Fadix: Questioning an admin's capability is generally Not A Good Idea[tm]. I wouldn't resort to this myself and I've said some things that have been pretty disruptive.
- Nathan (User:nathanrdotcom)
G'day Nathan,
Fadix: Questioning an admin's capability is generally Not A Good Idea[tm]. I wouldn't resort to this myself and I've said some things that have been pretty disruptive.
I'm not sure what you mean by "questioning an admin's capability", but as a general rule, questioning admins is a Good Thing. We all need to have reasons for what we do, and we should be happy to give those reasons to anyone who asks.
(This is not to say I support those who hysterically scream wild accusations of "ADMIN ABUSE!!11112" every time an admin does his job properly, but rather that simply questioning an admin is in itself something we should never in a million years try to discourage. If an admin's wrong, he's wrong.)
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Mark Gallagher wrote:
(This is not to say I support those who hysterically scream wild accusations of "ADMIN ABUSE!!11112" every time an admin does his job properly, but rather that simply questioning an admin is in itself something we should never in a million years try to discourage. If an admin's wrong, he's wrong.)
That's sort of what I meant (thanks, I couldn't clarify it any better). I question some admins almost all the time - even sometimes that way /I/ do it is out of line.
- Nathan
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:01:25 +1000, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "questioning an admin's capability", but as a general rule, questioning admins is a Good Thing. We all need to have reasons for what we do, and we should be happy to give those reasons to anyone who asks.
Absolutely. However, as you also note, the loudest complaints are usually from those where the action is most justified...
Guy (JzG)
Why? I really believe that this user should not have any administrative privilages, it is not like I accuse every admins which I accounter.
This admin fail to understand why such tools are given to him, he has hard time understanding that those tools should be used with something in mind ''what I am doing is above all for the best of the articles which constitute Wikipedia'' and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles are what matters. This, this admin does not understand. He is using his tools because he is criticised, I wonder if in the real world any judge being criticised could sue someone and be the plaintif and the judge in the same time.
What is disruptive in Wikipedia are revert warring, POV pushing, all the sort of things that disrupt the quality of the articles, not some abarsive words which any admin could edit from a user who has enought of POV warriors who build hateful websites and after being bored there recycle themselves in Wikipedia and once in a while in his answers of hundreds of words use a word which could be interpreted by some as personal attack. I have never been blocked for 3RR and I shall never be, because I know that such behaviors are really disruptive since the victim is the article. I know to restrain myself and I don't need someone to tell me I am in the wrong, worst, I don't need someone who thinks I am in the wrong and has tools to impose his misconceptions of the rules.
Also, this admin is seriously disrupting in his behaviors, who the hell do he think he is? Members are reporting others in his talk page and then he go on to distribute warnings as if they were cake. I have been reported by a user who was the other side of the conflict, and I have never used such cheap tactics to get someone silenced, when it happens that both sides have used such words.
Right now, I am blocked and there is not one admin that has warned this user, who's autority I contest, for his misbehavior, please just read the example which I have requested any admin to answer on whatever or not it is a warning material. It was not, and even he realise it was not, while he placed it as personal attack, he then presented it as not assuming good faith, which neither was the cases.
Such admins are even more disruptive, because by blocking users like this they prevent those users to contribute, this is really harmful for Wikipedia. And I am really tired of this silence.
Nathan - Mailing Lists lists@home.nathanr.com wrote: Fadix: Questioning an admin's capability is generally Not A Good Idea[tm]. I wouldn't resort to this myself and I've said some things that have been pretty disruptive.
- Nathan (User:nathanrdotcom) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- All new Yahoo! Mail --------------------------------- Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page.
Fadix,
Are able to provide edit diffs showing InShanee signing an RfC against you?
Pecher -----Original Message----- From: Fadix forwikipediause@yahoo.ca To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocked for 36 hours
Why? I really believe that this user should not have any administrative privilages, it is not like I accuse every admins which I accounter.
This admin fail to understand why such tools are given to him, he has hard time understanding that those tools should be used with something in mind ''what I am doing is above all for the best of the articles which constitute Wikipedia'' and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles are what matters. This, this admin does not understand. He is using his tools because he is criticised, I wonder if in the real world any judge being criticised could sue someone and be the plaintif and the judge in the same time.
What is disruptive in Wikipedia are revert warring, POV pushing, all the sort of things that disrupt the quality of the articles, not some abarsive words which any admin could edit from a user who has enought of POV warriors who build hateful websites and after being bored there recycle themselves in Wikipedia and once in a while in his answers of hundreds of words use a word which could be interpreted by some as personal attack. I have never been blocked for 3RR and I shall never be, because I know that such behaviors are really disruptive since the victim is the article. I know to restrain myself and I don't need someone to tell me I am in the wrong, worst, I don't need someone who thinks I am in the wrong and has tools to impose his misconceptions of the rules.
Also, this admin is seriously disrupting in his behaviors, who the hell do he think he is? Members are reporting others in his talk page and then he go on to distribute warnings as if they were cake. I have been reported by a user who was the other side of the conflict, and I have never used such cheap tactics to get someone silenced, when it happens that both sides have used such words.
Right now, I am blocked and there is not one admin that has warned this user, who's autority I contest, for his misbehavior, please just read the example which I have requested any admin to answer on whatever or not it is a warning material. It was not, and even he realise it was not, while he placed it as personal attack, he then presented it as not assuming good faith, which neither was the cases.
Such admins are even more disruptive, because by blocking users like this they prevent those users to contribute, this is really harmful for Wikipedia. And I am really tired of this silence.
Nathan - Mailing Lists lists@home.nathanr.com wrote: Fadix: Questioning an admin's capability is generally Not A Good Idea[tm]. I wouldn't resort to this myself and I've said some things that have been pretty disruptive.
