On 5/31/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:

That's it. That's all that's going to work. If we do not learn to come down on Cranstons with fury and speed, over time, this community will implode. One need only look at nearly every other Internet community to figure that one out.

Why not look at the Internet communities that DO work? I'm a member of two such communities that have been running for years, and include the sort of members who are well-educated, well-spoken, intelligent and fun to be with.

Both of them have very few rules and are largely run by the members. And above all, they are polite. Both of them are large communities that have dealt with growth in a plain common sense fashion, by recognising that new users don't have the same knowledge as "the old guard" and finding ways to deal with this.

Somewhere along the way, Wikipedia seems to have lost something valuable. I look at this list and just about everything I see is one group of editors bickering with another group.

For what it's worth, I'm an admin on one of these communities, a community with hundreds of thousands of members, and though I have power to add, delete, or modify just about anything on the site, my duties don't involve settling disputes or acting as an umpire, because there is very little of that to be done - my job mainly involves sorting out forgotten passwords or tracking down and correcting incorrectly entered information. It's a large but polite community, and I cannot help but contrasting it with the often poisonous atmosphere here on Wikipedia.

I'm also a moderator on a list very much like this, but again, I don't have to deal with members throwing bricks at each other - I mainly work at keeping out the spam merchants.

On the face of it, Wikipedia should be a place where co-operation and sharing drive an atmosphere of comradeship, where admins exist to help members rather than act as corporate police, and where the atmosphere is that of Utopia rather than 1984.

On 5/31/05, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:

Skyring wrote

...

Somewhere along the way, Wikipedia seems to have lost something

valuable. I look at this list and just about everything I see is one group of editors bickering with another group.

We gained ... an encyclopedia: 500000 articles in March, 10% added smoothly since then.

Nobody should kid themselves that there was ever a golden time when there was no 'bickering'. If you look at the traffic numbers you see huge growth. Every month or so an asocial user kicking up a fuss about the way things are handled... it's the price we pay for being a radically open community. Remember, this is a big volunteer project; all that happens is that some people simply make it too hard for them to be accepted as volunteers.

The large polite communities I mention are likewise "radically open". Yet they are polite and productive. They are not free from "bickering", but such disputes are minor and short-lived. Sure, the bulk of Wikipedia might proceed smoothly, but it's the "rough" aspects that bother me. I don't really care if most of the inhabitants of a large city live their lives free from crime - it's the assaults and murders that get on the front pages, and Wikipedia seems to have rather a lot of this compared to some other online communities.

Charles Matthews wrote:

"Skyring" wrote.

...

I don't really care if most of the inhabitants of a large city live their lives free from crime - it's the assaults and murders that get on the front pages, and Wikipedia seems to have rather a lot of this compared to some other online communities.

Suddenly you have my full attention. Who has been murdered?

Maveric149. But his death was reverted just a few minutes later and then he was protected against further killing, so no biggie.

May I ask what communities these are? Particularly the one with hundreds of thousands of members.

-Snowspinner

On May 31, 2005, at 1:44 AM, Skyring wrote:

On 5/31/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:

...

That's it. That's all that's going to work. If we do not learn to come down on Cranstons with fury and speed, over time, this community will implode. One need only look at nearly every other Internet community to figure that one out.

Why not look at the Internet communities that DO work? I'm a member of two such communities that have been running for years, and include the sort of members who are well-educated, well-spoken, intelligent and fun to be with.

Both of them have very few rules and are largely run by the members. And above all, they are polite. Both of them are large communities that have dealt with growth in a plain common sense fashion, by recognising that new users don't have the same knowledge as "the old guard" and finding ways to deal with this.

Somewhere along the way, Wikipedia seems to have lost something valuable. I look at this list and just about everything I see is one group of editors bickering with another group.

For what it's worth, I'm an admin on one of these communities, a community with hundreds of thousands of members, and though I have power to add, delete, or modify just about anything on the site, my duties don't involve settling disputes or acting as an umpire, because there is very little of that to be done - my job mainly involves sorting out forgotten passwords or tracking down and correcting incorrectly entered information. It's a large but polite community, and I cannot help but contrasting it with the often poisonous atmosphere here on Wikipedia.

