On 7/5/05, Peter Parker logicophilosoficus@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi, How can I report an abuse by a moderator? I was blocked unfairly due to an ethnic debate in which the moderator had taken sides. I read somewhere that I had to join the mailing list, and so I did. I don't know how to participate however, I'd like to know who should I contact concerning this problem. Thanks in Advance.
You can join the list at http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l - I've cc'ed your message to wikien-l in the meantime. You should respond to the list, and mention your username.
- d.
Don't bother reporting abusive admins. Nothing ever comes of it. Most are good people, but there are also a lot of officious bad apples.
However...those bad apples are not the worst of it. The problem is with all the good apples. They remain quiet and unwilling to punish the bad apples, because they fear possible retribution. So the bad apples are allowed to rot, and stink up the place.
Good apples unfortunately follow the Japanese saying: "The nail that stands up, is pounded down."
I quit Wikipedia weeks ago.
Or...did I? (evil laugh)
From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com Reply-To: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: Peter Parker logicophilosoficus@hotmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 22:09:08 +0000
On 7/5/05, Peter Parker logicophilosoficus@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi, How can I report an abuse by a moderator? I was blocked unfairly due to
an
ethnic debate in which the moderator had taken sides. I read somewhere
that
I had to join the mailing list, and so I did. I don't know how to participate however, I'd like to know who should I contact concerning
this
problem. Thanks in Advance.
You can join the list at http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l - I've cc'ed your message to wikien-l in the meantime. You should respond to the list, and mention your username.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
There are still a few of us who are willing to be that nail, Jane.
But thank you for reiterating the point I was making.
A. Nony Mouse
From: "Jane Halliwell" hundredpurses@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:43:51 -0500
Don't bother reporting abusive admins. Nothing ever comes of it. Most are good people, but there are also a lot of officious bad apples.
However...those bad apples are not the worst of it. The problem is with all the good apples. They remain quiet and unwilling to punish the bad apples, because they fear possible retribution. So the bad apples are allowed to rot, and stink up the place.
Good apples unfortunately follow the Japanese saying: "The nail that stands up, is pounded down."
I quit Wikipedia weeks ago.
Or...did I? (evil laugh)
From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com Reply-To: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: Peter Parker logicophilosoficus@hotmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 22:09:08 +0000
On 7/5/05, Peter Parker logicophilosoficus@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi, How can I report an abuse by a moderator? I was blocked unfairly due to
an
ethnic debate in which the moderator had taken sides. I read somewhere
that
I had to join the mailing list, and so I did. I don't know how to participate however, I'd like to know who should I contact concerning
this
problem. Thanks in Advance.
You can join the list at http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l - I've cc'ed your message to wikien-l in the meantime. You should respond to the list, and mention your username.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Don't know what Meegos are? Click to find out. http://meegos.msn.ie
One with a true point would distinguish between true borderline cases and someone like "Jane", whose contributions to Wikipedia consisted almost entirely of an edit-war over a picture of poop, as well as a few other scatalogically-obsessed postings.
By defending the indefensible, you make yourself laughable.
-Matt
User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for "admitted sockpuppet and role account". This account is indeed a sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to protest other blocks caaried out abusively by Snowspinner. The account was declared as a sockpuppet, in accordance with Wikipedia policy (which does not prohibit this) and the only edits were polite questions to Snowspinner about why he did not follow policy.
It is outrageous that admins block users simply for making legitimate requests for explanation from other admins about why they did not follow policy.
Please help.
Norrath
____________________________________________________ Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Interesting. After this posting, all my contributions have been held and screened by the list admin.
Did I hit a little too close to home?
-Me
From: "Jane Halliwell" hundredpurses@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:43:51 -0500
Don't bother reporting abusive admins. Nothing ever comes of it. Most are good people, but there are also a lot of officious bad apples.
However...those bad apples are not the worst of it. The problem is with all the good apples. They remain quiet and unwilling to punish the bad apples, because they fear possible retribution. So the bad apples are allowed to rot, and stink up the place.
Good apples unfortunately follow the Japanese saying: "The nail that stands up, is pounded down."
I quit Wikipedia weeks ago.
Or...did I? (evil laugh)
From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com Reply-To: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: Peter Parker logicophilosoficus@hotmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 22:09:08 +0000
On 7/5/05, Peter Parker logicophilosoficus@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi, How can I report an abuse by a moderator? I was blocked unfairly due to
an
ethnic debate in which the moderator had taken sides. I read somewhere
that
I had to join the mailing list, and so I did. I don't know how to participate however, I'd like to know who should I contact concerning
this
problem. Thanks in Advance.
