http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=37C948F3-14D1-13...
Nice one to Cool Hand Luke.
- d.
Goddamn! What I want to know is why papers always call us "Wikipediots". It's too close to idiot to be anything but degrading. I don't call journalists "newsies" or the like do I? It says quite clearly all over the site, "Wikipedian". Besides, adding -idiots is grammatically nonsensical.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:41 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=37C948F3-14D1-13...
Nice one to Cool Hand Luke.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 20/02/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Goddamn! What I want to know is why papers always call us "Wikipediots". It's too close to idiot to be anything but degrading. I don't call journalists "newsies" or the like do I? It says quite clearly all over the site, "Wikipedian". Besides, adding -idiots is grammatically nonsensical.
It's the first time I've seen the name, but I don't like it either. It seems deliberately offensive, to me...
It could be worse. There was a newspaper article sometime ago that called us Wikipedaphiles.
On 21/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/02/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Goddamn! What I want to know is why papers always call us "Wikipediots". It's too close to idiot to be anything but degrading. I don't call journalists "newsies" or the like do I? It says quite clearly all over the site, "Wikipedian". Besides, adding -idiots is grammatically nonsensical.
It's the first time I've seen the name, but I don't like it either. It seems deliberately offensive, to me...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steven Walling wrote:
Goddamn! What I want to know is why papers always call us "Wikipediots". It's too close to idiot to be anything but degrading. I don't call journalists "newsies" or the like do I? It says quite clearly all over the site, "Wikipedian". Besides, adding -idiots is grammatically nonsensical.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:41 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=37C948F3-14D1-13...
I do note that "Wikipediot" does not appear in the main body of Cool Hand Luke's article. It's easy to draw parallels between this and the thread about pictures of Muhammed. It shows that it takes much less than talking about a major religious figure for people to choose to be offended. Phrasing your reference to journalists as newsies as a rhetorical question isn't helpful. I have no way of knowing whether you have or not. For that matter I can't remember whether I have myself used it that way or not. It's not that I wouldn't; I simply don't remember doing that.
We are a large organization that is very much in the public eye. Parody and seemingly defamatory comments are just a normal part of the landscape. I choose not to waste my time getting offended over such designations.
As for the "grammatically nonsensical", this argument fails. One of the features that has made English so dominant in today's world is its ability to form new words without restrictions from some academy. If the term "Wikipediot" evoked some image in your mind it works. The image does not need to be one with which you agree. Had it been grammatical nonsense, you would have been unable to make the response that you did.
Ec
Raphael Wegmann schrieb:
David Gerard schrieb:
What you mean is "I can't get my way, no-one agrees with me and I can't produce any evidence for my assertions when called on them - It must be an ADMIN CONSPIRACY."
Do I really have to guide you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=192159520&ol...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images
It happens all the time, that admins use their privileges to gain advantage in a content dispute. I complained about it many times, but no admin ever lost his admin status over it. The only reaction I usually get is: "The admin should have asked another person to do it for him."
RfCs on admins don't work either. In-groups usually defend each other against out-groups. That isn't conspiracy, it's sociology.
David Gerard schrieb:
http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=37C948F3-14D1-13...
Nice one to Cool Hand Luke.
That's exactly what I expected. Divert the topic when it becomes inconvenient.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Raphael Wegmann schrieb:
David Gerard schrieb:
What you mean is "I can't get my way, no-one agrees with me and I can't produce any evidence for my assertions when called on them - It must be an ADMIN CONSPIRACY."
Do I really have to guide you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=192159520&ol...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images
It happens all the time, that admins use their privileges to gain advantage in a content dispute. I complained about it many times, but no admin ever lost his admin status over it. The only reaction I usually get is: "The admin should have asked another person to do it for him."
RfCs on admins don't work either. In-groups usually defend each other against out-groups. That isn't conspiracy, it's sociology.
David Gerard schrieb:
http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=37C948F3-14D1-13...
