Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
[[WP:NOT]] overly legalistic or bureaucratic. That's what [[WP:IAR]] is for. Nobody's going to "call to the carpet" Phroziac for issuing a perfectly respectable block against someone who is clearly gaming the system. You still haven't explained why you kept unilaterally removing information without ever discussing anything. As I said, the ultimate check on blocking is that there are more than 500 Wikipedia admins capable of blocking and unblocking. The fact that not one of them has done anything speaks volumes about your case, or lack thereof. -FCYTravis @ en.wikipedia
I wouldn't say that despondency speaks volumes about Mr. Brockmeyer's case. I think it says more about degradation in our system. Wikipedia was founded on the concept of the best article naturally rising to the top. Now we see administrative power artificially influencing which article become permanent. Mr. Brockmeyer is naturally confused because Wikipedia purports itself to be a society of equals, and he doesn't feel like an equal. He played within the rules, just like the administrator that blocked him, but that administrator made up a new rule: Thou shalt not game the system. Where is gaming the system on the "exhaustive list of the situations that warrant blocking?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocks_may_be_us... It's not there. It's one that Phroziac made up. How can he do that?!! It's easy in an overgrown hierarchical system like this one. The guy on the top simply cannot keep up with all of the complaints about his administrators, so he can no longer stem corruption. It's why every hierarchical system in history has failed.
Societies of equals endure as long as they can keep anyone from gaining power over the system. In my opinion, getting Wikipedia back to the concept of a society of equals must be our number one priority if we are to be considered a reliably and NPOV resource. I realize that different people have different jobs, like sysop and administrator, but the tools available for those jobs must not be allowed to influence the articles. When there is evidence of this, no matter how much we love Phroziac, we must take away his tools for the sustainability and reliability of this incredible project. If he wants to run for administrator again in the future, I would love to entertain his application.
If the administrators can't monitor themselves, the only alternative I can see is of creating a secret ballot system for votes of no confidence available to all editors.
Zephram Stark _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________
--------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
As you can see, I have not paid a lot of attention to this thread. "Making up rules" is allowable under [[WP:IAR]]. Remember, I only blocked one person for this, I have not unilaterally started forcing any "made up rules" on everyone. I also have absolutely no interest in the article I blocked him for reverting, and I don't even remember what it was. Sure, I'd like to see it be featured on the main page, but I'm not interested in directly contributing to it.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's a few things in the blocking policy and 3rr policy that say things such as, "you are not entitled to three reverts per day", and that you can be blocked for "excessive" reversions. 3RR is not a hard limit, and you can even break it and not get blocked at all, depending on what the admin who responds to the situation feels would be best. We don't even have an exhaustive list of everything that can be blocked for.
Desysopping me over one possible policy breach would be kinda silly. Nobody has ever been desysopped for that. The amount of admins who have ever lost their privileges can be counted on one human hand. Also note that no admin that I am aware of UN blocked Brian...we have like 600 of them.
Oh, and don't forget that the block has expired quite a while ago, and if for some technical reason it lasted longer then exactly 24 hours, we're sorry. And i'm sorry if the term "gaming the system" has offended anyone here. Maybe that term was too harsh for the situation.
I could make a huge rant about this, but I'm sure you would rather not read it.
On 9/17/05, Zephram Stark zephramstark@yahoo.com wrote:
Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
[[WP:NOT]] overly legalistic or bureaucratic. That's what [[WP:IAR]] is for. Nobody's going to "call to the carpet" Phroziac for issuing a perfectly respectable block against someone who is clearly gaming the system. You still haven't explained why you kept unilaterally removing information without ever discussing anything. As I said, the ultimate check on blocking is that there are more than 500 Wikipedia admins capable of blocking and unblocking. The fact that not one of them has done anything speaks volumes about your case, or lack thereof. -FCYTravis @ en.wikipedia
I wouldn't say that despondency speaks volumes about Mr. Brockmeyer's case. I think it says more about degradation in our system. Wikipedia was founded on the concept of the best article naturally rising to the top. Now we see administrative power artificially influencing which article become permanent. Mr. Brockmeyer is naturally confused because Wikipedia purports itself to be a society of equals, and he doesn't feel like an equal. He played within the rules, just like the administrator that blocked him, but that administrator made up a new rule: Thou shalt not game the system. Where is gaming the system on the "exhaustive list of the situations that warrant blocking?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocks_may_be_us... It's not there. It's one that Phroziac made up. How can he do that?!! It's easy in an overgrown hierarchical system like this one. The guy on the top simply cannot keep up with all of the complaints about his administrators, so he can no longer stem corruption. It's why every hierarchical system in history has failed.