You can join the list at http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l - I've cc'ed your message to wikien-l in the meantime. You should respond to the list, and mention your username.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
On 7/6/05, Jane Halliwell hundredpurses@hotmail.com wrote:
Interesting. After this posting, all my contributions have been held and screened by the list admin.
Did I hit a little too close to home?
-Me
You may want to doublecheck your outbox. At least one message that appeared to be intended for the list went to me only.
Please people... do not feed the trolls. Let them post and ignore them... they thrive on the replies.
UtherSRG
On 7/6/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/6/05, Jane Halliwell hundredpurses@hotmail.com wrote:
Interesting. After this posting, all my contributions have been held and screened by the list admin.
Did I hit a little too close to home?
-Me
You may want to doublecheck your outbox. At least one message that appeared to be intended for the list went to me only.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jane Halliwell wrote:
However...those bad apples are not the worst of it. The problem is with all the good apples. They remain quiet and unwilling to punish the bad apples, because they fear possible retribution. So the bad apples are allowed to rot, and stink up the place.
It may be noted for the record that I don't fear retribution from any admins, ok? And I watch this constant ongoing trollfest and I tire of it. You show me good evidence of an administrator abusing their admin powers, and the ArbCom not acting on it, and I'll do something. This is my promise to the community, my final role here, to prevent authoritarian cliques from controlling the process.
But, I see essentially no evidence of this, and a whole ton of whining.
One thing that is absolutely 100% notably absent from these complaints is links to diffs and actual examples of admin abuse.
In my opinion, it is getting very close to time to simply kick a handful of you off the mailing list unless you get serious about providing specific examples, including diffs and pointers to block logs.
I quit Wikipedia weeks ago.
Or...did I? (evil laugh)
It's exactly this kind of comment that leads me to the conclusion: dishonest troll who intends only to waste our time.
So, get serious. Send a serious complaint about a specific incident or please just go away.
--Jimbo
On 7/7/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It may be noted for the record that I don't fear retribution from any admins, ok? And I watch this constant ongoing trollfest and I tire of it. You show me good evidence of an administrator abusing their admin powers, and the ArbCom not acting on it, and I'll do something. This is my promise to the community, my final role here, to prevent authoritarian cliques from controlling the process.
But, I see essentially no evidence of this, and a whole ton of whining.
One thing that is absolutely 100% notably absent from these complaints is links to diffs and actual examples of admin abuse.
With all due respect, Jimbo, may I suggest that you are looking at this from exactly the wrong point of view.
Grab yourself a sockpuppet account, dive into an edit war, start correcting stuff and see what happens when other ditors don't know who you are.
Then try to forget that you are well-regarded and experienced here and you have a great deal of power. Put yourself in the shoes of a new editor doing what they see as the right thing and encountering statements like this one: "I will revert you twice a day, for the rest of history if needs be. Plus I have more allies than you, so your attempts to restalinise this article must fail." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKhmer_Rouge&diff=148359...
This is from an editor, one heavily supported by admins and ArbCom members, who manages to get away with the most shocking abuse, often involving sexual connotations.
Comments form an Arbcom member about protecting this editor, despite his long history of abuse may be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitr...
No-one is disputing that this editor is not a good editor. But when it is made clear at the highest levels that there are different standards for different editors - and I quote the same ArbCom member referring to the same editor in a private email six months ago: "By the way, xxxx is like that with everyone. It's his schtick. I think I've seen him be polite towards someone about once. ;)" - I think that one is entitled to come to a certain conclusion.
I'm not trying to refight old battles here, merely pointing out that in my experience, thuggery, threats and hypocrisy are what a new editor may expect if he gets on the wrong side of "the old soldiers" here.
Skyring wrote:
Grab yourself a sockpuppet account, dive into an edit war, start correcting stuff and see what happens when other ditors don't know who you are.
I'm sorry, but I would personally find this to be unethical behavior.
But I could be convinced to do it if you could show me some links
Then try to forget that you are well-regarded and experienced here and you have a great deal of power. Put yourself in the shoes of a new editor doing what they see as the right thing and encountering statements like this one: "I will revert you twice a day, for the rest of history if needs be. Plus I have more allies than you, so your attempts to restalinise this article must fail." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKhmer_Rouge&diff=148359...
But in this case, this response was absolutely valid. Ruy Lopez was engaging in an ongoing campaign of vandalism of the article, and letting him know that we're more patient than he is, is exactly the right thing to do.
