me, all of those sound excessively hostile and suggestive of accusations.
And as for linking to [[WP:XYZ]] - none of the above messages use any of the WP:WP shortcuts
Take a look at AfD if you're looking for those.
Timwi
On Jul 21, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Timwi wrote:
Jesse W wrote:
You prompted me to do some research - I looked at RC for the last few minutes, in the User_talk namespace, and clicked on various IPs talk pages to see what was on them. Here are my results:
[.......]
At least to me, "Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] if you would like to learn more about contributing.", " If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies", and "See the [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome page]] to learn more. Thanks." do not seem like assuming that new users are all bent on destroying Wikipedia.
Yep -- well selected. Now let *me* do *my* selections from *your* samples (I've replaced boldface with capitals):
Well done! I agree that the selections you picked are non-welcoming, and accusational in tone. Now the question is - if we should do something else, what should it be, and how should we do it? It is simply a fact that we get a large number of "unconstructive edits" - what should we say to the people who add them? It is also a fact that we get a large number of additions of advertising - what should we say to the people who add those things? This started with the claim that no-one was told about our policies before they were blocked for violating them; I think both of our selections make it quite clear that this is not the case.
Thanks for the discussion!
Jesse Weinstein
The selections:
unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be BLOCKED FROM EDITING WITHOUT FURTHER WARNING.
Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others.
Your recent edit [...] was reverted by a BOT that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism.
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links.
Do these sound inviting or welcoming to you? To me, all of those sound excessively hostile and suggestive of accusations.
And as for linking to [[WP:XYZ]] - none of the above messages use any of the WP:WP shortcuts
Take a look at AfD if you're looking for those.
Standard explanation: Lack of time.
On 7/17/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Yes, I do not deny that. Now -- if a user finds an admin to have done something wrong, does that make it likely that the admin has done something wrong? Obviously you'll say 'no' because there's only one user complaining, and everyone else sides with the admin. But read on...
Personally I think the likelihood depends on the nature of the complaint. And one other things, while we are on this topic -- in the end these are never just about one complaint. They are things like "Admin X insulted me, remove their status." We look into it, and we find that the insult is minimal if existant at all, and it comes at the end of a long exchange in which the user has flagrantly broken rules themselves.
Now you seem to want to interpret a situation like this as being a non sequitur. I would object that it isn't. The real non sequitur is committed by the user trying to use some paltry violation as an argument for bigger repercussions. An admin's ability to be a responsible admin is not predicated on whether or not they use polite language with every user; it is the sum total of their work as an admin. It is unreasonable to not take that into account.
But we have already established on this mailing list that admins *do* conspire, albeit on a very subtle and subconscious level, without knowing it. Someone (not me!) gave this analogy with noblemen in the Middle Ages, who rarely if ever accused each other of a crime even if they knew about such a crime. If an ordinary citizen were to accuse a nobleman of anything, all the noblemen (who were "known to be reliable" and supposedly had "ability of independent assessments") would side with their fellow nobleman and all come to the same conclusion in his favour.
On issues of real merit there is plenty of dissention both on the list and on WP:AN. On issues with almost no merit, there is almost no discussion. (And no, I'm not saying that the amount of discussion is an indicator of merit -- only the converse. There is plenty of discussion for things without merit, too.)
A-ha! Doesn't this explain the above effect then? If a majority of admins agree with a decision, then the decision is less likely to be questioned (and, consequently, the complaining user is taken less seriously). Therefore, admins will agree with each other in order to reduce the likelihood of being questioned. This is the "benefit of agreeing with each other" that you were looking for. :)
Uh, sorry, I don't see that. If you want to make an argument about convenience, argue instead that many admins would sooner just abstain from contributing to an issue -- even if they think another admin is wrong -- because they have other things to do. But to claim that people actively agree with each other just to be expedient is both without evidence and silly. I'll admit to not paying attention to every issue, even if I could conceivably have an opinion of it, but I'll never fake an opinion. (You could, of course, postulate that subconsciously I agree because I want to expedite, but now you're not only asserting something rather large about the abilities of humans to think freely at all, but you're also substituting abstract and unprovable psychological explanations for ones based on individual rational action. Take your pick; I find the latter to be simpler in this case.)
Now, does "the way things are done on Wikipedia" refer to the spirit of the policies, or the behaviour of admins in practice? We all know that there are significant differences between those two.
