--- Tom Haws hawstom@sprintmail.com wrote:
Theresa Knott wrote:
I've unblocked this user as it does look like a
content dispute rather
than vandalism.
I would like to hear from Neutrality on this. I left a note today, but have not heard back. Unless we hear some quick backpedalling, this kind of behavior should lead to indefinite suspension of sysop privileges. The last thing Wikipedia needs is this kind of face toward anons.
Tom Haws
Oh, please.
Why is it every time an admin does something that somebody disagrees with, it's time to get out the hounds and the torches and go raging after them with the rest of the mob?
RickK
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Rick wrote:
Oh, please.
Why is it every time an admin does something that somebody disagrees with, it's time to get out the hounds and the torches and go raging after them with the rest of the mob?
RickK
Because admins are expected to be above ordinary users; see [[WP:RFA]] for yourself. People vote on others not only based on their suitability for janitorial tasks but also on how polite, active, etc. the users are.
That said, I do feel it's kind of stupid every time people act as if the world will end whenever an admin does something wrong AND THE ADMIN SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE IMMEDIATELY. Admins are human too.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
On 3/25/05 5:43 AM, "John Lee" johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Rick wrote:
Oh, please.
Why is it every time an admin does something that somebody disagrees with, it's time to get out the hounds and the torches and go raging after them with the rest of the mob?
RickK
Because admins are expected to be above ordinary users; see [[WP:RFA]] for yourself. People vote on others not only based on their suitability for janitorial tasks but also on how polite, active, etc. the users are.
More fundamentally, it's because people are aware that in the long run, the real disasters and failures of society have come when the people in power fail to be kept in check.
The Cunctator stated for the record:
On 3/25/05 5:43 AM, "John Lee" johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Rick wrote:
Oh, please.
Why is it every time an admin does something that somebody disagrees with, it's time to get out the hounds and the torches and go raging after them with the rest of the mob?
RickK
Because admins are expected to be above ordinary users; see [[WP:RFA]] for yourself. People vote on others not only based on their suitability for janitorial tasks but also on how polite, active, etc. the users are.
More fundamentally, it's because people are aware that in the long run, the real disasters and failures of society have come when the people in power fail to be kept in check.
And finally, when all the pretense is stripped away, it's because people are violent pack animals, poorly disguised in a skin of civilization. One scratch, and the murderous howling lynch mob springs out of hiding.
On 3/25/05 9:31 AM, "Sean Barrett" sean@epoptic.org wrote:
The Cunctator stated for the record:
On 3/25/05 5:43 AM, "John Lee" johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Rick wrote:
Oh, please.
Why is it every time an admin does something that somebody disagrees with, it's time to get out the hounds and the torches and go raging after them with the rest of the mob?
RickK
Because admins are expected to be above ordinary users; see [[WP:RFA]] for yourself. People vote on others not only based on their suitability for janitorial tasks but also on how polite, active, etc. the users are.
More fundamentally, it's because people are aware that in the long run, the real disasters and failures of society have come when the people in power fail to be kept in check.
And finally, when all the pretense is stripped away, it's because people are violent pack animals, poorly disguised in a skin of civilization. One scratch, and the murderous howling lynch mob springs out of hiding.
I think there may be some pretense in the above as well. Another reason may simply be that the pool of administrators is too small with relation to the rest of the community for optimal societal function.
The Cunctator wrote:
More fundamentally, it's because people are aware that in the long run, the real disasters and failures of society have come when the people in power fail to be kept in check.
And being de-sysop'd is not the "end of the world" unless we personally see our adminship as a status symbol. Really, what would be the practical implications of my losing my admin privileges? There are hundreds of other sysops. If granting adminship "shouldn't be a big deal", why is revoking it such a big deal? It is a mere slap on the wrist, nothing more. I can still edit, mediate, and serve on most any committee.
Tom Haws
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 01:22:52AM -0800, Rick wrote:
Why is it every time an admin does something that somebody disagrees with, it's time to get out the hounds and the torches and go raging after them with the rest of the mob?