Societies of equals endure as long as they can keep anyone from gaining power over the system. In my opinion, getting Wikipedia back to the concept of a society of equals must be our number one priority if we are to be considered a reliably and NPOV resource. I realize that different people have different jobs, like sysop and administrator, but the tools available for those jobs must not be allowed to influence the articles. When there is evidence of this, no matter how much we love Phroziac, we must take away his tools for the sustainability and reliability of this incredible project. If he wants to run for administrator again in the future, I would love to entertain his application.
If the administrators can't monitor themselves, the only alternative I can see is of creating a secret ballot system for votes of no confidence available to all editors.
Zephram Stark _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yet another citation of the WP:IAR non-policy as being a policy-like basis for a policy-covered decision.
Wonderful.
SV "This is not 'Nam, Smokey. This is bowling. There are rules."
--- Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
As you can see, I have not paid a lot of attention to this thread. "Making up rules" is allowable under [[WP:IAR]]. Remember, I only blocked one person for this, I have not unilaterally started forcing any "made up rules" on everyone. I also have absolutely no interest in the article I blocked him for reverting, and I don't even remember what it was. Sure, I'd like to see it be featured on the main page, but I'm not interested in directly contributing to it.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's a few things in the blocking policy and 3rr policy that say things such as, "you are not entitled to three reverts per day", and that you can be blocked for "excessive" reversions. 3RR is not a hard limit, and you can even break it and not get blocked at all, depending on what the admin who responds to the situation feels would be best. We don't even have an exhaustive list of everything that can be blocked for.
Desysopping me over one possible policy breach would be kinda silly. Nobody has ever been desysopped for that. The amount of admins who have ever lost their privileges can be counted on one human hand. Also note that no admin that I am aware of UN blocked Brian...we have like 600 of them.
Oh, and don't forget that the block has expired quite a while ago, and if for some technical reason it lasted longer then exactly 24 hours, we're sorry. And i'm sorry if the term "gaming the system" has offended anyone here. Maybe that term was too harsh for the situation.
I could make a huge rant about this, but I'm sure you would rather not read it.
On 9/17/05, Zephram Stark zephramstark@yahoo.com wrote:
Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com
wrote:
[[WP:NOT]] overly legalistic or bureaucratic.
That's what
[[WP:IAR]] is for. Nobody's going to "call to
the carpet"
Phroziac for issuing a perfectly respectable
block against
someone who is clearly gaming the system. You
still haven't
explained why you kept unilaterally removing
information
without ever discussing anything. As I said, the
ultimate check
on blocking is that there are more than 500
Wikipedia admins
capable of blocking and unblocking. The fact that
not one of
them has done anything speaks volumes about your
case,
or lack thereof. -FCYTravis @ en.wikipedia
I wouldn't say that despondency speaks volumes
about Mr. Brockmeyer's case. I think it says more about degradation in our system. Wikipedia was founded on the concept of the best article naturally rising to the top. Now we see administrative power artificially influencing which article become permanent. Mr. Brockmeyer is naturally confused because Wikipedia purports itself to be a society of equals, and he doesn't feel like an equal. He played within the rules, just like the administrator that blocked him, but that administrator made up a new rule: Thou shalt not game the system. Where is gaming the system on the "exhaustive list of the situations that warrant blocking?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocks_may_be_us...
It's not there. It's one that Phroziac made up.
How can he do that?!! It's easy in an overgrown hierarchical system like this one. The guy on the top simply cannot keep up with all of the complaints about his administrators, so he can no longer stem corruption. It's why every hierarchical system in history has failed.
Societies of equals endure as long as they can
keep anyone from gaining power over the system. In my opinion, getting Wikipedia back to the concept of a society of equals must be our number one priority if we are to be considered a reliably and NPOV resource. I realize that different people have different jobs, like sysop and administrator, but the tools available for those jobs must not be allowed to influence the articles. When there is evidence of this, no matter how much we love Phroziac, we must take away his tools for the sustainability and reliability of this incredible project. If he wants to run for administrator again in the future, I would love to entertain his application.
If the administrators can't monitor themselves,
the only alternative I can see is of creating a secret ballot system for votes of no confidence available to all editors.
Zephram Stark _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina
relief effort.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com