The mixture of the two which accounts for how admins generally act. They generally do not always act to the letter of the policies, but they often do act within the spirit of them and to the ends with which they were developed. Which is the way that all "organizations" act.
Such as?
Such as many of the ones which end up on this list. If you want to start pulling out examples now, I'll let YOU start with that. You're the one trying to make a grand theory.
Of course it is easy for you to claim that someone has "absolutely no regard for policy XYZ", but surely most of the time it is more likely a misunderstanding of the spirit of the policy (by either side!), or just complete ignorance of a less obvious policy. It is, for example, not intuitive that we should have a policy on "notability" or "verifiability", so why should anyone look that up?
Sure. In my experience users usually get pointed to the right policy pretty early on. There are nice rational reasons for that as well. If I tell somebody about 3RR and the consequences, and they violate it anyway, I can, with a clear conscience, block them for the violation. If I tell them about NPOV and they ignore it happily, it just makes it easier to deal with them. It's in my interest to tell them about the policy, because it makes it clear that ignorance is not the cause of their actions.
I take a lot of time to make sure that users who are obviously just confused about Wikipedia understand how it works. Usually they are pretty easy to spot, in comparison with people who have malicious intent.
And yes, I'm happy to assert that there are people with malicious intent. I could go through a list of the epithets I've had directed at me from POV-pushers, if you're interested. They include things like "JUDENSCWEIN TO THE OVENS ! -- LIARS ! --ALL OF YOU !" No, I don't believe everything a user says, just because they say it.
Not very but at least a little? ;-)
One of the reasons I think that groupthink probably has less truck around Wikipedia than many other places is that: 1. we are all pretty disconnected with each other, physically, nationally, politically, etc. We share certain things, true, but the differences are pretty stark. I don't have to tell someone to their face that I think they're wrong when I type it in; it is pretty easy to disagree on here in comparison with "real life". 2. there is little incentive. The only incentive you've postulated is expediency. That's not much, especially when it is easier to get that by just not participating. There is no opportunity for improvement of my status by agreeing with others. There is no real chance of punishment for disagreement. I agree where I agree, I disagree where I disagree, and when I get tired of it I take a break and go edit some articles or draw some pictures.
Which isn't to say that admins will generally tend to give other admins the benefit of the doubt. But there are rational, non-psychological reasons for that. Users could be anyone, but admins have at least been approved by other Wikipedians. It's a very weak form of accredation -- again, to consider admins a very homogenous intellectual group, except perhaps by how they spend their leisure time, seems incorrect to me, and the things which they all agree on, the "systemic bias", generally don't come into play on these sorts of disputes -- but it is more than you have with unknown users.
In my experience, most user complaints against admins are bogus. But not ALL are. Even when knowing the former, we have to take care to look out for the latter.
FF
Timwi wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/14/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote: [snip]
Given that this massive influx of annoyed complaints plainly demonstrates that users are much more commonly and much more seriously the ones that get annoyed,
If one one thousandth of the users complained, how many people would that be? What percentage would signify something of significance? What percentage has complained thus far?
You have just undermined my argumentation. The amount of annoyed users is obviously strictly greater than the amount of annoyed e-mails we actually see. We actually see an annoyed e-mail from a new user almost every day. But how many similarly annoyed e-mails do you see from admins?
Timwi
Perhaps the administrators are selected because they are the type to uphold the policies, rather than rail against them. Just a thought.
-kc-
Puppy wrote:
Perhaps the administrators are selected because they are the type to uphold the policies, rather than rail against them. Just a thought.
I wonder whether you posted this in order to defend the admins or to defend the complaining newbies. It could be interpreted both ways. It could be interpreted to mean "the administrators are selected to be those who are true to the principles that we believe underlie a good, harmonic community" (thereby defending the admins), or it could be interpreted to mean "the administrators are selected to be those who will take sides with the established ways of the community, thereby encouraging the formation of a clique or cabal" (thus defending the complaining newbie).
Either way, however, this is irrelevant to the thread. My original posting was not about policies. The spirit of the policies is very different from the reality of admins' actual behaviour in practice. This has been observed and stated on this mailing list numerous times, even by admins. This is about the actual behaviour in practice. My observation on this mailing list is that the actual behaviour in practice causes a large amount of editors to become disgruntled.
Timwi
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:13:47 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Perhaps the administrators are selected because they are the type to uphold the policies, rather than rail against them. Just a thought.