This is from an editor, one heavily supported by admins and ArbCom members, who manages to get away with the most shocking abuse, often involving sexual connotations.
Please show me a diff involving sexual connotations?
Comments form an Arbcom member about protecting this editor, despite his long history of abuse may be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitr...
This comment does not tell me anything particularly useful. It is widely acknowledged, even by Adam himself, that he's often difficult. He doesn't cross the line, but if we put users on a spectrum of usefulness/difficulty, certainly he scores very very high on usefulness and higher than average on difficulty.
Adam has no special protection from me or the ArbCom.
I'm not trying to refight old battles here, merely pointing out that in my experience, thuggery, threats and hypocrisy are what a new editor may expect if he gets on the wrong side of "the old soldiers" here.
I don't see much evidence of that. Of course there are better and worse examples of everything. But what we're discussing is a handful of really wild accusations that people are randomly banned if they cross old timers, etc. A lack of perfection is certainly something that we always need to be rigorous about examining... but hardly justifies wild trolling from users who seem to offer no actual evidence of injustice.
I appreciate you offering a few diffs, and hope you'll offer more. I'd particularly like to see where you got the conclusion that Adam Carr "manages to get away with the most shocking abuse, often involving sexual connotations."
--Jimbo
While I often find myself in the role of being the "go to guy" in cases of nubie biting and admin misconduct, I have to heartily agree w Jimbo regarding recent complaints on the mailing list. I have to say (and I have said this more than once) these rude and tiresome complaints about say... image edit warring on [[feces]] desensitize admins to real problems and legitimate complaints.
So... if any of the recent complainers ''truly'' care about improving the wikipedia, please go find some evidence worthy of an arbcom case... or maybe, just maybe.. improve an article?
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 7/7/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Skyring wrote:
Grab yourself a sockpuppet account, dive into an edit war, start correcting stuff and see what happens when other ditors don't know who you are.
I'm sorry, but I would personally find this to be unethical behavior.
But I could be convinced to do it if you could show me some links
Then try to forget that you are well-regarded and experienced here and you have a great deal of power. Put yourself in the shoes of a new editor doing what they see as the right thing and encountering statements like this one: "I will revert you twice a day, for the rest of history if needs be. Plus I have more allies than you, so your attempts to restalinise this article must fail." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKhmer_Rouge&diff=148359...
But in this case, this response was absolutely valid. Ruy Lopez was engaging in an ongoing campaign of vandalism of the article, and letting him know that we're more patient than he is, is exactly the right thing to do.
This is from an editor, one heavily supported by admins and ArbCom members, who manages to get away with the most shocking abuse, often involving sexual connotations.
Please show me a diff involving sexual connotations?
Comments form an Arbcom member about protecting this editor, despite his long history of abuse may be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitr...
This comment does not tell me anything particularly useful. It is widely acknowledged, even by Adam himself, that he's often difficult. He doesn't cross the line, but if we put users on a spectrum of usefulness/difficulty, certainly he scores very very high on usefulness and higher than average on difficulty.
Adam has no special protection from me or the ArbCom.
I'm not trying to refight old battles here, merely pointing out that in my experience, thuggery, threats and hypocrisy are what a new editor may expect if he gets on the wrong side of "the old soldiers" here.
I don't see much evidence of that. Of course there are better and worse examples of everything. But what we're discussing is a handful of really wild accusations that people are randomly banned if they cross old timers, etc. A lack of perfection is certainly something that we always need to be rigorous about examining... but hardly justifies wild trolling from users who seem to offer no actual evidence of injustice.
I appreciate you offering a few diffs, and hope you'll offer more. I'd particularly like to see where you got the conclusion that Adam Carr "manages to get away with the most shocking abuse, often involving sexual connotations."
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have been permanently blocked by David Gerard for asking Snowspinner why he blocked two other users, apparently with no reason in policy. I suppose you will put this message down to 'wild trolling' by users with no justification. If asking an admin why he is breaking policy is trolling, then yes, I am.
Norrath
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
To clarify for Jimbo, the users in question were [[User:Lleague of Responsible Trolls]], who's userpage was a dead ringer for 162, and [[User:Involved in trolling]], which I consider equally obvious. I'm not sure why David blocked Norrath, but I suspect it had to do with being an admitted sockpuppet intended purely to protest the aforementioned blocks who was posting on Sam Spade's userpage asking if there was an "organized resistance" against the rogue admins.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:00 PM, Norath Norath wrote:
I have been permanently blocked by David Gerard for asking Snowspinner why he blocked two other users, apparently with no reason in policy. I suppose you will put this message down to 'wild trolling' by users with no justification. If asking an admin why he is breaking policy is trolling, then yes, I am.