I'm also a moderator on a list very much like this, but again, I don't have to deal with members throwing bricks at each other - I mainly work at keeping out the spam merchants.

On the face of it, Wikipedia should be a place where co-operation and sharing drive an atmosphere of comradeship, where admins exist to help members rather than act as corporate police, and where the atmosphere is that of Utopia rather than 1984.

-- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Skyring wrote:

Why not look at the Internet communities that DO work?

How can we when you haven't mentioned what they are?

Skyring wrote:

On 6/4/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:

...

Skyring wrote:

...

Why not look at the Internet communities that DO work?

How can we when you haven't mentioned what they are?

Are you saying that you only know of non-functional Internet communities?

No, I just think that different people have different opinions on what constitutes a community that "works". In my mind, Wikipedia works, but clearly you disagree. So when you tell us to look at something that fulfills _your_ criteria, you should tell us what it is, or we will be left to guess what _your_ criteria are.

But anyway -- I've noticed elsewhere in the thread that you were probably talking about LiveJournal and BookCrossing. I don't know the latter. As for LiveJournal, you mentioned that it "includes the sort of members who are well-educated, well-spoken, intelligent and fun to be with" -- I might have agreed to that about two or three years ago, but in my experience LiveJournal is increasingly taken over by the illiterate. It is also a long shot to claim that it "works" -- it is the target of avalanches of spam and trolling, and the management barely comes up with features to even come anywhere near combatting it. When a LiveJournal community still has active maintainers, they can keep the noise somewhat down by deleting and banning, but it is a lot of work and not very rewarding (you get a lot of complaints that you have deleted legitimate stuff). In practice, most communities, not to mention all syndicated feeds, do not have (active) maintainers.

I'm not sure why I've written all this, as it doesn't really have anything to do with Wikipedia. LiveJournal is not a creative or collaborative work, so the aspects that make it "work" are entirely irrelevant for Wikipedia.

Timwi

Hear hear! A great message, there must be at least a dozen quotable lines to immortalize on policy pages somewhere.

Mr. Mouse's claim that he has to be anonymous in order not to be hounded off the list is just not borne out by the archives - we've had many spirited debates among reasonable people, even said things we regretted later and apologized for them, and nobody got banned from anywhere for it.

Stan

Phil Sandifer wrote:

Oh for god's sake.

The technical evidence against Cranston is a slam dunk. He's a troll. He's a vicious, sockpuppeting troll who uses sockpuppets to try to generate fake consensus. He's the sort of user we routinely shoot on sight, and it's a good thing we do, because we have too damn many of them, and every time one manages to generate the headache that this has become, good users get driven off. Kudos to every admin who blocked him, everyone who called for his removal from this list, and everybody who tried to shut this mess down.

As for those who want to plead for more leniency and say that people were dismissive of him, wake up. This project is huge. Huge projects attract idiocy. They attract idiocy of the page vandal sort, and idiocy of the far more insidious sort. People who come to the project for their own ego, people who come to the project to advance their own agendas, and people who want to cause the project harm and who are actually good at doing it.

Expansion kills online communities. Fundamentally, eternal growth is a perpetual strain. We understand this from a technical perspective, but we don't understand it socially. We are continually wasting our breath and energy debating things that need to be slam dunks. If every Cranston Snerd gets this much debate - hell, if one Cranston Snerd out of 10 gets this much debate, it's a disaster. We're only going to get more Cranston Snerds. Just like we'll get more Lirs, more CheeseDreams, more Alberunis, and more of every other sort of bad user. We cannot keep them from coming in. All we can do is get very, very good at shooting them as soon as we see them. This means being unrelenting. This means being swift and figuring out the story later. And this means that people who immediately assume there's some conspiracy against them instead of just sending a polite note to the effect of, "I'm sorry, I seem to have done something wrong and gotten blocked, do you mind telling me what it is so I can avoid it" get run off. You know what? Fine. We've got lots of people. We can afford to accidentally run some off.