Nice one to Cool Hand Luke.
That's exactly what I expected. Divert the topic when it becomes inconvenient.
-- Raphael
No offence intended, but it's hard to respond to a "All admins are abusive and powerful" without sounding smarmy. I typed about three responses before I said to myself "fuck it, these are all inflammatory and unhelpful".
But yes, when an admin performs the correct action in circumstances where it might've been preferable they let someone else do it, what should anyone do about it, beyond say something to the admin in question? If we start discipling admins for taking correct actions too often, soon they'll be nobody around to keep order & do housekeeping.
Cheers WilyD
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Raphael Wegmann schrieb:
David Gerard schrieb:
What you mean is "I can't get my way, no-one agrees with me and I can't produce any evidence for my assertions when called on them - It must be an ADMIN CONSPIRACY."
Do I really have to guide you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=192159520&ol...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images
It happens all the time, that admins use their privileges to gain advantage in a content dispute. I complained about it many times, but no admin ever lost his admin status over it. The only reaction I usually get is: "The admin should have asked another person to do it for him."
RfCs on admins don't work either. In-groups usually defend each other against out-groups. That isn't conspiracy, it's sociology.
David Gerard schrieb:
http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=37C948F3-14D1-13...
Nice one to Cool Hand Luke.
That's exactly what I expected. Divert the topic when it becomes inconvenient.
-- Raphael
No offence intended, but it's hard to respond to a "All admins are abusive and powerful" without sounding smarmy.
That's not what I said.
But yes, when an admin performs the correct action in circumstances where it might've been preferable they let someone else do it, what should anyone do about it, beyond say something to the admin in question? If we start discipling admins for taking correct actions too often, soon they'll be nobody around to keep order & do housekeeping.
That's an interesting answer. Are you saying that violating policy is the right action for admins?
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Raphael Wegmann schrieb:
David Gerard schrieb:
What you mean is "I can't get my way, no-one agrees with me and I can't produce any evidence for my assertions when called on them - It must be an ADMIN CONSPIRACY."
Do I really have to guide you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=192159520&ol...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images
It happens all the time, that admins use their privileges to gain advantage in a content dispute. I complained about it many times, but no admin ever lost his admin status over it. The only reaction I usually get is: "The admin should have asked another person to do it for him."
RfCs on admins don't work either. In-groups usually defend each other against out-groups. That isn't conspiracy, it's sociology.
David Gerard schrieb:
http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=37C948F3-14D1-13...
Nice one to Cool Hand Luke.
That's exactly what I expected. Divert the topic when it becomes inconvenient.
-- Raphael
No offence intended, but it's hard to respond to a "All admins are abusive and powerful" without sounding smarmy.
That's not what I said.
But yes, when an admin performs the correct action in circumstances where it might've been preferable they let someone else do it, what should anyone do about it, beyond say something to the admin in question? If we start discipling admins for taking correct actions too often, soon they'll be nobody around to keep order & do housekeeping.
That's an interesting answer. Are you saying that violating policy is the right action for admins?
-- Raphael
The short answer is "Policy does not work that way" - the longer answer is "Even if policy did work that way, it's allowed by policy (i.e. [[WP:IAR]])". WP:PROT also reads "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute." which grammatically means Admins are allowed to protect or unprotect pages when they're involved in a dispute, it's simply discouraged. If it was supposed to be forbidden it would read "Administrators may not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute." which would forbid it. The reality is that if you're involved, you're less likely to take the correct action and need to be extra diligent.
In short, they're not violating policy.
Cheers WilyD
Wily D schrieb:
The short answer is "Policy does not work that way" - the longer answer is "Even if policy did work that way, it's allowed by policy (i.e. [[WP:IAR]])". WP:PROT also reads "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute." which grammatically means Admins are allowed to protect or unprotect pages when they're involved in a dispute, it's simply discouraged. If it was supposed to be forbidden it would read "Administrators may not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute." which would forbid it. The reality is that if you're involved, you're less likely to take the correct action and need to be extra diligent.
