G'day George,
Someone is in violation of WP:POINT regarding this discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
I don't think WP:POINT has anything to do with that block. That was, and I say this as a regular[0] participant in IRC, pure and unadulterated moronitude. It's fatuous, plain and simple, to state that Jeff has "exhausted the patience of the community", or that "there has been consensus" of all admins to get rid of the chap. This is not a problem with IRC, mind: as an admin, I used discussion on IRC to inform many of my decisions; it's a valuable tool. The same goes for the mailing list. There's a huge problem, however, with taking an incredibly stupid action and then citing an IRC discussion as justification.
I mean, I could be wrong. Perhaps Jeff has taken to doing something really bad, like spamming all of Wikipedia with images of the goatse man while I was away, but my experience with him --- personal experience, discussions with others who disagree with him as or more often than I, a scan of his block log --- show him to be an extremely annoying process wonk, but nonetheless an extremely annoying process wonk with a heart of gold who is of net benefit to the project.
Vampires are important, because they remind us what stakes and garlic are for. Process wonks are important, because they remind us why we need process refugees. I've found talking with Jeff invaluable in helping me form my views on process and policy, and I'm sure a number of other editors have gained similar benefit. On top of that, he's a nice chap, he's capable of having sense beaten into him on occasion, and he's done far less damage than other editors who we tolerate or actively encourage.
I can't see any justification for Zsinj's[1] behaviour here. If someone wants to criticise the less process-oriented editors out there, then all well and good. Part of the trade-off for being a process refugee is that you have to be willing to explain your actions. I'm on record, probably ad nauseum, saying that process should be ignored whenever we have a good reason to do so. Fine and good. Users like badlydrawnjeff help us ensure that we *do* have a good reason. You can't say you're willing to be held accountable for ignoring policy/process, then turn around and block someone for trying to do exactly that. There's a number of words for that: cabalism, autocracy, hypocrisy ... incompetence.
As George says, let's not do that again, okay?
[0] Okay, not regular, not any more. But back before I was working ...
[1] Who, I note, is a proud CVU member with a tonne of userboxen and a WikiDefcon template on his userpage. Correlation is not causation, I know, but ... hmm ...
On 5/23/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
[1] Who, I note, is a proud CVU member with a tonne of userboxen and a WikiDefcon template on his userpage. Correlation is not causation, I know, but ... hmm ...
Precisely what I was thinking.
Johnleemk
My thoughts (as a regular user - I'm not an admin) -
I'm gravely disturbed by this whole process (or lack thereof). Through my eyes, I see a political vendetta that was pursued within the ranks of the admins, who I would wish that I could trust implicitly, and my confidence in that is shaken. There's nothing scary than a mob of villagers pursuing someone with torches. My natural instinct is to jump into the fray on the side of the "wronged" party, but obviously, that's not appropriate here.
I have no opinion about Jeff - I think he probably serves a good purpose, as the agitator, and agitators often have detractors, but I hurt for him in this. Further, I hurt for the people who made this decision; it's so difficult to be put in a position where you feel like you're driven to drastic action. I wonder what it was that made them decide that our ordinary dispute resolution steps wouldn't work here? Where is the consensus model in this? Where did we, as a community fail? DID we, as a community fail? And, more importantly, how do we fix it to prevent it from happening again?
Jeff was wronged, there's no question in my mind. I won't cry out for blood, but I'll ask for accountability, and I'll ask for the decision tree, so that we can figure out where our systems broke down, if they did.
I wonder about how we repair the damage that was done here - obviously, Jeff's unblocked, and that's A Good Thing. But, what about the users like myself who see this action and worry about the unity and spirit of our admin corps? How do we repair the shaken trust? I know these are people - flawed, like myself, but I expect a higher standard from admins. Obviously, ArbComm's involved, and I think that's good. I'd like to see users (not just the one who made the block, but including him/her) come forward and say "I was wrong, and I apologize".
More than anything, this makes me sad.
Philippe [[User:Philippe]] ----- Original Message ----- From: John Lee To: English Wikipedia Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking badlydrawnjeff (was Re: Thoughts on#wikipedia - threat or menace?)
On 5/23/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
[1] Who, I note, is a proud CVU member with a tonne of userboxen and a WikiDefcon template on his userpage. Correlation is not causation, I know, but ... hmm ...
Precisely what I was thinking.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
I have no opinion about Jeff - I think he probably serves a good purpose, as the agitator, and agitators often have detractors, but I hurt for him in this. Further, I hurt for the people who made this decision; it's so difficult to be put in a position where you feel like you're driven to drastic action. I wonder what it was that made them decide that our ordinary dispute resolution steps wouldn't work here? Where is the consensus model in this? Where did we, as a community fail? DID we, as a community fail? And, more importantly, how do we fix it to prevent it from happening again?