I wonder whether you posted this in order to defend the admins or to defend the complaining newbies.
"Upholding policies" seems unambiguous to me.
Guy (JzG)
Timwi wrote:
My observation on this mailing list is that the actual behaviour in practice causes a large amount of editors to become disgruntled.
Just to put the number of complaints in perspective, about 5271 new user accounts were registered this Saturday (EDT). I know, since I happened to be logging the RC feed for debugging purposes. That's about 3.7 new accounts per minute. During the same period, 217 accounts and 98 IPs were blocked, 4 of them indefinitely. Over the last 16 hours (I didn't start logging new pages before that), 1294 new user talk pages were created, at about 1.3 per minute.
Given that we have new users coming in at a rate of more than one each minute, one new complainant a day on the mailing list doesn't seem like much -- and I believe that's rather an overestimate.
Admins know better then to complain on the mailing list....?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Timwi" timwi@gmx.net To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Things about admins
<snip>
every day. But how many similarly annoyed e-mails do you see from admins?
Timwi
</snip>
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:15:02 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Given that this massive influx of annoyed complaints plainly demonstrates that users are much more commonly and much more seriously the ones that get annoyed, and supposing that the argument #2 is applicable, doesn't it follow plainly obviously that the admins are doing much more significant wrongs?
No. Because almost without exception the ones who complain loudly and bitterly are the ones who are *absolutely determined* that The Truth (TM) be told about some person, incident or whatever, and they are kicking back at the janitor who locks them out of the room in which they are trying to start a fight. That's my experience, anyway.
There are very few genuinely productive editors with a significant history of blocks.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:15:02 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Given that this massive influx of annoyed complaints plainly demonstrates that users are much more commonly and much more seriously the ones that get annoyed, and supposing that the argument #2 is applicable, doesn't it follow plainly obviously that the admins are doing much more significant wrongs?
No. Because almost without exception the ones who complain loudly and bitterly are the ones who are *absolutely determined* that The Truth (TM) be told about some person, incident or whatever, and they are kicking back at the janitor who locks them out of the room in which they are trying to start a fight. That's my experience, anyway.
Oh, and what do you think makes them so determined? Could it be something they genuinely perceive as a wrong? Could it be that they are trying to be genuinely productive, and that from their point of view it is the admins who were "starting a fight"?
There are very few genuinely productive editors with a significant history of blocks.
That's a tautology. Someone who is blocked hardly has any chance to be (and, in most cases, any interest in being) at all productive. What percentage of people that are blocked and never return, would have been genuinely productive if they hadn't been blocked? How can you tell?
Timwi
On Jul 14, 2006, at 11:43 AM, Timwi wrote:
Oh, and what do you think makes them so determined? Could it be something they genuinely perceive as a wrong? Could it be that they are trying to be genuinely productive, and that from their point of view it is the admins who were "starting a fight"?
Wikipedia editing policies are not necessarily intuitive. There is a potential for any new user to break them, respond negatively to correction and for the situation to escalate.
Fred
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:43:09 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Given that this massive influx of annoyed complaints plainly demonstrates that users are much more commonly and much more seriously the ones that get annoyed, and supposing that the argument #2 is applicable, doesn't it follow plainly obviously that the admins are doing much more significant wrongs?
No. Because almost without exception the ones who complain loudly and bitterly are the ones who are *absolutely determined* that The Truth (TM) be told about some person, incident or whatever, and they are kicking back at the janitor who locks them out of the room in which they are trying to start a fight. That's my experience, anyway.
Oh, and what do you think makes them so determined? Could it be something they genuinely perceive as a wrong? Could it be that they are trying to be genuinely productive, and that from their point of view it is the admins who were "starting a fight"?
I have no idea. I had a problem today with someone who was absolutely determined to add a load of innuendo to a WP:BLP. He flatly refused to engage in Talk, removed questions and attempts at dialogue from his Talk page as "trolling", asserted that it was *his* talk page to do with as he pleased, and even after a short block he went straight back and picked up the edit war again.
I think people are used to forums and Usenet where proof by assertion is a valid technique and where saying the same thing only louder will very often work. Here you can say the same thing *better* (i.e. more neutrally) but if you absolutely refuse to entertain the possibility that what you have added to a living person bio is anything other than a beacon of neutrality, notwithstanding that the subject remains stubbornly free of any convictions or indictments, then you end up blocked and mailing the list. The idea of sitting down and talking calmly about it often does not appear to occur to these people.