In short, they're not violating policy.
How about WP:BLOCK? "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute."
Is it still "correct action" if they do?
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
The short answer is "Policy does not work that way" - the longer answer is "Even if policy did work that way, it's allowed by policy (i.e. [[WP:IAR]])". WP:PROT also reads "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute." which grammatically means Admins are allowed to protect or unprotect pages when they're involved in a dispute, it's simply discouraged. If it was supposed to be forbidden it would read "Administrators may not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute." which would forbid it. The reality is that if you're involved, you're less likely to take the correct action and need to be extra diligent.
In short, they're not violating policy.
How about WP:BLOCK? "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute."
Is it still "correct action" if they do?
-- Raphael
One, of course, still has the legs of IAR, the general principle of "no lawyering" and so forth to stand on from time to time, but in general no. Of course "content dispute" is a nebulous term, and oft times overly broadly defined by those who're misbehaving - if you removing trolling, for instance, the person trolling will inevitably claim they're in a content dispute with you, which is simply not true.
But if they make a correct block in that situation, what is it you're hoping someone else would do? Unblock then reblock? In an "all volunteer" justice system, it's hard to get people roused about technicalities when justive has been done.
Cheers WilyD
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
How about WP:BLOCK? "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute."
Is it still "correct action" if they do?
One, of course, still has the legs of IAR, the general principle of "no lawyering" and so forth to stand on from time to time, but in general no. Of course "content dispute" is a nebulous term, and oft times overly broadly defined by those who're misbehaving - if you removing trolling, for instance, the person trolling will inevitably claim they're in a content dispute with you, which is simply not true.
But if they make a correct block in that situation, what is it you're hoping someone else would do? Unblock then reblock? In an "all volunteer" justice system, it's hard to get people roused about technicalities when justive has been done.
You don't even consider, that an admin might do wrong, do you? Don't you think, that it's pretty easy to abuse your power, when you are judge and executor at the same time? What prevents you from calling all your opponents in content disputes wiki-lawyering trolls?
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
How about WP:BLOCK? "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute."
Is it still "correct action" if they do?
One, of course, still has the legs of IAR, the general principle of "no lawyering" and so forth to stand on from time to time, but in general no. Of course "content dispute" is a nebulous term, and oft times overly broadly defined by those who're misbehaving - if you removing trolling, for instance, the person trolling will inevitably claim they're in a content dispute with you, which is simply not true.
But if they make a correct block in that situation, what is it you're hoping someone else would do? Unblock then reblock? In an "all volunteer" justice system, it's hard to get people roused about technicalities when justive has been done.
You don't even consider, that an admin might do wrong, do you? Don't you think, that it's pretty easy to abuse your power, when you are judge and executor at the same time? What prevents you from calling all your opponents in content disputes wiki-lawyering trolls?
-- Raphael
Sure, admins make terrible decisions all the time. I've altered at least one admin action I've taken afterwards based on feedback from other editors, and as recently as today I asked another admin to reconsider his admin action, he did so and reverted his decision. Admins are these odd creatues called "humans" that make stacks of bad decisions.
It's easy to abuse your power when you're judge and executioner, but admins don't really have these rolls. Anyone an admin "sentences" can be unsentenced, anyone we "execute" can be resurrected. These actions do happen all the time - review of administrative actions are easy to obtain.
Nothing prevents me from making ad-hominem arguments in content disputes. Of course, that's a terrible method and I'd likely lose such a dispute, but I could do it, same as anyone from the lowliest IP to Jimbo Wales. The ArbCom has shown a willingness of late to bust the chops of any admin who looks like they've done anything remotely wrong, and if there were any substance to the assumptions behind these questions one could employ it with good success.
Cheers WilyD
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
How about WP:BLOCK? "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute."
Is it still "correct action" if they do?
