There has been a request to "count" the admins that we have encountered at Wikipedia, who may at one time or another have chaffed non-admin editors. Some of the most difficult actions that I've seen from admins are those who get into a conflict with a non-admin editor, then block the non-admin editor, then erase or censor the history of the discussion, then chastise the non-admin editor in private or off-Wikipedia correspondence.
Some of the admins I have seen fulfill all or most of these distasteful actions are:
User:Pschemp ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Travb&diff=next&oldid...) -- this admin has been very active in the past with blocking IP addresses and such. But, I feel a line was crossed when discussion between two OTHER users was censored because it posed a situation whose implications Pschemp didn't like.
User:JzG (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&ol... ) -- my interpretation is that this admin was dishonest in his edit summary when he deleted an article from Wikipedia, by saying "article created by a banned user while banned". The date of article creation was June 2005, about 15 months before any banning related to this company took place. So, there is an untruth in the public record ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=ICR/In...), but when attention is called to it, that comment gets deleted by a "Troll B Gon" device with unlimited comedic value and an equally boundless disdain for civility.
User:Lucky 6.9 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User_t...) -- this guy was quite famous for making edits and dishing out User blocks, then when properly-formatted complaints would be leveled to the administrative heirarchy, he would try to censor out the complaints before anyone was able to take action. It looks like he self-destructed before the ArbCom or anyone higher could desysop him.
Now, those are merely three off the top of my head, just from my experience. I will venture a guess that the WikiEN-l list will now work to discredit me personally, because I brought these examples to the group's attention. What will THAT process then say about the cultural health of the admin community?
On 2/20/07, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
There has been a request to "count" the admins that we have encountered at Wikipedia, who may at one time or another have chaffed non-admin editors. Some of the most difficult actions that I've seen from admins are those who get into a conflict with a non-admin editor, then block the non-admin editor, then erase or censor the history of the discussion, then chastise the non-admin editor in private or off-Wikipedia correspondence.
Some of the admins I have seen fulfill all or most of these distasteful actions are:
User:Pschemp (
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Travb&diff=next&oldid... ) -- this admin has been very active in the past with blocking IP addresses and such. But, I feel a line was crossed when discussion between two OTHER users was censored because it posed a situation whose implications Pschemp didn't like.
User:JzG ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&ol... ) -- my interpretation is that this admin was dishonest in his edit summary when he deleted an article from Wikipedia, by saying "article created by a banned user while banned". The date of article creation was June 2005, about 15 months before any banning related to this company took place. So, there is an untruth in the public record (
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=ICR/In... ), but when attention is called to it, that comment gets deleted by a "Troll B Gon" device with unlimited comedic value and an equally boundless disdain for civility.
User:Lucky 6.9 (
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User_t... ) -- this guy was quite famous for making edits and dishing out User blocks, then when properly-formatted complaints would be leveled to the administrative heirarchy, he would try to censor out the complaints before anyone was able to take action. It looks like he self-destructed before the ArbCom or anyone higher could desysop him.
Now, those are merely three off the top of my head, just from my experience. I will venture a guess that the WikiEN-l list will now work to discredit me personally, because I brought these examples to the group's attention. What will THAT process then say about the cultural health of the admin community?
-- Gregory Kohs Cell: 302.463.1354 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Pschemp's action looks perfectly valid; the user in question was a sockpuppet/meatpuppet that was editing user pages to reflect an opinion that the user did not hold.
While JzG's action may or may not have been within policy, it's certainly within judgment, and he has the right to remove posts by a banned user harassing him.
Lucky 6.9's actions are valid; the right to vanish allows a user in good standing to have their talk page deleted.
On 2/20/07, Ral315 en.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
Lucky 6.9's actions are valid; the right to vanish allows a user in good standing to have their talk page deleted.
No it does not since the talk page doesn't really belong to that user and is part of the communities' records.
On 20/02/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/20/07, Ral315 en.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
Lucky 6.9's actions are valid; the right to vanish allows a user in good standing to have their talk page deleted.
No it does not since the talk page doesn't really belong to that user and is part of the communities' records.
In practice we seem to take a "possibly" approach.
- d.
On 2/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/02/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/20/07, Ral315 en.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
Lucky 6.9's actions are valid; the right to vanish allows a user in
good
standing to have their talk page deleted.
No it does not since the talk page doesn't really belong to that user and is part of the communities' records.
In practice we seem to take a "possibly" approach.
- 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
In general I'd prefer that talk pages be kept, but Jimbo has made courtesy deletes of both user and user talk pages under right to vanish on a couple occasions, and I've seen other admins do it without much of a fuss.
Courtesy deleted by Jimbo do not ammount to a "right to vanish", they are simply courtesies.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ral315" en.ral315@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Admins worthy of review
On 2/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/02/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/20/07, Ral315 en.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
Lucky 6.9's actions are valid; the right to vanish allows a user in
good
standing to have their talk page deleted.
No it does not since the talk page doesn't really belong to that user and is part of the communities' records.
In practice we seem to take a "possibly" approach.
- 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
In general I'd prefer that talk pages be kept, but Jimbo has made courtesy deletes of both user and user talk pages under right to vanish on a couple occasions, and I've seen other admins do it without much of a fuss.
-- Sincerely, Ral315 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ral315 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
geni geniice@gmail.com writes:
On 2/20/07, Ral315 en.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
Lucky 6.9's actions are valid; the right to vanish allows a user in good standing to have their talk page deleted.
No it does not since the talk page doesn't really belong to that user and is part of the communities' records.
-- geni
As I recall, didn't practice use to be that as a courtesy and a part of right to vanish, userspace articles could be deleted at a user's request - as long as they weren't needed for other purposes like for Arbcom or misc. vandal whacking? When did that change?
On 2/20/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
geni geniice@gmail.com writes:
On 2/20/07, Ral315 en.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
Lucky 6.9's actions are valid; the right to vanish allows a user in good standing to have their talk page deleted.
No it does not since the talk page doesn't really belong to that user and is part of the communities' records.
-- geni
As I recall, didn't practice use to be that as a courtesy and a part of right to vanish, userspace articles could be deleted at a user's request
- as long as they weren't needed for other purposes like for Arbcom or
misc. vandal whacking? When did that change?
When RickK left.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:55:34 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No it does not since the talk page doesn't really belong to that user and is part of the communities' records.
Where's the harm? If they are in good standing, there's unlikely to be much to be worried about. If they are a troll or there are edits there vital to some debate, we'd be more likely to blank than delete. Anything can be retrieved anyway, if the need arises.
Guy (JzG)
On 2/20/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Where's the harm? If they are in good standing, there's unlikely to be much to be worried about.
Almost any admin is likely to have stuff of non zero significance on their talk pages.
If they are a troll or there are edits there vital to some debate, we'd be more likely to blank than delete. Anything can be retrieved anyway, if the need arises.
The deleted edits database should not be used for storage.