Let me get this straight:
1. A few editors suggest we should start blocking people on sight for their sexual orientation 2. One editor blocks a newbie who claimed to be a pedophile, alongside claims to being a mutant, a potential believer of the flying spaghetti monster, approved of by mr rubber ducky, and needing more cowbells 3. This user was unblocked 4. Jimbo re-blocks the user for voting Keep on a TfD (for a week!), thus starting a wheel war 5. Chaos ensues 6. Jimbo re-blocks and de-syspos a half-dozen editors for continuing the above wheel war.
Am I right to be embarrassed for Wikipedia? Have I missed something or did a bunch of clowns start running the place?
Do correct me if I've made a mistake.
Sam
-- Asbestos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos
Pedophilia isn't really a sexual orientation. Not to get off-topic or anything.
k
On 2/7/06, Sam Fentress (Asbestos) asbestos999@gmail.com wrote:
Let me get this straight:
- A few editors suggest we should start blocking people on sight for
their sexual orientation 2. One editor blocks a newbie who claimed to be a pedophile, alongside claims to being a mutant, a potential believer of the flying spaghetti monster, approved of by mr rubber ducky, and needing more cowbells 3. This user was unblocked 4. Jimbo re-blocks the user for voting Keep on a TfD (for a week!), thus starting a wheel war 5. Chaos ensues 6. Jimbo re-blocks and de-syspos a half-dozen editors for continuing the above wheel war.
Am I right to be embarrassed for Wikipedia? Have I missed something or did a bunch of clowns start running the place?
Do correct me if I've made a mistake.
Sam
-- Asbestos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/7/06, Sam Fentress (Asbestos) asbestos999@gmail.com wrote:
Let me get this straight:
- A few editors suggest we should start blocking people on sight for
their sexual orientation 2. One editor blocks a newbie who claimed to be a pedophile, alongside claims to being a mutant, a potential believer of the flying spaghetti monster, approved of by mr rubber ducky, and needing more cowbells 3. This user was unblocked 4. Jimbo re-blocks the user for voting Keep on a TfD (for a week!), thus starting a wheel war 5. Chaos ensues 6. Jimbo re-blocks and de-syspos a half-dozen editors for continuing the above wheel war.
Am I right to be embarrassed for Wikipedia? Have I missed something or did a bunch of clowns start running the place?
Do correct me if I've made a mistake.
Sam
Slightly more complicated than that:
2a. Blocking admin announces said fact on AN. 2b. General argument over blocks ensues. 2c. Another admin blocks some people for expressing support for the original block. 2d. Said people are unblocked. 2e. One of them blocks the admin mentioned in (2c).
And so forth. Jimbo arrived pretty late in the game, actually.
Kirill Lokshin
Sam Fentress (Asbestos) wrote:
- Jimbo re-blocks the user for voting Keep on a TfD (for a week!),
thus starting a wheel war
That's just a gross mischaracterization of the whole thing.
Do correct me if I've made a mistake.
The wheel war was well underway when I stepped in to set things back to an appropriate status quo, and desysopping several people as a part of it.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The wheel war was well underway when I stepped in to set things back to an appropriate status quo, and desysopping several people as a part of it.
That's simply factually incorrect. The user was blocked once (by Carbonite), then unblocked once (by Radiant!). You then blocked the user again, without discussion, thereby starting a "wheel war". That is not "well underway"---you were the first re-blocker.
The usual procedure for a controversial block is to go through normal channels. A similar thing happens with speedy deletions---if I speedy-delete someone as non-notable and it gets undeleted by someone who claims otherwise, it's not appropriate to simply speedy-delete again without discussion.
-Mark
On 2/7/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The wheel war was well underway when I stepped in to set things back to an appropriate status quo, and desysopping several people as a part of it.
That's simply factually incorrect. The user was blocked once (by Carbonite), then unblocked once (by Radiant!). You then blocked the user again, without discussion, thereby starting a "wheel war". That is not "well underway"---you were the first re-blocker.
The usual procedure for a controversial block is to go through normal channels. A similar thing happens with speedy deletions---if I speedy-delete someone as non-notable and it gets undeleted by someone who claims otherwise, it's not appropriate to simply speedy-delete again without discussion.
I suspect that Jimbo is referring to the other blocks involved (Carnildo's, El_C's, etc.) as well as the deletion/undeletion war over the actual userbox, rather than the initial block itself.
Kirill Lokshin
On 2/7/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The wheel war was well underway when I stepped in to set things back to an appropriate status quo, and desysopping several people as a part of
it.
That's simply factually incorrect. The user was blocked once (by Carbonite), then unblocked once (by Radiant!). You then blocked the user again, without discussion, thereby starting a "wheel war". That is not "well underway"---you were the first re-blocker.