One, of course, still has the legs of IAR, the general principle of "no lawyering" and so forth to stand on from time to time, but in general no. Of course "content dispute" is a nebulous term, and oft times overly broadly defined by those who're misbehaving - if you removing trolling, for instance, the person trolling will inevitably claim they're in a content dispute with you, which is simply not true.
But if they make a correct block in that situation, what is it you're hoping someone else would do? Unblock then reblock? In an "all volunteer" justice system, it's hard to get people roused about technicalities when justive has been done.
You don't even consider, that an admin might do wrong, do you? Don't you think, that it's pretty easy to abuse your power, when you are judge and executor at the same time? What prevents you from calling all your opponents in content disputes wiki-lawyering trolls?
Sure, admins make terrible decisions all the time. I've altered at least one admin action I've taken afterwards based on feedback from other editors, and as recently as today I asked another admin to reconsider his admin action, he did so and reverted his decision. Admins are these odd creatues called "humans" that make stacks of bad decisions.
It's easy to abuse your power when you're judge and executioner, but admins don't really have these rolls. Anyone an admin "sentences" can be unsentenced, anyone we "execute" can be resurrected. These actions do happen all the time - review of administrative actions are easy to obtain.
Correcting the "mistakes" is one thing. But what does it take to deprive an admin of his privileges?
Nothing prevents me from making ad-hominem arguments in content disputes. Of course, that's a terrible method and I'd likely lose such a dispute, but I could do it, same as anyone from the lowliest IP to Jimbo Wales.
Yes, everybody can make ad-hominem arguments in content disputes, but only admins can use those attacks to evade [[WP:BLOCK]] as you suggested in your previous email.
The ArbCom has shown a willingness of late to bust the chops of any admin who looks like they've done anything remotely wrong, and if there were any substance to the assumptions behind these questions one could employ it with good success.
Is there a reason you went back to subjunctive? Didn't you just say, that admins are humans who make stacks of bad decisions?
Are the admins, who's "chops get busted" deprived of their privileges?
I've never observed anything like that. Instead my observation rather suggest, that there usually is the sociological explainable in-group phenomenon at play. I.e. even to my direct question, whether an admin might do wrong, you are only willing to admit, that an admin - as every human - does make *bad decisions*. It still wouldn't come to your mind, that an admin might as well intentionally abuse his privileges.
On 21/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
It's easy to abuse your power when you're judge and executioner, but admins don't really have these rolls. Anyone an admin "sentences" can be unsentenced, anyone we "execute" can be resurrected. These actions do happen all the time - review of administrative actions are easy to obtain.
Correcting the "mistakes" is one thing. But what does it take to deprive an admin of his privileges?
You take them to arbitration. I believe one admin lost their privileges just a few days ago, for example.
If you don't want to do that, please quit whining.
- d.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
How about WP:BLOCK? "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute."
Is it still "correct action" if they do?
One, of course, still has the legs of IAR, the general principle of "no lawyering" and so forth to stand on from time to time, but in general no. Of course "content dispute" is a nebulous term, and oft times overly broadly defined by those who're misbehaving - if you removing trolling, for instance, the person trolling will inevitably claim they're in a content dispute with you, which is simply not true.
But if they make a correct block in that situation, what is it you're hoping someone else would do? Unblock then reblock? In an "all volunteer" justice system, it's hard to get people roused about technicalities when justive has been done.
You don't even consider, that an admin might do wrong, do you? Don't you think, that it's pretty easy to abuse your power, when you are judge and executor at the same time? What prevents you from calling all your opponents in content disputes wiki-lawyering trolls?
Sure, admins make terrible decisions all the time. I've altered at least one admin action I've taken afterwards based on feedback from other editors, and as recently as today I asked another admin to reconsider his admin action, he did so and reverted his decision. Admins are these odd creatues called "humans" that make stacks of bad decisions.