This doesn't mean we don't welcome new users. It doesn't mean we treat everybody with suspicion. But it means that we learn to call a spade a spade, and we stop feeling bad about coming down like a ton of bricks on people who are disrupting the project. We do not need to care why. We need to be willing to make social decisions with the same dispassionate "What will make this situation better" eye that we handle our articles with. If a user is breaking articles and making it so people can't edit, we shoot them.

That's it. That's all that's going to work. If we do not learn to come down on Cranstons with fury and speed, over time, this community will implode. One need only look at nearly every other Internet community to figure that one out.

Good job David. Good job SlimVirgin.

-Snowspinner

On May 30, 2005, at 10:51 PM, A Nony Mouse wrote:

...

I have been watching the last week's events with dismay. I have been trying to compose this email for two hours, but every time I get close, something else comes up.

I have decided to make this anonymous. I do not know how some of you would react and I do not wish to take any chance that I would be harassed for this.

There are two cases that bother me. Jack Lynch aka Sam Spade and Cranston Snord aka Enviroknot. Both of these cases scare me because of the precedent that they have set.

In the case of Jack, there was a question of a block war. Administrators were fighting over what to do with him. This is not a good thing for Wikipedia editors no matter who they are. It indicates that the user is less of a concern than something between the two Administrators.

It is the case of Cranston Snord aka Enviroknot that worries me more. This is the case that has made me take the drastic step of sending an email to the list anonymously. I had originally been trying to type up a response to Cranston's concerns about being blocked. I believe that SlimVirgin violated policy by doing so. Unfortunately for me, such an email would likely now be a day late and a dollar short.

Cranston was a disruption to the list, but much of that disruption was caused by other people on this list treating him with incredible disrespect. I was taken aback by his accusations against administrators but having looked at the cases in hand I believe that he has a point.

There were emails on this list asking whether anyone was taking him seriously. This is the height of arrogance, and it is something that frightens me. Administrators should never be acting as if ordinary editors do not matter.

As for his complaints about being blocked, the dismissiveness on this board hurt me. No matter who it is making a complaint, we have a duty to investigate it. We are listed as the last resort for users who have been wronged. I took the time to investigate SlimVirgin's blocking of Enviroknot, and I believe that it is not valid.

By the time I got to the discussion, it was a good series of emails long, and despite the number of list members who had posted, none save SlimVirgin had bothered to address Enviroknot's concerns on the block in any way. SlimVirgin herself made a bad judgement call. An edit made in good faith should never be considered a reversion, even if it contains some content that is included in a later reversion.

Instead of acknowledging this fact, the list members were universally dismissive of Enviroknot from the first email. One went so far as to demand that the term "rogue admin" not be used, without addressing the reasons that it had been brought up in multiple cases recently.

We have a problem with administrators exceeding their authority on Wikipedia. We have a problem with administrators not applying policy correctly. And we have a problem with arrogance on these lists, with administrators believing that they are somehow better than others.

With the increased power of administrator access comes a responsibility to use it fairly and adhere to the established procedures and policies. The actions of an Administrator should themselves be NPOV. We have stated policy that when a user is found to be violating policy, if they return and do not break policy, their previous transgressions should not be held against them.

There are a number of administrators who are failing in that responsibility, and they are present on this list. One of them, rather than addressing Enviroknot's concerns in a calm tone and actually going over policy, chose to kickban Enviroknot entirely.

I have never until today been ashamed to be a part of Wikipedia, but there it is. Take it as you will.

A.Nony.Mouse, for the purpose of this conversation.

---

Create the ultimate online companion - meet the Meegos! http:// meegos.msn.ie

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I'm sorry, I am not assuming from the silence of other users. I am assuming from their completely disrespectful, dismissive, and insulting attitude towards Enviroknot.

This is a user who has been wronged repeatedly. Even if a sockpuppet, his account has committed no crimes against Wikipedia. His user page has been repeatedly vandalized and he has been repeatedly accused of being a sockpuppet based on where he edits. From the very first email he sent to this list I saw nothing but list members being dismissive and rude.

I saw Enviroknot explain the IP question, and I saw a number of list members talk about how he "had to" be lying. Good Faith was NEVER assumed concerning this user. The entire list broke its own rules and refused to deal straightforwardly with a user who was being harassed and abused.