Like it or not, these rules don't apply to Jimbo. Did you forget that Jimbo retains the power to ban anyone from Wikipedia, and that there is no appeal or discussion if he chooses to do so? Everyone who edits is here because he and the board permit them to. And anyone who reverts his block of a user is wheel warring. By definition, Jimbo cannot participate in a wheel war because anyone who undoes his block is wrong.
Personally, I like it, because I think there has to be /someone/ who can step into shit heaps like this and just flush the whole thing down the toilet where it belongs; and that's exactly what he did.
Ryan
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Like it or not, these rules don't apply to Jimbo. Did you forget that Jimbo retains the power to ban anyone from Wikipedia, and that there is no appeal or discussion if he chooses to do so? Everyone who edits is here because he and the board permit them to. And anyone who reverts his block of a user is wheel warring. By definition, Jimbo cannot participate in a wheel war because anyone who undoes his block is wrong.
This is a tiresome argument, and entirely beside the point. Yes, Jimbo legally can do whatever he wants (with consent of 2 of the other 4 board members). That's quite different from how Wikipedia as a community operates, though, since it relies mainly volunteers. Everyone is here because we're a community editing an encyclopedia, and believe in its mission; the Board serves us, not the other way around. If the community decides the present leadership does not have its confidence, it can move elsewhere, as Encyclopedia Libre did. Jimbo's power is mainly "soft power", not "hard power", and in that sense, he was wheel-warring.
-Mark
On 2/7/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Jimbo's power is mainly "soft power", not "hard power", and in that sense, he was wheel-warring.
There isn't much I can do here except flatly disagree. And suggest that you try to reframe yourself, because if you continue to have this expectation, you are going to continue to be disappointed.
Ryan
This is a tiresome argument, and entirely beside the point. Yes, Jimbo legally can do whatever he wants (with consent of 2 of the other 4 board members). That's quite different from how Wikipedia as a community operates, though, since it relies mainly volunteers. Everyone is here because we're a community editing an encyclopedia, and believe in its mission; the Board serves us, not the other way around. If the community decides the present leadership does not have its confidence, it can move elsewhere, as Encyclopedia Libre did. Jimbo's power is mainly "soft power", not "hard power", and in that sense, he was wheel-warring.
OK, so Jimbo can do whatever he wants and if you don't like it you can fork off. Therefore, Jimbo should avoid pissing off enough people to cause a fork to happen.
Are you going to fork over this?
Philip Welch wrote:
OK, so Jimbo can do whatever he wants and if you don't like it you can fork off. Therefore, Jimbo should avoid pissing off enough people to cause a fork to happen.
Are you going to fork over this?
Not over this specifically; I'm not quite that impulsive, and I don't currently have enough free time. If this pattern of "leadership" continues, though, it's a possibility. I will probably eventually fork Wikipedia in my area of knowlege, based on my current guess of how the Wikimedia Foundation will continue to proceed.
-Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Delirium stated for the record:
This is a tiresome argument, and entirely beside the point. Yes, Jimbo legally can do whatever he wants (with consent of 2 of the other 4 board members). That's quite different from how Wikipedia as a community operates, though, since it relies mainly volunteers. Everyone is here because we're a community editing an encyclopedia, and believe in its mission; the Board serves us, not the other way around. If the community decides the present leadership does not have its confidence, it can move elsewhere, as Encyclopedia Libre did. Jimbo's power is mainly "soft power", not "hard power", and in that sense, he was wheel-warring.
-Mark
- From what mandate does your authority as spokesman for the community derive? There are, after all, vast numbers of people who disagree with you, including those elected from the community to arbitrate serious disagreements. (That those of us directly appointed by Jimbo disagree with you is hardly remarkable.)
It seems to me that considerable evidence suggests that you will be disappointed in the outcome this affair and in any similar affairs to come. Both the Board and the Arbitration Committee have endorsed the fact that Jimbo has the powers of a GodKing and occasionally will use them. And the consensus of the community seems to me to be a vehement "whatever."
You have the privilege of trying to change that consensus, of course. You'll probably find the community, herd of cats that it is, easier to steer than the Board or the ArbComm.
- -- Sean Barrett | She had lost the art of conversation, sean@epoptic.org | but not, unfortunately, the power | of speech. --George Bernard Shaw
Sean Barrett wrote:
Both the Board and the Arbitration Committee have endorsed the fact that Jimbo has the powers of a GodKing and occasionally will use them. And the consensus of the community seems to me to be a vehement "whatever."
Note that this is conditional---Jimbo has powers that he is trusted to use rarely and wisely. If, for example, he blanked Wikipedia and replaced it with furry porn, probably people would not agree that was a legitimate use of his powers, whether legal or not. In between is a very large gray area, from "of course that's ok", to "that might to be ok", to "ehh...".