Norrath
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Phil Sandifer (sandifer@sbcglobal.net) [050708 12:22]:
To clarify for Jimbo, the users in question were [[User:Lleague of Responsible Trolls]], who's userpage was a dead ringer for 162, and [[User:Involved in trolling]], which I consider equally obvious. I'm not sure why David blocked Norrath, but I suspect it had to do with being an admitted sockpuppet intended purely to protest the aforementioned blocks who was posting on Sam Spade's userpage asking if there was an "organized resistance" against the rogue admins.
Indeed. Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia; these sort of breaching experiment games don't assist that in any way whatsoever. Probably after this weekend, we'll start kicking the querulous when they've made their case twenty times and still no-one cares. Because we're PWOER CRAXZED FACIST ROUGE ADNMINS!!1!one!
- d.
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Indeed. Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia; these sort of breaching experiment games don't assist that in any way whatsoever. Probably after this weekend, we'll start kicking the querulous when they've made their case twenty times and still no-one cares. Because we're PWOER CRAXZED FACIST ROUGE ADNMINS!!1!one!
- d.
Well, that completely fails to answers my question (which piece of policy justifies an instant and indefinate block for asking a question of another admin?).
Your response, that you will start kicking off people who have made their case and got no answer, only underlines that you are, in fact, in clear breach of community made policy, and contemptuous of it.
Your reaction, on being ask on multiple occasions to justify your actions has been to threaten, ridicule, and state that you do not have to explain yourself.
The evidence is clear - you are out of control, and nobody has the courage to do anything about it. You will not tollerate anyone attempting to hold you accountable to the policies that the community has empowered you to ADMINISTER.
Norrath
____________________________________________________ Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Norath Norath (norath2005@yahoo.com) [050709 15:05]:
The evidence is clear - you are out of control, and nobody has the courage to do anything about it. You will not tollerate anyone attempting to hold you accountable to the policies that the community has empowered you to ADMINISTER.
Considering the adverse community reaction has been zero and the positive community reaction has been quite a few, I suggest you are completely out of touch with the community whose name you are invoking.
- d.
Again, you continue to avoid the simple question:
Which piece of policy justifies an instant and indefinate block for asking a question of another admin?
Your weasling ("no one cares", "others support me" is irrelevant to the question of why you feel it is ok to ignore community made policy.
You are simply hoping that if you ignore the question long enough you will appear justified in kicking me off the list for asking it too many times.
Norrath
Considering the adverse community reaction has been zero and the positive community reaction has been quite a few, I suggest you are completely out of touch with the community whose name you are invoking.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org 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
Norath Norath wrote:
Which piece of policy justifies an instant and indefinate block for asking a question of another admin?
You keep insinuating this, but I strongly doubt that you were blocked for that. You were most likely blocked for something else, and you were probably told what this something else was, but you probably just don't see that it's a wrong, or you felt justified in doing it, and so you feel the block was unjust.
Reflect upon it, think about what you were /really/ blocked for, and stop doing it.
Timwi
Norath Norath wrote:
I have been permanently blocked by David Gerard [...]
Congratulations for demonstrating exactly what Jimbo was saying. Loads of accusations in your posting, but not a single link to the block log, a diff, or anything else that ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Timwi
On 7/9/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Norath Norath wrote:
I have been permanently blocked by David Gerard [...]
Congratulations for demonstrating exactly what Jimbo was saying. Loads of accusations in your posting, but not a single link to the block log, a diff, or anything else that ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Hang on. That's not right. I'll admit that he (I'm assuming Norrath is a he) didn't post any links, but he is clearly talking about actual events, as we may discover with a little research. Phil S agrees that he blocked two editors: "[[User:Lleague of Responsible Trolls]], who's userpage was a dead ringer for 162, and [[User:Involved in trolling]], which I consider equally obvious". If we look up the list of blocked IP addresses at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist we find two entries: "03:39, 6 July 2005, Snowspinner blocked Lleague Of Responsible Trolls (expires indefinite) (contribs) (Entmoots Sockpuppet) 03:38, 6 July 2005, Snowspinner blocked Involved in trolling (expires indefinite) (contribs) (Sockpuppet account intended for trolling) "
And David Gerard did indeed ban Norath: "04:01, 7 July 2005, David Gerard blocked Norrath (expires indefinite) (contribs) (admitted sockpuppet and role account)" -
So, whatever the merits of his case, Norath is talking about actual events, and what he wants is an explanation. I'm not able to comment on whether the actions taken by Snowspinner and Gerard were valid, but surely asking for an explanation is a legitimate action on this list?