Yes he spammed the list, but only after seeing emails from you that I would have been tempted to send abusive emails back to as well. Emails that were clearly designed not to solve the problem and get back to what is important, but to make degrade and insult him.

We should be above this sort of behavior. The point of Wikipedia policy is to rehabilitate editors if at all possible, not harass newcomers into leaving.

From: ultrablue@gmail.com Reply-To: ultrablue@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:43:14 +0800

On 5/31/05, A Nony Mouse tempforcomments@hotmail.com wrote:

...

By the time I got to the discussion, it was a good series of emails

long,

...

and despite the number of list members who had posted, none save

SlimVirgin

...

had bothered to address Enviroknot's concerns on the block in any way. SlimVirgin herself made a bad judgement call. An edit made in good faith should never be considered a reversion, even if it contains some content that is included in a later reversion.

The 3RR provides an electric-fence against continuing revert wars. Most of the administrators who enforce the 3RR (and even the [[WP:AN/3RR]] page) request that as little circumstantial information be provided. Good faith or bad faith does not come into whether a user has violated the rule. Your interpretation of the meaning of "reversion" is not the one accepted in the Wikipedia community. There are simple reverts and complex reverts (where something is surreptitiously sneaked back into an article). Every reversion is a "good faith" reversion to someone in an article content dispute.

Do not assume from the silence of users on the concerns of Enviroknot. Before I first replied to the list about this situation, I examined all the relevant diffs, and concluded in my own mind that there is a clear-cut violation of the 3RR here.

The 3RR does allow administrators some discretion, such as the ability to unblock people where they have shown remorse for breaking the rule. Enviroknot has not expressed any such remorse, and has not addressed the allegations of sockpuppetry. Instead, he or she has spammed the mailing list and attacked Wikipedia Administrators as a whole. Had Enviroknot come up with a good explanation for sharing IPs with other users, expressed some sort of remorse for breaking a very basic rule and agreed to work collaboratively on the relevant article's talk page to reach consensus, I have little doubt the ban would have been happily lifted by a number of administrators.

~Mark Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________ Create a cute, funny or sexy Meego - click for more info! http://meegos.msn.ie

Yes, please!

[[User:UtherSRG]]

On 5/31/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:

Okay, the troll has had his fun. Could we block all his email addresses now?

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

JAY JG wrote:

From: "A Nony Mouse"

...

From the very first email he sent to this list I saw nothing but list members being dismissive and rude.

It's not the first time "Cranston" has e-mailed this list.

Huh? The very first e-mail he sent to this list is not the first time he e-mailed this list? ... Uh...... What?

"JAY JG" wrote

It was hardly a block war; you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

A mystery out of a mousehole?

Charles

Hey, thats me! Your talking about ME! Oh wait, thats not a good thing...

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 6/1/05, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:

...

...

There are a number of administrators who are failing in that responsibility, and they are present on this list.

Name them. Take them to ArbCom.

Total Bullshit. That has been done many times by new users who was harassed my some overly aggressive admins. Ofcourse they never suceed because the rules are complex and setup to protect the administrators.

First you have to "file a complaint" which means you have to gather evidence and then submit that for public review to get the ArbCom to accept it. Then you need to get someone else to sign your complaint within 24 hours or else your complaint is automatically rejected and 20 seconds later some admin will come around and delete it so that all traces of whatever it was is gone. The person seconding your complaint obviously cannot be a user someone can suspect being a sockpuppet or a troll or "a known troublemaker". And most important, the other user must also be involved in the dispute between you and the admin in question.

And then, if you succeed with all that, your complaint is accepted for further review in the ArbCom! Woho! Then all that is left is for you to fight in the Wikipedia version of a trial against someone who knows all the rules, while you are a newbie and has lots of powerful friends while you only have enemies.

But what if you, like a hero in Hollywood, manages to beat the unbeatable, win the unwinnable and actually get the ArbCom to issue some kind of verdict AGAINST the admin in question? Well, then you'll forever be known as a troublemaker/troll and the admin will be quickly forgiven by his or her peers because "he/she is a good guy" and only made a mistake/got played by the trolls.