There are very few genuinely productive editors with a significant history of blocks.
That's a tautology. Someone who is blocked hardly has any chance to be (and, in most cases, any interest in being) at all productive. What percentage of people that are blocked and never return, would have been genuinely productive if they hadn't been blocked? How can you tell?
SPUI.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:43:09 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Oh, and what do you think makes them so determined? Could it be something they genuinely perceive as a wrong? Could it be that they are trying to be genuinely productive, and that from their point of view it is the admins who were "starting a fight"?
I have no idea. I had a problem today with someone who was absolutely determined to add a load of innuendo to a WP:BLP. He flatly refused to engage in Talk, removed questions and attempts at dialogue from his Talk page as "trolling", asserted that it was *his* talk page to do with as he pleased, and even after a short block he went straight back and picked up the edit war again.
I notice that many of these admin's accounts of such events look very similar. Is it very hard for you to imagine that the other side of the story looks different? You say he was "absolutely determined to add [...]" - well, maybe he thought he was adding "the truth" or "encyclopedic information"? You say he "flatly refused to engage in talk" - well, maybe he was new and didn't know about talk pages, or thought you were referring to this User-talk page? --- And what about all the stuff that you left out of your account, such as the wording of your messages to him, or the edit summary of the reverts? I don't know about your specific case, but many admins use words like "vandalism" or "POV-pushing" very liberally and pretend like it's perfectly within their rights to do so and to ban anyone who doesn't like it.
I think people are used to forums and Usenet where proof by assertion is a valid technique and where saying the same thing only louder will very often work.
Admins get away with that all the time.
"Admin XYZ called me names and insulted me, he needs his admin powers revoked!" - XYZ: "Ah, but you violated [[WP:3RR]] and [[WP:TLA]] and [[WP:YHNCTSMYT]], get lost, EOD."
The idea of sitting down and talking calmly about it often does not appear to occur to these people.
Do you think the user's impression of the blocking admin is that of someone who likes to sit down and talk calmly about it?
There are very few genuinely productive editors with a significant history of blocks.
That's a tautology. Someone who is blocked hardly has any chance to be (and, in most cases, any interest in being) at all productive. What percentage of people that are blocked and never return, would have been genuinely productive if they hadn't been blocked? How can you tell?
SPUI.
There you go, so examples do exist. However, SPUI became well-known on Wikipedia. I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of unknown users who would have become productive contributors if they hadn't been blocked on their very first day. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of the users that are blocked on their first day decide to never edit Wikipedia again, and consequently are never even noticed.
Maybe I think this way because I was treated that way on my very first day. Although admittedly I didn't get blocked or anything, I did make a good-faith contribution which was, within minutes, deleted (the correct action would have been to turn it into a redirect). Not knowing that someone consciously deleted it (there was nothing to indicate this, and to this day there still isn't anything to indicate this to newbies, so the first impression is a technical glitch), I recreated it and subsequently received a warning of sorts.
Timwi
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:52:53 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
I notice that many of these admin's accounts of such events look very similar. Is it very hard for you to imagine that the other side of the story looks different?
Not at all. I am a Christian, I know exactly how it feels to be absolutely *certain* about something which others reject out of hand, and demand proof of a sort which cannot be provided.
You say he was "absolutely determined to add [...]" - well, maybe he thought he was adding "the truth" or "encyclopedic information"? You say he "flatly refused to engage in talk" - well, maybe he was new and didn't know about talk pages, or thought you were referring to this User-talk page?
Yes, he thinks he was adding The Truth [TM]. He started an ArbCom case, in fact (so far rejected 0/3/0).
He believes that the only neutral portrayal of the doping allegations against Lance Armstrong is to present every single allegation, to note that friends and team-mates have been convicted, and to play down the fact that Armstrong has, thus far, won or had dropped every court case, including one against the Sunday Times which hinges on precisely the issue in dispute: the ST implied that Armstrong was guilty of doping, rather than there being grounds for suspicion. And even when that fact was inserted he "balanced" it by saying that Armstrong lost an appeal to have a retraction printed (I don't think many people get that remedy through the courts), without mentioning that the ST made a full apology.
Edit summary "Armstrong lost at court" (no he didn't, he won) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Walsh_%28sports_reporter%29&...
Or how about this gem: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Walsh&diff=prev&oldi...
