This entire inappropriate disclosure in RFA by Jayjg of CheckUser/TOR information has exposed the biggest question that people keep missing in this. Admins are bound to enforce existing, accepted policy.
Is it acceptable to consider some admins exempt from certain policy, or to enforce it less stringently towards admins? This is what Fred Bauder himself said here on this very list this morning.
Is this acceptable? Is this right? Perhaps it's seem to firmly say to everyone that no one is exempt from any policy, be it the man on Day 1 or the old timer that thinks he's something special.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Is this acceptable? Is this right? Perhaps it's seem to firmly say to everyone that no one is exempt from any policy, be it the man on Day 1 or the old timer that thinks he's something special.
Perhaps it's time to say this--apologies for the typo.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Is this acceptable? Is this right? Perhaps it's seem to firmly say to everyone that no one is exempt from any policy, be it the man on Day 1 or the old timer that thinks he's something special.
Perhaps it's time to say this--apologies for the typo.
You need to apologize for a lot more than that, but I'm not holding my breath.
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Is this acceptable? Is this right? Perhaps it's seem to firmly say to everyone that no one is exempt from any policy, be it the man on Day 1
or
the old timer that thinks he's something special.
Perhaps it's time to say this--apologies for the typo.
You need to apologize for a lot more than that, but I'm not holding my breath.
I've directly e-mailed both MONGO *and* Fred in the past to apologize for attacking them previously. My conscience is clear.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Is this acceptable? Is this right? Perhaps it's seem to firmly say to everyone that no one is exempt from any policy, be it the man on Day 1
or
the old timer that thinks he's something special.
Perhaps it's time to say this--apologies for the typo.
You need to apologize for a lot more than that, but I'm not holding my breath.
I've directly e-mailed both MONGO *and* Fred in the past to apologize for attacking them previously. My conscience is clear.
But you continue to attack me.
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
But you continue to attack me.
Jay, before your voting on my RFAR--where, I'll point out, there was not one singular finding of fact compared to any other RFAR that warranted my blocking (Fred blocked me directly for linking to ED on-wiki and then someone Oversighted my edits)--I never dealt with you on-wiki. I'm sorry you feel I'm attacking you. Like everyone else, I simply want a straight answer or two from you and others.
Should all policies, rules, and enforcement of them apply evenly to all members? CIVIL, NPA, no proxies, etc.? If not... why not?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 0, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com scribbled:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
But you continue to attack me.
Jay, before your voting on my RFAR--where, I'll point out, there was not one singular finding of fact compared to any other RFAR that warranted my blocking (Fred blocked me directly for linking to ED on-wiki and then someone Oversighted my edits)--I never dealt with you on-wiki. I'm sorry you feel I'm attacking you. Like everyone else, I simply want a straight answer or two from you and others.
Should all policies, rules, and enforcement of them apply evenly to all members? CIVIL, NPA, no proxies, etc.? If not... why not?
Regards, Joe
As I recall, don't we already have a well-appreciated loophole (quite aside from IAR), the community ban? My understanding of the community ban was that it was when someone was indef blocked outside-of/unsupported-by any policy, but the ban stuck simply because the person who was blocked had made such a nuisance of themselves that no other administrator was willing to enforce policy and unblock them.
But really, I think the important issue here is one of active vs. passiveness:
I don't think anyone here would argue that it would be a bad thing if an admin who disagreed profoundly with our NOP policy simply never hunted down and blocked open proxies, and instead occupied their time closing AfDs and doing page moves and that sort of thing - so long as they didn't go around undoing blocks or whatever. Similarly, I don't think anyone would blame an admin who disagreed with our stringent fair use policy and refrained from deleting orphaned images etc. so long as that admin didn't also go around uploading needless fair use images.
But it's different if they actively work against the policy. As an editor, CW isn't really working against the policy, since she couldn't undo blocks or make new exit nodes; she apparently was just patient enough and reloaded until edits went through. But as an admin, she could semi-block the nodes if she wanted.
-- gwern virus ISCS ISPR anarchy rogue mailbomb 888 Chelsea 1997 Whitewater MOD York
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
But you continue to attack me.
Jay, before your voting on my RFAR--where, I'll point out, there was not one singular finding of fact compared to any other RFAR that warranted my blocking (Fred blocked me directly for linking to ED on-wiki and then someone Oversighted my edits)--I never dealt with you on-wiki. I'm sorry you feel I'm attacking you. Like everyone else, I simply want a straight answer or two from you and others.
Should all policies, rules, and enforcement of them apply evenly to all members? CIVIL, NPA, no proxies, etc.? If not... why not?
Feel free to post this as a general question to all members; perhaps a poll. Let me know how it goes; I might even post my own opinion. However, I certainly won't submit myself to your inquisition, with its implicit leading questions and unwarranted assumptions.
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
This entire inappropriate disclosure in RFA by Jayjg of CheckUser/TOR information has exposed the biggest question that people keep missing in this. Admins are bound to enforce existing, accepted policy.