- Nathan (User:nathanrdotcom)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
All new Yahoo! Mail
Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
For a reason I haven't seen your answer.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2...
In no way was he involved in anyway in those conflicts, he signed it just after I criticised him and since then he is retaliating. If you want any other evidences feel free to ask.
Pecher pecher@ukr.net wrote: Fadix,
Are able to provide edit diffs showing InShanee signing an RfC against you?
Pecher -----Original Message----- From: Fadix To: English Wikipedia Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocked for 36 hours
Why? I really believe that this user should not have any administrative privilages, it is not like I accuse every admins which I accounter.
This admin fail to understand why such tools are given to him, he has hard time understanding that those tools should be used with something in mind ''what I am doing is above all for the best of the articles which constitute Wikipedia'' and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles are what matters. This, this admin does not understand. He is using his tools because he is criticised, I wonder if in the real world any judge being criticised could sue someone and be the plaintif and the judge in the same time.
What is disruptive in Wikipedia are revert warring, POV pushing, all the sort of things that disrupt the quality of the articles, not some abarsive words which any admin could edit from a user who has enought of POV warriors who build hateful websites and after being bored there recycle themselves in Wikipedia and once in a while in his answers of hundreds of words use a word which could be interpreted by some as personal attack. I have never been blocked for 3RR and I shall never be, because I know that such behaviors are really disruptive since the victim is the article. I know to restrain myself and I don't need someone to tell me I am in the wrong, worst, I don't need someone who thinks I am in the wrong and has tools to impose his misconceptions of the rules.
Also, this admin is seriously disrupting in his behaviors, who the hell do he think he is? Members are reporting others in his talk page and then he go on to distribute warnings as if they were cake. I have been reported by a user who was the other side of the conflict, and I have never used such cheap tactics to get someone silenced, when it happens that both sides have used such words.
Right now, I am blocked and there is not one admin that has warned this user, who's autority I contest, for his misbehavior, please just read the example which I have requested any admin to answer on whatever or not it is a warning material. It was not, and even he realise it was not, while he placed it as personal attack, he then presented it as not assuming good faith, which neither was the cases.
Such admins are even more disruptive, because by blocking users like this they prevent those users to contribute, this is really harmful for Wikipedia. And I am really tired of this silence.
Nathan - Mailing Lists
wrote: Fadix: Questioning an admin's capability is generally Not A Good Idea[tm].
I wouldn't resort to this myself and I've said some things that have been pretty disruptive.
- Nathan (User:nathanrdotcom)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
All new Yahoo! Mail
Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-new Yahoo! Mail.
I guess that's that. When an Admin is right in his/her decision no one waste his/her time supporting that Admin, but when an Admin abuses his/her power, just wait that the block expires when the abuses is clear cut and if the member is not happy he should waste his time over a RfAr, RfC on placing it on the Administrators noticeboard and expect any admit to have the guts to admit the abuse.
Anyway, I took the decision yesterday to quit the project, I would have hoped that after about a year and a half of contribution I would have gotten the support, not email supports, it is easy for an Admin telling in private there is no block material, but only one Admin publically said not seing block material. I guess only users need this support to get 'elected' as Admins and once they are one they now feel being just more than a user.
--------------------------------- All new Yahoo! Mail - --------------------------------- Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.
I wonder what does it take in here so that administrators reported misbehavior is dealt with. I understand people can mind their own business, afteral I'm the one being blocked for 36 hours.
Fadix forwikipediause@yahoo.ca wrote: Why? I really believe that this user should not have any administrative privilages, it is not like I accuse every admins which I accounter.
This admin fail to understand why such tools are given to him, he has hard time understanding that those tools should be used with something in mind ''what I am doing is above all for the best of the articles which constitute Wikipedia'' and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles are what matters. This, this admin does not understand. He is using his tools because he is criticised, I wonder if in the real world any judge being criticised could sue someone and be the plaintif and the judge in the same time.
What is disruptive in Wikipedia are revert warring, POV pushing, all the sort of things that disrupt the quality of the articles, not some abarsive words which any admin could edit from a user who has enought of POV warriors who build hateful websites and after being bored there recycle themselves in Wikipedia and once in a while in his answers of hundreds of words use a word which could be interpreted by some as personal attack. I have never been blocked for 3RR and I shall never be, because I know that such behaviors are really disruptive since the victim is the article. I know to restrain myself and I don't need someone to tell me I am in the wrong, worst, I don't need someone who thinks I am in the wrong and has tools to impose his misconceptions of the rules.
Also, this admin is seriously disrupting in his behaviors, who the hell do he think he is? Members are reporting others in his talk page and then he go on to distribute warnings as if they were cake. I have been reported by a user who was the other side of the conflict, and I have never used such cheap tactics to get someone silenced, when it happens that both sides have used such words.
Right now, I am blocked and there is not one admin that has warned this user, who's autority I contest, for his misbehavior, please just read the example which I have requested any admin to answer on whatever or not it is a warning material. It was not, and even he realise it was not, while he placed it as personal attack, he then presented it as not assuming good faith, which neither was the cases.
Such admins are even more disruptive, because by blocking users like this they prevent those users to contribute, this is really harmful for Wikipedia. And I am really tired of this silence.
Nathan - Mailing Lists wrote: Fadix: Questioning an admin's capability is generally Not A Good Idea[tm]. I wouldn't resort to this myself and I've said some things that have been pretty disruptive.
- Nathan (User:nathanrdotcom) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- All new Yahoo! Mail --------------------------------- Get news delivered. Enjoy RSS feeds right on your Mail page. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- All new Yahoo! Mail - --------------------------------- Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.