It's easy to abuse your power when you're judge and executioner, but admins don't really have these rolls. Anyone an admin "sentences" can be unsentenced, anyone we "execute" can be resurrected. These actions do happen all the time - review of administrative actions are easy to obtain.
Correcting the "mistakes" is one thing. But what does it take to deprive an admin of his privileges?
This I don't specifically know, but one can review recent arbitrations that resulted in desysopin's and take a stab at it.
Nothing prevents me from making ad-hominem arguments in content disputes. Of course, that's a terrible method and I'd likely lose such a dispute, but I could do it, same as anyone from the lowliest IP to Jimbo Wales.
Yes, everybody can make ad-hominem arguments in content disputes, but only admins can use those attacks to evade [[WP:BLOCK]] as you suggested in your previous email.
Ad hominem arguments don't help you block anyone. There's a little link that says "block" that lets you do it - and you don't need any argument at all. But without a (community accepted) basis, it's unlikely to stand against a user who contests it civilly. The unblock mailing list, for instance, a single admin really can't control, and will investigate blocks of people who ask civilly (although I suspect the "Subject:ZOMG FUCKING CABAL!!!!1cos(0)!!!" emails don't get a fair shake).
The ArbCom has shown a willingness of late to bust the chops of any admin who looks like they've done anything remotely wrong, and if there were any substance to the assumptions behind these questions one could employ it with good success.
Is there a reason you went back to subjunctive? Didn't you just say, that admins are humans who make stacks of bad decisions?
Are the admins, who's "chops get busted" deprived of their privileges?
I've never observed anything like that. Instead my observation rather suggest, that there usually is the sociological explainable in-group phenomenon at play. I.e. even to my direct question, whether an admin might do wrong, you are only willing to admit, that an admin - as every human - does make *bad decisions*. It still wouldn't come to your mind, that an admin might as well intentionally abuse his privileges.
-- Raphael
Err, yes, I said admins make bad decisions, and I would suggest that only admins who've shown malicious intent or unwilliness/inability to learn from their missteps need to be desysop'd - although recent events suggest the ArbCom disagrees. And while I'd be loath to call the extra administrative tools "priviledges", admins do get desysop'd for a variety of things, yes. There are admins who've abused their extra functions and been desysop'd or even indef banned - certainly those who've used sockpuppets to create illusions of consensus have on occasion, and others from time to time for other reasons. But realistically, apart from sockpuppeting, abusing your admin tools is almost certain to be counterproductive - it's just too easy for anyone to show you've done it, have your action reversed and get yourself desysop'd by the ArbCom.
Cheers WilyD
Wily D schrieb:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
How about WP:BLOCK? "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute."
Is it still "correct action" if they do?
One, of course, still has the legs of IAR, the general principle of "no lawyering" and so forth to stand on from time to time, but in general no. Of course "content dispute" is a nebulous term, and oft times overly broadly defined by those who're misbehaving - if you removing trolling, for instance, the person trolling will inevitably claim they're in a content dispute with you, which is simply not true.
But if they make a correct block in that situation, what is it you're hoping someone else would do? Unblock then reblock? In an "all volunteer" justice system, it's hard to get people roused about technicalities when justive has been done.
You don't even consider, that an admin might do wrong, do you? Don't you think, that it's pretty easy to abuse your power, when you are judge and executor at the same time? What prevents you from calling all your opponents in content disputes wiki-lawyering trolls?
<snip/>
Nothing prevents me from making ad-hominem arguments in content disputes. Of course, that's a terrible method and I'd likely lose such a dispute, but I could do it, same as anyone from the lowliest IP to Jimbo Wales.
Yes, everybody can make ad-hominem arguments in content disputes, but only admins can use those attacks to evade [[WP:BLOCK]] as you suggested in your previous email.