I'm a little cooler about it than I was when I dfound out - this was the first place I read about it, in fact, and I *still* haven't received communication from the blocking admin, nor do I want it.
There's a lot I could say, but, for once, I don't have to. i'll certainly have more to say soon, but I'll just say one thing - I saw this situation coming ages ago. I'm part surprised it took this long, and part surprised it happened when it did.
No use getting depressed about it, though - I've got an article to finish bringing to featured status and all my mourning is taken up by the cancellation of Veronica Mars anyway.
-Jeff
On 5/23/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I'm a little cooler about it than I was when I dfound out - this was the first place I read about it, in fact, and I *still* haven't received communication from the blocking admin, nor do I want it.
There's a lot I could say, but, for once, I don't have to. i'll certainly have more to say soon, but I'll just say one thing - I saw this situation coming ages ago. I'm part surprised it took this long, and part surprised it happened when it did.
The one thing I think is very clear about this situation is that most people in the community is baffled by this and think it's a terrible decision, just look at that thread. You can be sure that most of us are on your side (I'm like annoyingly "glass-half-empty" in real life).
No use getting depressed about it, though - I've got an article to finish bringing to featured status and all my mourning is taken up by the cancellation of Veronica Mars anyway.
Yeah, I know! And they were talking about putting her in the FBI next year. That would have been so good! I haven't quite processed the fact that it's over yet :(
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
I have no opinion about Jeff - I think he probably serves a good purpose, as the agitator, and agitators often have detractors, but I hurt for him in this. Further, I hurt for the people who made this decision; it's so difficult to be put in a position where you feel like you're driven to drastic action. I wonder what it was that made them decide that our ordinary dispute resolution steps wouldn't work here? Where is the consensus model in this? Where did we, as a community fail? DID we, as a community fail? And, more importantly, how do we fix it to prevent it from happening again?
I'm a little cooler about it than I was when I dfound out - this was the first place I read about it, in fact, and I *still* haven't received communication from the blocking admin, nor do I want it.
There's a lot I could say, but, for once, I don't have to. i'll certainly have more to say soon, but I'll just say one thing - I saw this situation coming ages ago. I'm part surprised it took this long, and part surprised it happened when it did.
No use getting depressed about it, though - I've got an article to finish bringing to featured status and all my mourning is taken up by the cancellation of Veronica Mars anyway.
-Jeff
Well, at least it got settled quickly, and I think there was a very quick and decisive consensus that it was a major screwup. Seems to me to be more one person shooting first and asking questions later than any type of cabal-there was sure no cabal coming out to support it, I don't think -anyone- did.
(As to Veronica Mars, what the hell is with that? Why do they always cancel the few shows that don't suck after just a few seasons, but Survivor runs forever?)
On 5/23/07, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
My thoughts (as a regular user - I'm not an admin) -
I'm gravely disturbed by this whole process (or lack thereof). Through my eyes, I see a political vendetta that was pursued within the ranks of the admins, who I would wish that I could trust implicitly, and my confidence in that is shaken. There's nothing scary than a mob of villagers pursuing someone with torches. My natural instinct is to jump into the fray on the side of the "wronged" party, but obviously, that's not appropriate here.
A vendetta? I see nothing personal in how the admins have been acting, with the exception of Zsinj who *possibly* could have done it out of some personal opinion about Jeff.
I have no opinion about Jeff - I think he probably serves a good purpose, as
the agitator, and agitators often have detractors, but I hurt for him in this. Further, I hurt for the people who made this decision; it's so difficult to be put in a position where you feel like you're driven to drastic action. I wonder what it was that made them decide that our ordinary dispute resolution steps wouldn't work here? Where is the consensus model in this? Where did we, as a community fail? DID we, as a community fail? And, more importantly, how do we fix it to prevent it from happening again?
Jeff was wronged, there's no question in my mind. I won't cry out for blood, but I'll ask for accountability, and I'll ask for the decision tree, so that we can figure out where our systems broke down, if they did.
I wonder about how we repair the damage that was done here - obviously, Jeff's unblocked, and that's A Good Thing. But, what about the users like myself who see this action and worry about the unity and spirit of our admin corps? How do we repair the shaken trust? I know these are people - flawed, like myself, but I expect a higher standard from admins. Obviously, ArbComm's involved, and I think that's good. I'd like to see users (not just the one who made the block, but including him/her) come forward and say "I was wrong, and I apologize".
The first thing to do is to rid yourself of the notion of a united admin corps, because there isn't such a thing. Admins are basically ordinary editors with some extra tools; it shouldn't surprise us that they fuck up anymore than it should surprise us that a few idiots can get into edit wars listed on [[WP:LAME]]. The only issue is sanctioning those responsible for such fuck-ups.