And surely an admin should be able to explain his actions when asked politely?
Perhaps, but Jimbo was still right about the recent complaints being largely w/o merit, and I was right when I suggested they desensitize admins to legitimate complaints.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 7/9/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/9/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Norath Norath wrote:
I have been permanently blocked by David Gerard [...]
Congratulations for demonstrating exactly what Jimbo was saying. Loads of accusations in your posting, but not a single link to the block log, a diff, or anything else that ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Hang on. That's not right. I'll admit that he (I'm assuming Norrath is a he) didn't post any links, but he is clearly talking about actual events, as we may discover with a little research. Phil S agrees that he blocked two editors: "[[User:Lleague of Responsible Trolls]], who's userpage was a dead ringer for 162, and [[User:Involved in trolling]], which I consider equally obvious". If we look up the list of blocked IP addresses at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist we find two entries: "03:39, 6 July 2005, Snowspinner blocked Lleague Of Responsible Trolls (expires indefinite) (contribs) (Entmoots Sockpuppet) 03:38, 6 July 2005, Snowspinner blocked Involved in trolling (expires indefinite) (contribs) (Sockpuppet account intended for trolling) "
And David Gerard did indeed ban Norath: "04:01, 7 July 2005, David Gerard blocked Norrath (expires indefinite) (contribs) (admitted sockpuppet and role account)" -
So, whatever the merits of his case, Norath is talking about actual events, and what he wants is an explanation. I'm not able to comment on whether the actions taken by Snowspinner and Gerard were valid, but surely asking for an explanation is a legitimate action on this list?
And surely an admin should be able to explain his actions when asked politely?
-- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
For an example of a legitimate case for complaint, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Personal_Abuse
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_Wellesley%2C_8th_Duke_of_Wellington...
(same case)
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 7/9/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps, but Jimbo was still right about the recent complaints being largely w/o merit, and I was right when I suggested they desensitize admins to legitimate complaints.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 7/9/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/9/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Norath Norath wrote:
I have been permanently blocked by David Gerard [...]
Congratulations for demonstrating exactly what Jimbo was saying. Loads of accusations in your posting, but not a single link to the block log, a diff, or anything else that ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Hang on. That's not right. I'll admit that he (I'm assuming Norrath is a he) didn't post any links, but he is clearly talking about actual events, as we may discover with a little research. Phil S agrees that he blocked two editors: "[[User:Lleague of Responsible Trolls]], who's userpage was a dead ringer for 162, and [[User:Involved in trolling]], which I consider equally obvious". If we look up the list of blocked IP addresses at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist we find two entries: "03:39, 6 July 2005, Snowspinner blocked Lleague Of Responsible Trolls (expires indefinite) (contribs) (Entmoots Sockpuppet) 03:38, 6 July 2005, Snowspinner blocked Involved in trolling (expires indefinite) (contribs) (Sockpuppet account intended for trolling) "
And David Gerard did indeed ban Norath: "04:01, 7 July 2005, David Gerard blocked Norrath (expires indefinite) (contribs) (admitted sockpuppet and role account)" -
So, whatever the merits of his case, Norath is talking about actual events, and what he wants is an explanation. I'm not able to comment on whether the actions taken by Snowspinner and Gerard were valid, but surely asking for an explanation is a legitimate action on this list?
And surely an admin should be able to explain his actions when asked politely?
-- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jack Lynch wrote:
For an example of a legitimate case for complaint, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Personal_Abuse
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_Wellesley%2C_8th_Duke_of_Wellington...
(same case)
Jack (Sam Spade)
Exactly! This is really very important.
The mailing list is clogged up with wild accusations with no links to diffs, no actual evidence, and clearly false claims.
Meanwhile, there *are* interesting cases (see the links above) which do warrant a serious discussion on this list about policy, Wikilove, adminship, etc.
This is one of the worst things about tolerating nonsensical trolls -- we become desensitized to actual cases of abuse.
In the links above, you'll see an admin in a fight with a user who (it appears to me) was just wrong about a minor issue, and the admin says "fuck you" and calls the other fellow an "asshole" and an "absurd person".
That's pretty sad.
So, if anyone interprets my plea that we stop putting up with trolling on this list as a plea to ignore complaints, that's a mistake. We should investigate real complaints and kick some of the trolls out of here so we can get on with the real work of ensuring due process and fairness and admin responsibility.
--Jimbo