--- And what about all the stuff that you left out of your account, such as the wording of your messages to him, or the edit summary of the reverts? I don't know about your specific case, but many admins use words like "vandalism" or "POV-pushing" very liberally and pretend like it's perfectly within their rights to do so and to ban anyone who doesn't like it.
I have apologised for being obnoxious to him (which I was). He has yet to accept that the idea of [[WP:BLP]] has any merit at all.
I think people are used to forums and Usenet where proof by assertion is a valid technique and where saying the same thing only louder will very often work.
Admins get away with that all the time.
When it is "stop blanking articles" or "stop posting defamatory content" that is not really a surprise....
The idea of sitting down and talking calmly about it often does not appear to occur to these people.
Do you think the user's impression of the blocking admin is that of someone who likes to sit down and talk calmly about it?
Dunno. I talk calmly to blocked people all the time. Not always, but often.
That's a tautology. Someone who is blocked hardly has any chance to be (and, in most cases, any interest in being) at all productive. What percentage of people that are blocked and never return, would have been genuinely productive if they hadn't been blocked? How can you tell?
SPUI.
There you go, so examples do exist.
Indeed. If I didn't believe POV-pushers could be saved I'd indef-block them all on sight, wouldn't I?
Maybe I think this way because I was treated that way on my very first day. Although admittedly I didn't get blocked or anything, I did make a good-faith contribution which was, within minutes, deleted (the correct action would have been to turn it into a redirect). Not knowing that someone consciously deleted it (there was nothing to indicate this, and to this day there still isn't anything to indicate this to newbies, so the first impression is a technical glitch), I recreated it and subsequently received a warning of sorts.
A specific issue which should be addressed. When recreating a previously deleted article, I think the interface should say "are you sure you want to create this, if was deleted on DDDD by X for reason Y" or words to that effect. I'm sure it would help.
Also, more of us (editors and admins) should userfy rather than deleting non-notable autobiographies, and maybe any vanity content. I made {{nn-userfy}} for that,
Guy (JzG)
On Jul 17, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Timwi wrote:
I think people are used to forums and Usenet where proof by assertion is a valid technique and where saying the same thing only louder will very often work.
Admins get away with that all the time.
"Admin XYZ called me names and insulted me, he needs his admin powers revoked!" - XYZ: "Ah, but you violated [[WP:3RR]] and [[WP:TLA]] and [[WP:YHNCTSMYT]], get lost, EOD."
I'm sorry, but if you think citing Wikipedia policy such as the three-revert rule (which can and *is* verifiable, look at a users contribs) is "proof by assertion" you are simply mistaken. "Proof by assertion" would be something like: "X is a bad person, because I say so." being considered a proof that X is indeed a bad person. Claiming X did something verifiable, in order to explain to X why e is being sanctioned for doing it, is nothing even a little like "proof by assertion". Please be more careful in your future postings, if you want people to continue to take you seriously.
Maybe I think this way because I was treated that way on my very first day. Although admittedly I didn't get blocked or anything, I did make a good-faith contribution which was, within minutes, deleted (the correct action would have been to turn it into a redirect). Not knowing that someone consciously deleted it (there was nothing to indicate this, and to this day there still isn't anything to indicate this to newbies, so the first impression is a technical glitch),
Actually, now there *is* a nice, (hopefully) clear line in the message that comes up when you go to a redlinked page, that says: (paraphrasing) "If you expected a page to be here, it may be a database delay, or it may have been deleted - click *here* to check the deletion log, and *here* to see the discussion, if there was one." So, while this certainly may not have been there when you made your page, and it certainly may be able to be further clarified or explained (I'd *love* any suggestions you'd care to make on this subject), there *is* such a message. (And once the developers get the "oversight" bit better arranged, hopefully we can turn the viewing of deleted edit summaries and revision dates back on, which will make it even more obvious.)
Jesse Weinstein
On 7/17/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
Actually, now there *is* a nice, (hopefully) clear line in the message that comes up when you go to a redlinked page, that says: (paraphrasing) "If you expected a page to be here, it may be a database delay, or it may have been deleted - click *here* to check the deletion log, and *here* to see the discussion, if there was one." So, while
It says this:
If you expected a page to be here, and it is not, the page may not yet be visible due to a delay in updating the database, or it may have been deleted. (See the criteria for speedy deletion for some possible reasons). Please try the purge function, check the deletion log and/or the deletion discussion page, and wait a few minutes before attempting to recreate this page.