I see no hounds, torches, or mob. I see a sincere attempt to require explanations and hold people accountable when there is reason to suspect that they have betrayed the trust placed in them due to a conflict of interest in violation of policy.
(Note that I do not claim that the trust has been betrayed here. I _do_ hold that there has been presented here adequate _reason to suspect so_, and thus that there needs to be explanation and accountability.)
Being expected to explain actions that appear to be in conflict of interest is _not_ persecution. It is "trust, but verify". The community does in fact place trust in the administrators (otherwise, they would not be the administrators). However, when an issue like this comes up, we need that trust to be verified.
I would prefer to know for certain that nothing corrupt went on here. However, until there is a good and credible explanation offered, none of us can know that, and we are left with only ugly suspicions on one side and baseless feelings of persecution on the other.
From: "Karl A. Krueger" kkrueger@whoi.edu Being expected to explain actions that appear to be in conflict of interest is _not_ persecution. It is "trust, but verify". The community does in fact place trust in the administrators (otherwise, they would not be the administrators). However, when an issue like this comes up, we need that trust to be verified.
I would prefer to know for certain that nothing corrupt went on here. However, until there is a good and credible explanation offered, none of us can know that, and we are left with only ugly suspicions on one side and baseless feelings of persecution on the other.
Wikipedia has a number of mechanisms for investigating cases of alleged admin abuse; WikiEN-l is not one of them.
Jay.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:36:05 -0500, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has a number of mechanisms for investigating cases of alleged admin abuse; WikiEN-l is not one of them.
In that case why does the automatic block message suggest that any objection may be directed to this list?
" If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-L mailing list"
Violating blocking policy is an abuse of admin status is it not?
From: Andy Roberts aroberts@gmail.com On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:36:05 -0500, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has a number of mechanisms for investigating cases of alleged admin abuse; WikiEN-l is not one of them.
In that case why does the automatic block message suggest that any objection may be directed to this list?
" If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-L mailing list"
Violating blocking policy is an abuse of admin status is it not?
As I understand it, that is to provide a means for block editors to get the attention of other adminstrators, since they are no longer able to post.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
From: "Karl A. Krueger" kkrueger@whoi.edu
I would prefer to know for certain that nothing corrupt went on here. However, until there is a good and credible explanation offered, none of us can know that, and we are left with only ugly suspicions on one side and baseless feelings of persecution on the other.
Wikipedia has a number of mechanisms for investigating cases of alleged admin abuse; WikiEN-l is not one of them.
HEAR HEAR. [[WP:AN/I]] is a good one.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
Wikipedia has a number of mechanisms for investigating cases of alleged admin abuse; WikiEN-l is not one of them.
HEAR HEAR. [[WP:AN/I]] is a good one.
Unreachable for anyone who's been blocked. Without WikiEN-l people could be "disappeared" by unscrupulous admins.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton said:
Without WikiEN-l people could be "disappeared" by unscrupulous admins.
No, that simply isn't possible. I'm directly contactable by email and I'm sure most sysops are. Jimmy Wales' email address is on his page; be sure to put Wikipedia in the subject of your email. Having said which I've already opined that it's long past time we had a janitors-l for people to complain about sysop behavior.
Blair P. Houghton stated for the record:
Without WikiEN-l people could be "disappeared" by unscrupulous admins.
--Blair
And only God knows how many unfortunates have become ''desaparecidos'' since Wikipedia began. Uncountable numbers of their spouses and orphans roam the streets, wailing in inconsolable grief ....
Y'know, Godwin's Law applies to comparing trivial matters to Argentina's left-wing terrorists just as much as it applies to comparing trivial matters to the Nazis.
From: "Blair P. Houghton" blair@houghton.net
David Gerard wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
Wikipedia has a number of mechanisms for investigating cases of alleged admin abuse; WikiEN-l is not one of them.
HEAR HEAR. [[WP:AN/I]] is a good one.
Unreachable for anyone who's been blocked. Without WikiEN-l people could be "disappeared" by unscrupulous admins.
There's been no evidence of "disappearing" being carried out by "unscupulous admins", and in any event controversial blockings can be brought to the attention of WikiEN-l, but WikiEN-l is not an investigatory body.
Jay.