Ad hominem arguments don't help you block anyone. There's a little link that says "block" that lets you do it - and you don't need any argument at all. But without a (community accepted) basis, it's unlikely to stand against a user who contests it civilly. The unblock mailing list, for instance, a single admin really can't control, and will investigate blocks of people who ask civilly (although I suspect the "Subject:ZOMG FUCKING CABAL!!!!1cos(0)!!!" emails don't get a fair shake).
The "community" isn't even involved in the admin-only unblock mailing list. There is no public supervision possible at all!
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:22 AM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at
wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at
wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Raphael Wegmann <
raphael@psi.co.at> wrote:
> How about WP:BLOCK? > "Administrators must not block users with whom they are
engaged in a
> content dispute." > > Is it still "correct action" if they do? >
One, of course, still has the legs of IAR, the general principle
of
"no lawyering" and so forth to stand on from time to time, but
in
general no. Of course "content dispute" is a nebulous term, and
oft
times overly broadly defined by those who're misbehaving - if
you
removing trolling, for instance, the person trolling will
inevitably
claim they're in a content dispute with you, which is simply not
true.
But if they make a correct block in that situation, what is it
you're
hoping someone else would do? Unblock then reblock? In an "all volunteer" justice system, it's hard to get people roused about technicalities when justive has been done.
You don't even consider, that an admin might do wrong, do you? Don't you think, that it's pretty easy to abuse your power, when you are judge and executor at the same time? What prevents you from calling all your opponents in content disputes wiki-lawyering trolls?
<snip/>
Nothing prevents me from making ad-hominem arguments in content disputes. Of course, that's a terrible method and I'd likely lose such a dispute, but I could do it, same as anyone from the lowliest
IP
to Jimbo Wales.
Yes, everybody can make ad-hominem arguments in content disputes, but only admins can use those attacks to evade [[WP:BLOCK]] as you suggested in your previous email.
Ad hominem arguments don't help you block anyone. There's a little link that says "block" that lets you do it - and you don't need any argument at all. But without a (community accepted) basis, it's unlikely to stand against a user who contests it civilly. The unblock mailing list, for instance, a single admin really can't control, and will investigate blocks of people who ask civilly (although I suspect the "Subject:ZOMG FUCKING CABAL!!!!1cos(0)!!!" emails don't get a fair shake).
The "community" isn't even involved in the admin-only unblock mailing list. There is no public supervision possible at all!
The unblock list is not another venue for you to fight the Muhammed images issue. You tried to turn it into one after you got blocked, and we told you politely to stop, and you kept trying to beat us over the head with it.
We are not supposed to do that, with that list, and you can't make us go there just because nobody else is listening to you at the moment. Perverting our purpose to try and force the list to become engaged in on-wiki content disputes and policy disputes is so wrong I can't describe how strongly I feel about your behavior here without crossing the line into attacking you on it.
The list is private, because some of the things that float into the inbox include personal identifying information, username to IP address correlations, and that sort of thing. Foundation privacy policy requires that type of data to be handled sensitively by trusted known users. It's not "admins-only", it's "trusted users only" and several non-admins have and continue to participate on the list.
The last time someone asked whether the list was some sort of backroom cabal, we worked with the complaintant and found an uninvolved neutral third party non-admin that was trustable, and they joined the list. Marc Riddell was that person and is still on the list, as far as I know. Marc remains a normal user, not an administrator, and is free to call the rest of the list members on it if he feels we're being an abusive cabal in private.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 02:14:33AM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:22 AM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at
wrote:
Yes, everybody can make ad-hominem arguments in content disputes, but only admins can use those attacks to evade [[WP:BLOCK]] as you suggested in your previous email.
Ad hominem arguments don't help you block anyone. There's a little link that says "block" that lets you do it - and you don't need any argument at all. But without a (community accepted) basis, it's unlikely to stand against a user who contests it civilly. The unblock mailing list, for instance, a single admin really can't control, and will investigate blocks of people who ask civilly (although I suspect the "Subject:ZOMG FUCKING CABAL!!!!1cos(0)!!!" emails don't get a fair shake).