It could be clearer - these are really pretty exceptional circumstances after all. The "delay in updating the database" is almost unheard of. Something like this might be clearer:
Are you pretty sure there was a page here? It could have been deleted - click here to check. Or maybe there's a database problem - click here to purge the cache page, then wait a bit.
Ideally, of course, the page would just tell you. "There's no page here, but there was one deleted 18 hours ago.".
Steve
On 17/07/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/17/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
Actually, now there *is* a nice, (hopefully) clear line in the message that comes up when you go to a redlinked page, that says: (paraphrasing) "If you expected a page to be here, it may be a database delay, or it may have been deleted - click *here* to check the deletion log, and *here* to see the discussion, if there was one." So, while
It says this:
If you expected a page to be here, and it is not, the page may not yet be visible due to a delay in updating the database, or it may have been deleted. (See the criteria for speedy deletion for some possible reasons). Please try the purge function, check the deletion log and/or the deletion discussion page, and wait a few minutes before attempting to recreate this page.
It could be clearer - these are really pretty exceptional circumstances after all. The "delay in updating the database" is almost unheard of. Something like this might be clearer:
I get a new page not "taking" immediately about half a percent of the time, FWIW - haven't taken stats, but that number feels right. Tends to come in waves.
(I create a lot of redirects...)
Jesse W wrote:
Actually, now there *is* a nice, (hopefully) clear line in the message that comes up when you go to a redlinked page, that says: (paraphrasing) "If you expected a page to be here, it may be a database delay, or it may have been deleted - click *here* to check the deletion log, and *here* to see the discussion, if there was one."
It _is_ pretty easy to gloss over, though. JzG's suggestion of an additional notice is a good one, and I may go and implement something like that soon. Perhaps a note on the edit page, a bit like the "you are editing an old version" notice.
On Jul 14, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Timwi wrote:
There is one thing I don't really quite understand, and I was wondering if someone could explain this to me in very simple and easy-to-follow terms...
Well, I can try...
Basically, I seem to be making the following two recurring observations:
(1) Users who are unhappy with some admin action or other post to the mailing list - sometimes angrily, sometimes rationally, but always making explicit that they are annoyed - complaining about what they perceive to be "admin abuse".
Agreed; however, typically each user objects to a different action, and often, to the action of a different admin. It is very infrequent that we get multiple objections about the same action.
(2) Admins sometimes defend their actions by using the argument, "If you've managed to piss off several admins, chances are you've done something wrong."
Agreed - however, a more accurate gloss of the argument is: given some action - 1 user objects to it, multiple admins support it. That is the crux of the argument.
Given that this massive influx of annoyed complaints plainly demonstrates that users are much more commonly and much more seriously the ones that get annoyed,
Invalid. You cannot measure the frequency or severity of annoyance based merely on the number of posts to wikien-l. A more accurate (although still radically inaccurate) estimate would include every post to AIV, every comment at AN (and subpages), most of the comments at VP, many of the comments at the XfDs, most of the comments at CP, most of the comments related to image deletion (including the reasons given for deletion), and many talk page comments, as well as some method for measuring complaints on IRC. Wikien-l has by design tilted towards complaints by blocked users (until the creation of unblock-l, it was the designated place for such complaints), so it is not surpirsing at all that most of the threads begin with such a complaint.
and supposing that the argument #2 is applicable,
Invalid. It is not applicable. Argument #2 claims that multiple people have objected to *the same thing*. As I said above, the vast majority of the complaints we get on wikien-l are about *different* actions. We get very few examples of multiple complaints about the same action, and when we do, we typically investigate (or at least discuss) them.
doesn't it follow plainly obviously that the admins are doing much more significant wrongs?
Since two of your postulates were wrong (see above), no, it doesn't. ;-)
<snip conclusions to incorrect argument>
Hope this helps explain your confusion!
Jesse Weinstein
On 7/14/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
There is one thing I don't really quite understand, and I was wondering if someone could explain this to me in very simple and easy-to-follow terms...
Basically, I seem to be making the following two recurring observations:
(1) Users who are unhappy with some admin action or other post to the mailing list - sometimes angrily, sometimes rationally, but always making explicit that they are annoyed - complaining about what they perceive to be "admin abuse".
(2) Admins sometimes defend their actions by using the argument, "If you've managed to piss off several admins, chances are you've done something wrong."