Placing admins on such a pedestal is a bad idea - and even if you want to do it, please don't refer to admins as a united collective, because we hardly ever agree on anything (except possibly a few core ideas like [[WP:NPOV]]). Treating us as a collective is like worrying about the unity and spirit of our editing corps - it's pointless, because there's no such thing.
The Arbcom isn't literally involved just yet, per se. A new case has been filed, but only one arbitrator has agreed to accept it, with two others rejecting - but that was prior to the blocking incident. Let's see how this goes.
More than anything, this makes me sad.
Philippe [[User:Philippe]]
Johnleemk
On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:23:03 -0500, "Philippe Beaudette" philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
I'm gravely disturbed by this whole process (or lack thereof). Through my eyes, I see a political vendetta that was pursued within the ranks of the admins
[[Hanlon's Razor]] applies: never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Speaking in my capacity as spokesrogue of The Cabal (TINC), I would say that most of us, far from pursuing a vendetta against Jeff, actually rather like him, we just wish he would go about things in a different way.
Guy (JzG)
On 5/23/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:23:03 -0500, "Philippe Beaudette" philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
I'm gravely disturbed by this whole process (or lack thereof). Through my eyes, I see a political vendetta that was pursued within the ranks of the admins
[[Hanlon's Razor]] applies: never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Speaking in my capacity as spokesrogue of The Cabal (TINC), I would say that most of us, far from pursuing a vendetta against Jeff, actually rather like him, we just wish he would go about things in a different way.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
GASP! you revealed our secret!
On 5/23/07, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
My thoughts (as a regular user - I'm not an admin) -
I'm gravely disturbed by this whole process (or lack thereof). Through my eyes, I see a political vendetta that was pursued within the ranks of the admins, who I would wish that I could trust implicitly, and my confidence in that is shaken. There's nothing scary than a mob of villagers pursuing someone with torches. My natural instinct is to jump into the fray on the side of the "wronged" party, but obviously, that's not appropriate here.
Hell, no! If there's admins on one side and someone else on the other, close ranks and hunt the bastard down. If he turns to defend himself, hound him all the more. If he strikes out against his tormentors, be doubly ferocious. If he complains of the injustice, stop his mouth.
On 5/23/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
My thoughts (as a regular user - I'm not an admin) -
I'm gravely disturbed by this whole process (or lack thereof). Through my eyes, I see a political vendetta that was pursued within the ranks of the admins, who I would wish that I could trust implicitly, and my confidence in that is shaken. There's nothing scary than a mob of villagers pursuing someone with torches. My natural instinct is to jump into the fray on the side of the "wronged" party, but obviously, that's not appropriate here.
Hell, no! If there's admins on one side and someone else on the other, close ranks and hunt the bastard down. If he turns to defend himself, hound him all the more. If he strikes out against his tormentors, be doubly ferocious. If he complains of the injustice, stop his mouth.
Look, please keep this civil.
What happened to Jeff was a travesty - which even Jeff's harshest critics immediately recognized and publically stated as such. People with the logs (participants and Arbcom) can assess blame among those present, but I think that this episode has made it very clear that such activity is really bad, that we don't want admins doing that, and that it shouldn't happen again.
The one thing this clearly was not was an organized pack attack by a large abusive admin community against an unliked user. Whether one admin made a mistake, or he was egged on by others (knowingly or unknowingly), I don't know and won't speculate. The admin involved has publically apologized in depth for what he did. The "incident" was almost over faster than Jeff could even notice in (the autoblock had to be resolved, but the rest was fixed very quickly).
On 5/24/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
My thoughts (as a regular user - I'm not an admin) -
I'm gravely disturbed by this whole process (or lack
thereof). Through my
eyes, I see a political vendetta that was pursued within the ranks of
the
admins, who I would wish that I could trust implicitly, and my
confidence in
that is shaken. There's nothing scary than a mob of villagers
pursuing
someone with torches. My natural instinct is to jump into the fray on
the
side of the "wronged" party, but obviously, that's not appropriate
here.
Hell, no! If there's admins on one side and someone else on the other,
close
ranks and hunt the bastard down. If he turns to defend himself, hound
him
all the more. If he strikes out against his tormentors, be doubly
ferocious.
If he complains of the injustice, stop his mouth.
Look, please keep this civil.
What happened to Jeff was a travesty - which even Jeff's harshest critics immediately recognized and publically stated as such.
I was referring to another case.
Didn't David Gerard just ask today what should be done about IRC?
Boggles the mind that people aren't responsible for any and all words spoken in there or actions that spawn from there. I.e., if people told the blocking admin, "Blocking Jeff would be good," in any wording, who did it ought to be named. Why get a free pass? Note it on their permanent record on-wiki as individuals of dubious judgement.