The "community" isn't even involved in the admin-only unblock mailing list. There is no public supervision possible at all!
The unblock list is not another venue for you to fight the Muhammed images issue. You tried to turn it into one after you got blocked, and we told you politely to stop, and you kept trying to beat us over the head with it.
As I told you on the unblock list, it has never been my intention to "fight the Muhammed images issue" on the unblock list.
In fact it was Yamla, who started with the IMHO ridiculous claim, that I'd need strong evidence that my edit was in accord with consensus, before I can change [[Muhammad]]. Where is the strong evidence, that the current state of [[Muhammad]] is in accord with consensus? In fact [[Talk:Muhammad/Images]] and the article History is a strong evidence, there is no consensus for its current state.
Where is the paragraph in [[WP:BLOCK]] that "tenditious editing" in article Talk-pages(!!) (I didn't edit any main article >24h before I was blocked) warrants a block?
We are not supposed to do that, with that list, and you can't make us go there just because nobody else is listening to you at the moment. Perverting our purpose to try and force the list to become engaged in on-wiki content disputes and policy disputes is so wrong I can't describe how strongly I feel about your behavior here without crossing the line into attacking you on it.
Well the thing is, that I've been blocked in violation of [[WP:BLOCK]], *because* the admin who blocked me, disagreed with my POV in a content dispute. I never intended to solve the content dispute on the unblock list. But I have to mention, that there *is* a content dispute, and the admin who blocked me, was engaged in it.
The list is private, because some of the things that float into the inbox include personal identifying information, username to IP address correlations, and that sort of thing.
That hasn't been a problem, before the unblock list was created. Private matters could still be discussed off-list.
Foundation privacy policy requires that type of data to be handled sensitively by trusted known users. It's not "admins-only", it's "trusted users only" and several non-admins have and continue to participate on the list.
That's not what I call public scrutiny.
The last time someone asked whether the list was some sort of backroom cabal, we worked with the complaintant and found an uninvolved neutral third party non-admin that was trustable, and they joined the list. Marc Riddell was that person and is still on the list, as far as I know. Marc remains a normal user, not an administrator, and is free to call the rest of the list members on it if he feels we're being an abusive cabal in private.
I'm not very impressed, that there is a normal user of your choosing allowed on this list.
On 22/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
Well the thing is, that I've been blocked in violation of [[WP:BLOCK]], *because* the admin who blocked me, disagreed with my POV in a content dispute. I never intended to solve the content dispute on the unblock list. But I have to mention, that there *is* a content dispute, and the admin who blocked me, was engaged in it.
File an arbitration complaint.
I'd like wikien-l to less closely resemble a sewer. A big part of this is that it is no longer the unblock-request list of last resort.
This is not the place for your complaint.
- d.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 02:23:48PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
Well the thing is, that I've been blocked in violation of [[WP:BLOCK]], *because* the admin who blocked me, disagreed with my POV in a content dispute. I never intended to solve the content dispute on the unblock list. But I have to mention, that there *is* a content dispute, and the admin who blocked me, was engaged in it.
File an arbitration complaint.
I'd like wikien-l to less closely resemble a sewer. A big part of this is that it is no longer the unblock-request list of last resort.
This is not the place for your complaint.
I didn't start it.
On 20/02/2008, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
But yes, when an admin performs the correct action in circumstances where it might've been preferable they let someone else do it, what should anyone do about it, beyond say something to the admin in question?
Yell at them until they agree not to do it again. If they will do something for a good reason they will end up doing it for a bad reason. Not using admin powers in a case you are already involved in needs to be one of our really solid red lines.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Wily D wrote:
But yes, when an admin performs the correct action in circumstances where it might've been preferable they let someone else do it, what should anyone do about it, beyond say something to the admin in question?
By this reasoning, we shouldn't make edits by banned users revert-on-sight, either.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Wily D wrote:
But yes, when an admin performs the correct action in circumstances where it might've been preferable they let someone else do it, what should anyone do about it, beyond say something to the admin in question?