-- mvh Björn _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I was tho, back when I they formed the arb com, and I took an admin there

Jack

On 6/1/05, Arkady Rose arkady@arkady.org.uk wrote:

Jack Lynch wrote:

...

Hey, thats me! Your talking about ME! Oh wait, thats not a good thing...

You hardly count as a newbie who is unaware of the rules.

-a

...

On 6/1/05, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:

...

...

...

There are a number of administrators who are failing in that responsibility, and they are present on this list.

Name them. Take them to ArbCom.

Total Bullshit. That has been done many times by new users who was harassed my some overly aggressive admins. Ofcourse they never suceed because the rules are complex and setup to protect the administrators.

First you have to "file a complaint" which means you have to gather evidence and then submit that for public review to get the ArbCom to accept it. Then you need to get someone else to sign your complaint within 24 hours or else your complaint is automatically rejected and 20 seconds later some admin will come around and delete it so that all traces of whatever it was is gone. The person seconding your complaint obviously cannot be a user someone can suspect being a sockpuppet or a troll or "a known troublemaker". And most important, the other user must also be involved in the dispute between you and the admin in question.

And then, if you succeed with all that, your complaint is accepted for further review in the ArbCom! Woho! Then all that is left is for you to fight in the Wikipedia version of a trial against someone who knows all the rules, while you are a newbie and has lots of powerful friends while you only have enemies.

But what if you, like a hero in Hollywood, manages to beat the unbeatable, win the unwinnable and actually get the ArbCom to issue some kind of verdict AGAINST the admin in question? Well, then you'll forever be known as a troublemaker/troll and the admin will be quickly forgiven by his or her peers because "he/she is a good guy" and only made a mistake/got played by the trolls.

-- mvh Björn _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- Imagination is just intelligence having fun.

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.3.3 - Release Date: 31/05/2005

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

From: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com

...

...

There are a number of administrators who are failing in that responsibility, and they are present on this list.

Name them. Take them to ArbCom.

Total Bullshit. That has been done many times by new users who was harassed my some overly aggressive admins. Ofcourse they never suceed because the rules are complex and setup to protect the administrators.

No, the rules are set up so that admins can only be sanctioned for doing things against policy; new users often seem to think "disagreeing with me" or "not putting up with my POV edits" is against policy.

First you have to "file a complaint" which means you have to gather evidence and then submit that for public review to get the ArbCom to accept it. Then you need to get someone else to sign your complaint within 24 hours or else your complaint is automatically rejected and 20 seconds later some admin will come around and delete it so that all traces of whatever it was is gone. The person seconding your complaint obviously cannot be a user someone can suspect being a sockpuppet or a troll or "a known troublemaker". And most important, the other user must also be involved in the dispute between you and the admin in question.

Actually, that's for an RfC, not an arbitration. As for the other conditions you claim, they don't exist, except for known sockpuppets, and I can't fathom why you think a RfC initiated by one person and seconded by his sockpuppet would be valid.

And then, if you succeed with all that, your complaint is accepted for further review in the ArbCom! Woho! Then all that is left is for you to fight in the Wikipedia version of a trial against someone who knows all the rules, while you are a newbie and has lots of powerful friends while you only have enemies.

What a bizarre view of the process.

But what if you, like a hero in Hollywood, manages to beat the unbeatable, win the unwinnable and actually get the ArbCom to issue some kind of verdict AGAINST the admin in question? Well, then you'll forever be known as a troublemaker/troll and the admin will be quickly forgiven by his or her peers because "he/she is a good guy" and only made a mistake/got played by the trolls.

Can you give an example of this happening? Arbcom sanctioning an admin, and the person who brought the case therefore being viewed as a troublemaker/troll?

Jay.

From: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com

...

...

Total Bullshit. That has been done many times by new users who was harassed my some overly aggressive admins. Ofcourse they never suceed because the rules are complex and setup to protect the administrators.

No, the rules are set up so that admins can only be sanctioned for doing things against policy; new users often seem to think "disagreeing with

me"

...

or "not putting up with my POV edits" is against policy.