Those IRC channels need to be either fully public and logged, with all Wikipedia policies applied to them, or disowned from the project, cast off into a no-man's land, and removed from references on-wiki.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
G'day Joe,
Didn't David Gerard just ask today what should be done about IRC?
Boggles the mind that people aren't responsible for any and all words spoken in there or actions that spawn from there. I.e., if people told the blocking admin, "Blocking Jeff would be good," in any wording, who did it ought to be named. Why get a free pass? Note it on their permanent record on-wiki as individuals of dubious judgement.
I, too, would like to know who these morons advising Zsinj[0] are. I don't see that it's IRC's fault, however.
A block after discussing with fellow admins on IRC is no different from a block after discussing with fellow admins on IM, the telephone, or IRL. There are admins out there who live nearby to one another; there's even a few who live together. If Admin X and Admin Y, a married couple, want to ask each others' advice on a perceived problem user, does Wikipedia have to take control of their marriage in order to prevent IRC-type abuse?
There are three problems here. The first is obvious: a bowel-clenchingly stupid block has been perpetrated. The second is not so obvious: there were, apparently, a bunch of other admins willing to advise Zsinj that such a block would be a Good Thing. The third? We don't actually know who the admins are.
None of these problems are exclusive to IRC. None of these problems will be solved if we get rid of IRC, or strenuously police it. And, finally, none of these problems are guaranteed to occur on IRC. #wikipedia-en-admins doesn't cause people to behave idiotically, or refuse to take responsibility for their own actions[1]. We shouldn't remove or limit a valuable tool simply because somebody was too bloody stupid to use it properly.
Those IRC channels need to be either fully public and logged, with all Wikipedia policies applied to them, or disowned from the project, cast off into a no-man's land, and removed from references on-wiki.
Billy Joel is a good singer, eh? Some of his music's a bit middle-of-the-road, but when he's hot, he's hot. *And* he's witty as anything. Ever see that live video of one of his concerts in late 2001/early 2002? The phrase "fan-fucking-tastic" just doesn't quite capture the magic.
This isn't really one of his better songs, though:
Darling I don't know why I go to extremes Too high or too low there ain't no in-betweens
[0] I'd also be interested to know if Zsinj really is one of the far-too-God-damned-many "CVU admins" around, or if it's just a coincidence ...
[1] Guns don't kill ducks, ducks kill ducks.
Cheers,
On 5/23/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gallagher Mark George wrote:
Vampires are important, because they remind us what stakes and garlic are for.
That deserves some kind of award for quote of the day.
Ec
Eh comes from Terry Pratchett.
G'day Ray,
Gallagher Mark George wrote:
Vampires are important, because they remind us what stakes and garlic are for.
That deserves some kind of award for quote of the day.
And so it should; it's a bloody good sentence. You can mail off the award to Terry Pratchett, somewhere in England, the UK.
The quotation is from one of my favourite Pratchett books, /Carpe Jugulum/, which is about vampires and stakes and garlic and holy water and narcissism and faith and Right and Wrong and other groovy stuff.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Ray,
Gallagher Mark George wrote:
Vampires are important, because they remind us what stakes and garlic are for.
That deserves some kind of award for quote of the day.
And so it should; it's a bloody good sentence. You can mail off the award to Terry Pratchett, somewhere in England, the UK.
The quotation is from one of my favourite Pratchett books, /Carpe Jugulum/, which is about vampires and stakes and garlic and holy water and narcissism and faith and Right and Wrong and other groovy stuff.
And I though you were original. What a disappointment. :-) Never heard of Pratchett before.
Ec
On 5/23/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
And I though you were original. What a disappointment. :-) Never heard of Pratchett before.
Well, in that case, something good has come of all this after all.
On Wed, 23 May 2007 13:38:24 +1000, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Vampires are important, because they remind us what stakes and garlic are for. Process wonks are important, because they remind us why we need process refugees. I've found talking with Jeff invaluable in helping me form my views on process and policy, and I'm sure a number of other editors have gained similar benefit. On top of that, he's a nice chap, he's capable of having sense beaten into him on occasion, and he's done far less damage than other editors who we tolerate or actively encourage.
I endorse this summary.
Guy (JzG)
On 5/22/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day George,
Someone is in violation of WP:POINT regarding this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
I don't think WP:POINT has anything to do with that block.
That reference may have gone over people's heads; I was referring to having a major IRC-related snafu blow up like this right as the discussion had come up here on the mailing list. It would be POINTy if someone had intentionally set it up so that there was a controversial admin block due to IRC discussion right as we were arguing over how bad IRC was.
I don't actually believe it was done for that purpose; it was a throwaway line.