By this reasoning, we shouldn't make edits by banned users revert-on-sight, either.
The policy says "you may" revert edits by banned users on sight, not "you must". Very few editors would do anything if a banned user fixed a spelling error, for instance.
WilyD
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Wily D wrote:
But yes, when an admin performs the correct action in circumstances where it might've been preferable they let someone else do it, what should anyone do about it, beyond say something to the admin in question?
By this reasoning, we shouldn't make edits by banned users revert-on-sight, either.
The policy says "you may" revert edits by banned users on sight, not "you must". Very few editors would do anything if a banned user fixed a spelling error, for instance.
But clearly the policy results in reversions that that would never have been made if the editor hadn't been banned. Otherwise the policy would have no effect at all.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Wily D wrote:
But yes, when an admin performs the correct action in circumstances where it might've been preferable they let someone else do it, what should anyone do about it, beyond say something to the admin in question?
By this reasoning, we shouldn't make edits by banned users revert-on-sight, either.
The policy says "you may" revert edits by banned users on sight, not "you must". Very few editors would do anything if a banned user fixed a spelling error, for instance.
But clearly the policy results in reversions that that would never have been made if the editor hadn't been banned. Otherwise the policy would have no effect at all.
People are free to engage in timewastes, they're just not required to. If an involved admin issues a correct block, I could always unblock then reblock - for propriety - if I wanted. But I'm not required to.
The cases are comparable - there's nothing you're required to do, and so things not worth doing are rarely done.
WilyD
On 20/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
That's exactly what I expected. Divert the topic when it becomes inconvenient.
Oddly enough, it's a different thread on the same list.
In any case, I was going to save responding to your post in the other thread because I wouldn't have had anything to say other than "you have reached obsessive gibbering conspiracy theorist stage" - being unable to accept that you're wrong and that nobody cares, you claim a vast admin conspiracy - but, y'know, if you really want to keep asking I'll happily tell you that.
- d.
David Gerard schrieb:
On 20/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
That's exactly what I expected. Divert the topic when it becomes inconvenient.
Oddly enough, it's a different thread on the same list.
In any case, I was going to save responding to your post in the other thread because I wouldn't have had anything to say other than "you have reached obsessive gibbering conspiracy theorist stage" - being unable to accept that you're wrong and that nobody cares, you claim a vast admin conspiracy - but, y'know, if you really want to keep asking I'll happily tell you that.
It seems to me, that you haven't read my reply, since I clearly stated, that I don't believe in any conspiracy whatsoever.
Hi, Raphael, you might have noticed that this is a different thread. In fact, its completely separate from the thread that includes the text you quoted. Perhaps you have an e-mail client that doesn't allow you to differentiate between threads, and perhaps this explains why you have diverged threads on a few occasions recently. Unless you intend to create a new thread, you should use replies with the same subject as the original (without adding a Re: beforehand). Additionally, it could be confusing to continue discussions on the same topic across threads. Folks contribute to different threads on different topics, and its handy to keep them separate.
Re: vast admin conspiracy. Its true, there is a Cabal. All of the admins are in on it. There are secret meetings on an admin only IRC channel, where strategy is discussed for limiting the power of non-admins and determining which chosen few should be able to join them. Have you never noticed that all voters on RfAs are admins as well, except for those few hapless users who haven't got the notice? That the control of Wikipedia by this cabal has not been widely discussed among the media is a result of the uniformity of worldview and opinion among current administrators. By and large, they tend to have very similar opinions on nearly every subject - perhaps it is a result of a racial or socioeconomic uniformity enforced by control over the RfA process. Inevitably, however, someone will notice that administrators hardly ever disagree with eachother on matters of policy, process or content. When it blows up in the press, you can expect the shit to really hit the fan - casual readers will know that the content (even referenced content!) can't be trusted if policy and process is controlled by a vicious, secretive cabal.
Nathan