No, the rules are set up so that admins are protected from all complaints. Admins often seem to think that new users seem to think that "disagreeing with me" or "not putting up with my POV edits" is against policy.

Sigh. Can you leave the "I know you are but what am I" type comments off the mail-list please?

...

...

some kind of verdict AGAINST the admin in question? Well, then you'll forever be known as a troublemaker/troll and the admin will be quickly forgiven by his or her peers because "he/she is a good guy" and only made a mistake/got played by the trolls.

Can you give an example of this happening? Arbcom sanctioning an admin,

and

...

the person who brought the case therefore being viewed as a troublemaker/troll?

Umm... It has never happened, so obviously I can't.

Then how can you claim it as fact?

But you can yourself search the archives to find countless examples of how mistakes and harassments by admins have been brushed off as "everyone does mistakes sometimes".

Can you provide some of those "countless examples"?

And also of countless number of examples in which users have been branded trolls for brining up valid complaints against administrators.

That they were valid is solely your opinion.

For a very clear example see the OP's post, who even found it best to post anonymously, and then was outed by two admins who don't like him/her.

Didn't like him, or didn't like the smears he was posting anonymously? I don't know what makes you so sure it was the former.

Jay.

Personally, I'd like to see an example of an admin repeatedly harrasing a regular user failing to be put before arbcom.

I'd like to avoid bringing that up as it can only cause more bad blood. But since you opt on seeing examples, off the top of my hat: Lir and Everyking. Approach the situation with open eyes and you will see that we have a problem. Pretend that you are blind and you wont see anything. That it has happened before is not important now. What is important is to make sure it doesn't happen again, or atleast, make it much more unusual than it is now. We can do that. We have a zero tolerance policy on 3+ reverts and it has decreased the number of reverts. We should have a zero tolerance policy on administrator abuse.

...

We should have a zero tolerance policy on administrator abuse.

I would add that admins should not email users privately since we want to be able to trace their activity. If the administrator is contacting the user via private email, it becomes a game of "he said", "she said".

I suggest that a link to an administrator "code of ethics" be included in the list reminders, so that all users will know what to expect from administrators.

I would also like to add that for the most part, wikipedia administrators are doing an outstanding job.

Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

On 6/2/05, David 'DJ' Hedley spyders@btinternet.com wrote:

I've never suffered harassment by an admin although I have felt, occasionally, that one or two are 'out to get you'. Some admins (which i'll leave un-named) aren't able to see a second point of view, don't look in to things, and act before they think. I've seen blocks logs where an admin blocks an IP and ends up blocking 100 people, just because they didn't look into it. Some admins don't necessarily abuse their powers, but are too quick to use it. The issue when somebody is in their RfA, of course, is that it is often hard to judge how that user will use their powers - many change their ways after becoming an admin.

There is no real way of cheacking this in advance.

Christopher Mahan said:

...

...

We should have a zero tolerance policy on administrator abuse.

I would add that admins should not email users privately since we want to be able to trace their activity. If the administrator is contacting the user via private email, it becomes a game of "he said", "she said".

I strongly disagree. We have to communicate with blocked editors on a daily basis. This is unavoidable.

--- BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:

...

Personally, I'd like to see an example of an admin

repeatedly

...

harrasing a regular user failing to be put before

arbcom.

I'd like to avoid bringing that up as it can only cause more bad blood. But since you opt on seeing examples, off the top of my hat: Lir and Everyking.

Really, Really REALLY bad example. Lir got anything and everything that he deserved. His repeated trolling and bad faith edits and attacks should have gotten him banned much sooner than they did. He was given many, many chances and repeatedly made Wikipedia a sour place to be. Imagine me, defending Everyking!

RickK

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

On 6/1/05, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:

Unless "Wikipedia would more or less stop running without" that editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RickK#Outside_vi... Then any policy violations are OK.

Interesting to see the list of users that supported that position and compare it to the list of users unable to keep themselves out of disputes over appropriate admin behavior with users.

Tony Sidaway wrote:

SPUI said:

...

JAY JG wrote:

...