Given that this massive influx of annoyed complaints plainly demonstrates that users are much more commonly and much more seriously the ones that get annoyed, and supposing that the argument #2 is applicable, doesn't it follow plainly obviously that the admins are doing much more significant wrongs?
Now now, this is a simple data-collection fallacy. Admins don't complain to the mailing list when they are annoyed with users, so that can't possibly be used as an indication of whether or not users or admins are more often annoyed. And it is also the case that you can have fewer admins annoyed by greater numbers of users -- why, I can be annoyed by five users at the same time, all of whom think that I have somehow devoted my time to suppressing their particular version of the truth!
FF
Fastfission wrote:
I can be annoyed by five users at the same time, all of whom think that I have somehow devoted my time to suppressing their particular version of the truth!
You openly admit that you regularly get into situations involving several users saying the same thing about you, without ever considering the possibility that this bunch of people who all came to the same conclusion about you might actually have a point?
Timwi
On Jul 17, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Timwi wrote:
Fastfission wrote:
I can be annoyed by five users at the same time, all of whom think that I have somehow devoted my time to suppressing their particular version of the truth!
You openly admit that you regularly get into situations involving several users saying the same thing about you, without ever considering the possibility that this bunch of people who all came to the same conclusion about you might actually have a point?
*The* *"thing"* *Is* *Not* *The* *Same*. You seem to be consistently misunderstanding this. Let me try (again) to explain it.
User X makes some edit. User A objects to it. User X disputes user A's objection. User Y make another, unrelated edit (to a different page). User A also objects to that edit (for a different reason). User Y disputes user A's objection.
It is true that both user X and user Y have said "user A's objection is wrong" - However, they said it *about different objections* !
You claim, in this situation, that both two users have said "the same thing about" user A, and therefore user A should be concerned that "several users [are] saying the same thing about" em. Wrong. Only *one* user has objected to each action.
I look forward to your reply.
Jesse Weinstein
On 7/17/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
You openly admit that you regularly get into situations involving several users saying the same thing about you, without ever considering the possibility that this bunch of people who all came to the same conclusion about you might actually have a point?
Most of what they say is "you are a fascist because you won't let my creationist/neo-Nazi/racist/conspiracy theory/anti-Semitic/etc. FACTS into Wikipedia!"
The reason they say the same thing is because they come up against the rule: NPOV.
I get along just fine with reasonable users and people with reasonable complaints or objections. People who are generally nutty or have a hard-line agenda to push generally run into problems with me and with others.
So yeah. I enforce the rules at Wikipedia, and the rules at Wikipedia say that a lot of content that dedicated and nutty users want to add can't be added. In such cases, I am often GLAD to be the target of their common complaints -- to be told that you do a good job in keeping out nonsense is no insult at all.
FF
Fastfission wrote:
On 7/17/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
You openly admit that you regularly get into situations involving several users saying the same thing about you, without ever considering the possibility that this bunch of people who all came to the same conclusion about you might actually have a point?
Most of what they say is "you are a fascist because you won't let my creationist/neo-Nazi/racist/conspiracy theory/anti-Semitic/etc. FACTS into Wikipedia!"
... So yeah. I enforce the rules at Wikipedia, and the rules at Wikipedia say that a lot of content that dedicated and nutty users want to add can't be added. In such cases, I am often GLAD to be the target of their common complaints -- to be told that you do a good job in keeping out nonsense is no insult at all.
Putting "FACTS" in all caps can be an ominous sign. Putting "GLAD" in all caps seems a little invitational. ;-)
Ec
One thing which might help to address the concerns raised by Timwi would be a more consistent approach to block notices.
I raised a proposal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Block_te...
Essentially, I think that all block templates should have a pointer to a Help page "help I've been blocked" which details how to use {{unblock}}, how to email the unblock list, how to find the email link for the blocking admin, and also some explanatory text about the fact that blocks may be more or less automatic (3RR), and that it is the edits, not the editor, which are the problem. Also, I think the username of the blocking admin should be included automagically via the block templates (maybe with the link to email right there?), and a {{{duration}}} argument for almost all of them, since it's often unclear how long the block is for.
I guess this comes under the heading of managing expectations.
Also I would remove the note to admins about unblocking themselves to the unblock screen, since it's irrelevant to anyone else and probably violates [[WP:BEANS]] anyway :-)
Guy (JzG)