Is it acceptable to consider some admins exempt from certain policy, or to enforce it less stringently towards admins? This is what Fred Bauder himself said here on this very list this morning.
Is this acceptable? Is this right? Perhaps it's seem to firmly say to everyone that no one is exempt from any policy, be it the man on Day 1 or the old timer that thinks he's something special.
Joe, the elephant in the room is you, blundering through wikien-l ranting about various conspiracies and cabals, and inventing your own policies and claiming them as Wikipedia's. There's a reason you and your sockpuppets were permanently banned from Wikipedia.
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Joe, the elephant in the room is you, blundering through wikien-l ranting about various conspiracies and cabals, and inventing your own policies and claiming them as Wikipedia's. There's a reason you and your sockpuppets were permanently banned from Wikipedia.
Let's tell the truth, eh? I was banned for pointing out repeatedly when the emperors have no clothes on, and thrown on the sacrificial MONGO pyre. And my only alternate accounts were freely admitted to, by me.
If the clothes fit...
Any society that doesn't uniformly apply it's own rules and laws to all members of the society is one in trouble. Do you disagree?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Joe, the elephant in the room is you, blundering through wikien-l ranting about various conspiracies and cabals, and inventing your own policies and claiming them as Wikipedia's. There's a reason you and your sockpuppets were permanently banned from Wikipedia.
Let's tell the truth, eh? I was banned for pointing out repeatedly when the emperors have no clothes on, and thrown on the sacrificial MONGO pyre.
Yes, it's true, everyone who was banned by ArbCom was actually innocent, they're all just pointing out the festering corruption at the top...
And my only alternate accounts were freely admitted to, by me.
In advance?
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Let's tell the truth, eh? I was banned for pointing out repeatedly when
the
emperors have no clothes on, and thrown on the sacrificial MONGO pyre.
Yes, it's true, everyone who was banned by ArbCom was actually innocent, they're all just pointing out the festering corruption at the top...
Of course not, and misdirection won't work, here. I was blocked because no one else could be for what happened to MONGO. I was blocked for daring to demand that people be held to identical standards, for daring to argue vigorously for the retention of the ED article on AFD.
Perma ArbCom bans for "tenditious editing" on a lone AfD and DRV? Harassing MONGO, perhaps, which I spectacularly demonstrated that all the 9/11 "truther" articles I supposedly followed him to I had either created myself, or edited weeks/months BEFORE him? The edits are all right there, in proof.
And
my only alternate accounts were freely admitted to, by me.
In advance?
The sock policies NEVER required this, and you know should know that. When asked about my first account in ArbCom, I immediately said, yep, that's me. When someone mistakenly overturned my Right To Vanish on the second that had been granted by Jimbo himself and known to several admins already, I e-mailed a wide array of admins that I knew, and arbiters, asking for it to be re-applied. Which it was. I was many shades of vocal when I edited, and I was hardly stealthy. All my edits on all three accounts all focused on the exact same things, so it's not like it was hard to sort out they were me: Connecticut, making sure 9/11 articles were sourced/NPOV, Seattle, online computer games, computer science, animation, bluegrass music, comic book films; somewhat inclusionist on AfD; calling for uniform application of policy. Kind of a unique signature.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Is it acceptable to consider some admins exempt from certain policy, or to enforce it less stringently towards admins?
I've certainly noticed that some admins are weaker at following policy than they are at enforcing it. And it certainly does sometimes seem that admins back each other up a smidge too readily, and give each other the benefit of the doubt, when cries are raised that they've misbehaved.
I observe this most often with respect to WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. Some admins know that they know these policies, and know that they're following them, and so don't realize that they aren't. Typical scenario: innocent newbie does something wrong and is told so by an admin. Newbie interprets blunt statement of fact as a scolding, and says so. Admin and/or fellow admin says, no little newbie, don't take that as a personal attack, admin was just letting you know how we do things here, this is the internet, and you might need a thicker skin if you're going to edit here, people seem blunt sometimes. Newbie doesn't quite get the point, and does the same wrong thing again. Admin reverts newbie. Newbie complains, mentioning word "vandalism" in conjunction with admin. Admin promptly blocks newbie for two hours, under WP:NPA, to "cool off", directing newbie not to call admin a vandal again.
But with that said, I hasten to add that most of the time I've observed this sort of thing, the admins in question really *were* acting with the best interests of the project at heart. That is, the net result of their indiscretions is usually not that the project is directly harmed, but rather, that new editors are given too many opportunities to conclude (based on the evidence they've seen) that there's a cabal of administrators ganging up on and/or conspiring against them.
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:17:56 -0700, "Joe Szilagyi" szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Is it acceptable to consider some admins exempt from certain policy, or to enforce it less stringently towards admins?
No. NOP is policy, it was violated, the person violating it ran for adminship, no, admins are not exempt from policy, so the right thing was done. Noting that someone uses TOR is not a violation of privacy in any way, shape or form.
Guy (JzG)