No, the rules are set up so that admins can only be sanctioned for doing things against policy; new users often seem to think "disagreeing with me" or "not putting up with my POV edits" is against policy.

Unless "Wikipedia would more or less stop running without" that editor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RickK#Outside_vi... Then any policy violations are OK.

Looking at RickK's response to that RfC, he seems to provide a very good explanation of his actions and they seems to be have been well within policy. In particular, I find the argument that the second incarnation of Falling Up (band) was significantly different from the first, somewhat questionable to say the least.

You seriously read the following and determined they were substantially the same?

'''Falling Up''' is a christian rock band.

'''Members'''

* Tom * Jessy * Jeremy * Joe * Josh * Mike

'''Discography'''

* Crashings

'''links'''

* [http://www.fallingupcrashings.com/ Official Website].

----

Falling Up is a Christian band consisting of Thomas Charles Cox (guitar), Joseph A. Kisselburgh (guitar), Mike, Josh Shroy (drums), Jessy Ribordy (vocals) and Jeremy Miller (bass guitar). They were named after the first song they wrote, which refers to how imperfect people are, but how sufficient the grace of God is to compensate for that imperfection. In harmony with their name, their music is heavy on themes about grace. They debuted in February 24, 2004 with an 11-song album titled "Crashings." Aaron Sprinkle (who also produced Kutless and Anberlin) produced this album, which combines rock, metal, strings and R+B. The music is similar to Kutless', and the members of the two bands were childhood friends in their hometown of Albany, Oregon. It was the members of Kutless who passed Falling Up's demo album on to BEC Recordings owner, Brandon Ebel which lead to Falling Up signing on to BEC alongside Kutless in the summer of 2003.

Discography

* Crashings (2004) o 1. Bittersweet o 2. Symmetry o 3. Broken Heart o 4. Escalates o 5. New Hope Generation o 6. The Gathering o 7. Jacksonfive o 8. Divinity o 9. Places o 10. Falling in Love o 11. Ambience o 12. Arafax Deep

External Links

* [http://www.fallingupcrashings.com/ Official band site] * Lyrics

What the fuck are you smoking?

...

...

first, somewhat questionable to say the least.

You seriously read the following and determined they were substantially the same?

Yes, clearly the same band which failed the music notability standard.

What is the music notability standard and why does it fail one of the most popular Christian rock bands?

On 6/3/05, Josh Gordon joshua.p.gordon@gmail.com wrote:

In exactly how many places do we need to have this exact same discussion?

Your question cannot be answered exactly.

But an approximate answer is that it is an irrational number.

...

What is the music notability standard?

This beastie:

...

and why does it fail one of the most popular Christian rock bands?

Um, we're not talking about Payable on Death and whatnot, just some guys who put out their album over the internet and are still playing church gigs.

I don't know what Payable on Death is. I see now that the Notability and Music Guidelines are pretty strict. But still, these guys produce 25,000+ relevant hits on Google. Is there maybe some other Christian band named Falling Up or maybe a Christian hymn? Not long ago, 25,000 hits was an automatic keeper.

Tony Sidaway wrote:

SPUI said:

...

...

first, somewhat questionable to say the least.

You seriously read the following and determined they were substantially the same?

Yes, clearly the same band which failed the music notability standard.

And fail it did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Falling_Up_%28band...

Why not make an attempt at discrediting the position rather than the person arguing it?

On 6/2/05, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:

--- SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:

...

What the fuck are you smoking?

Knock off the attacks on the mailing list. I'd like to mention that SPUI is also a member of the GNAA.

RickK

__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:

Why not make an attempt at discrediting the position rather than the person arguing it?

On 6/2/05, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:

...

--- SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:

...

What the fuck are you smoking?

Knock off the attacks on the mailing list. I'd

like

...

to mention that SPUI is also a member of the GNAA.

RickK

This article has been discussed ad nauseum, twice on VfD, once on VfU, and again on the bogus RfC that SPUI filed on me, which he himself rejected. It doesn't need further discussion here. SPUI is only bringing it up here, yet again (note that not a single person supported his position, even Jondel rejected it), to attempt to discredit me.

I'd also like to note that SPUI is now using a sockpuppet account (use:Sockenpuppe) to make "prank" edits.

RickK

__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html

SPUI said:

Jondel "rejected" the RFC because he didn't feel like putting up with it. I "rejected" the RFC because it was clear it wasn't getting anywhere.

...

Well fair enough. But it can't have been Rick's fault if the RFC didn't achieve the feedback you expected. That's why it's called a Request for Comments--we put them out when we're stuck trying to resolve a problem by ourselves and we think the matter would benefit from some fresh eyes looking at it. I know some people think of it as some kind of disciplinary thing, and if you expected that then you would have been disappointed because it really isn't like that at all.

SPUI said:

Well yeah, I got comments. Comments that proved to me that the whole system is corrupt. I was hoping that those comments would persuade RickK to rethink his actions, but I can be rather naive at times.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the system." People just give their opinions in a RfC, it's pretty free-format.

You and jondell got five endorsements. RickK made a response that got got one endorsement. SnowSpinner made an outside view that said "Wikipedia would more or less stop running without RickK" and unsurprisingly that got 14 endorsements (it didn't say anything about the merits of the case). jpgordon wrote a pretty neutral suggestion that RickK back off and let another administrator deal with the problem, and this got three endorsements. Mackensen said it was a storm in a teacup and got eleven endorsements. Firebug wrote a response mildly chiding RickK for not acting in the way he did and for not responding to the RfC (he did subsequently respond). This got nine endorsements--including one from you! Kim Bruning wrote another broadly hagiographic outside view that got thirteen endorsements.

This seems like a good haul to me. I don't know what you expected, but there does seem to be a substantial recognition there that RickK is generally a good administrator but he makes mistakes. I think that's pretty fair.

You then wrote a final "outside view" claiming you had been trolled.

So if I did want to attempt to get RickK to stop, what would I do? File an RFAr and hope ArbCom is impartial enough to accept?

What precisely was he continuing to do that you thought he should stop doing? Just deleting some articles? Probably better to take that to VFU.

Strange - I seem to remember you identifying your contributions as "from the GNAA" more recently than "several months" in IRC.

-Snowspinner

On Jun 2, 2005, at 3:17 PM, SPUI wrote:

Rick wrote:

...

--- SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:

...

What the fuck are you smoking?

Knock off the attacks on the mailing list. I'd like to mention that SPUI is also a member of the GNAA.

Hahaha, more ad-hominem. And I haven't been with the GNAA for several months. RickK on the other hand is continually abusive. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

From: SPUI drspui@gmail.com JAY JG wrote:

...

...

From: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com Total Bullshit. That has been done many times by new users who was harassed my some overly aggressive admins. Ofcourse they never suceed because the rules are complex and setup to protect the administrators.

No, the rules are set up so that admins can only be sanctioned for doing things against policy; new users often seem to think "disagreeing with me" or "not putting up with my POV edits" is against policy.

Unless "Wikipedia would more or less stop running without" that editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RickK#Outside_vi... Then any policy violations are OK.

Thanks for showing exactly how trivial and petty these complaints of admin abuse really are.

Jay.

Rick wrote:

--- SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:

...

Unless "Wikipedia would more or less stop running without" that editor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RickK#Outside_vi...

...

Then any policy violations are OK.

I would like to note that you withdrew your RfC. ~~~~

I withdrew it because the process was broken, and the RFC wasn't getting anywhere.

--- Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:

"BJörn Lindqvist" wrote

...

...

Name them. Take them to ArbCom.

...

Total Bullshit. That has been done many times by

new users who was harassed my some overly aggressive admins. Ofcourse they never suceed because the rules are complex and setup to protect the administrators.

When I was a newbie, 'dispute resolution' was a multi-step process. In which going to the ArbCom was the last stage, for intractable disputes. Of course if you have rules that are going to be applied legalistically, they will be complex. I doubt they are biased in favour of admins: admins have extra powers, but more rights?

Charles

I think you'll find that even those of us who are admins, and those who have just been here for a while, find the process user-unfriendly.

RickK

__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html