My main objection is to equating Jimbo's legal authority over the Wikimedia Foundation with his role as benevolent dictator. The latter derives essentially from the fact that he acts, well, benevolently. People support that so long as it remains benevolent.
I don't claim to speak on behalf of the commuity; I'm just pointing out that his powers derive in essence from the consent of the community, and are not somehow separate from that. He'll continue to be able to herd Wikipedia so long as the vast majority of its users agree that he's doing a good job; that's quite separate from his titular position as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation.
So, if I'm wrong in criticizing his use of powers in this matter, it's because the community agrees that his intervention was a good idea, not because he somehow has freedom to do whatever he wants without discussion.
-Mark
On 2/7/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Both the Board and the Arbitration Committee have endorsed the fact that Jimbo has the powers of a GodKing and occasionally will use them. And the consensus of the community seems to me to be a vehement "whatever."
Note that this is conditional---Jimbo has powers that he is trusted to use rarely and wisely. If, for example, he blanked Wikipedia and replaced it with furry porn, probably people would not agree that was a legitimate use of his powers, whether legal or not. In between is a very large gray area, from "of course that's ok", to "that might to be ok", to "ehh...".
I personally think that depends on the quality of the furry porn, but then, what do I know.
Bring on Furrypedia!
My main objection is to equating Jimbo's legal authority over the Wikimedia Foundation with his role as benevolent dictator. The latter derives essentially from the fact that he acts, well, benevolently. People support that so long as it remains benevolent.
I don't claim to speak on behalf of the commuity; I'm just pointing out that his powers derive in essence from the consent of the community, and are not somehow separate from that. He'll continue to be able to herd Wikipedia so long as the vast majority of its users agree that he's doing a good job; that's quite separate from his titular position as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation.
So, if I'm wrong in criticizing his use of powers in this matter, it's because the community agrees that his intervention was a good idea, not because he somehow has freedom to do whatever he wants without discussion.
History tells us that criticism of the powerful is pretty much always a good thing, even when it's not specifically right.
And those who attack critics should be ashamed.
But then, we're free to ignore the lessons of the past.
I think it is fair to say that Jimbo should never be over-ruled in he blocks somebody. The main reason is that, although there is always the argument that a block may be unfair or that it may be 'uncalled for', Jimbo deals with a whole side of Wikipedia that not many of us are 'in the know' about. And that side is the legal side of things. If there's ever a legal problem with Wikipedia, he is the first to know, and I'm sure I'm right in saying that sometimes it just isn't possible for him to go into specifics about it all. He often steps in and blanks pages, and blocks users, and that's because he is - no matter how much of a Wiki system this is - the person who, along with the other board members, essential runs Wikipedia. He's at the top of the tree.
If a serious legal threat ever comes along to Wikipedia, and he blocks somebody to eliminate that legal threat, we don't want to be put at risk by a sysop coming along and unblocking because the block is 'possibly unfair'. I'd say that, when Jimbo steps in, it's pretty important. He doesn't edit 24 hours a day and when he gets involved in using his sysop capabilities on Wikipedia, it's for a very good reason.
Simply put, if Jimbo needs to get involved in a 'wheel war', he doesn't need his actions to be undone. He's busy enough as it is, I'm sure, and I'm absolutely confident, as many of us are, that he is always doing what is best for Wikipedia and its future.
The moral of the story? Instead of talking about how immature the 'wheel war' is, we should be trying to move on from it, and we should be making it yesterday's news today.
It was mentioned earlier in this thread that 'these rules' don't apply to Jimbo, and that is something I agree with. Without Jimbo, Angela and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation, there is no Wikipedia. We need to trust their actions, and get back to building Wikipedia, not questioning it.
On 2/7/06, Hedley hedleyness@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is fair to say that Jimbo should never be over-ruled in he blocks somebody. The main reason is that, although there is always the argument that a block may be unfair or that it may be 'uncalled for', Jimbo deals with a whole side of Wikipedia that not many of us are 'in the know' about. And that side is the legal side of things. If there's ever a legal problem with Wikipedia, he is the first to know, and I'm sure I'm right in saying that sometimes it just isn't possible for him to go into specifics about it all.
He is free list "legal reasons" in the block log.
None of his recent blocks appear to have been for legal reasons.
There are whole sides to wikipedia Jimbo doesn't see. The same is of course true for all of us.
He often steps in and blanks pages, and blocks users, and that's because he is - no matter how much of a Wiki system this is - the person who, along with the other board members, essential runs Wikipedia. He's at the top of the tree.
If a serious legal threat ever comes along to Wikipedia, and he blocks somebody to eliminate that legal threat, we don't want to be put at risk by a sysop coming along and unblocking because the block is 'possibly unfair'. I'd say that, when Jimbo steps in, it's pretty important. He doesn't edit 24 hours a day and when he gets involved in using his sysop capabilities on Wikipedia, it's for a very good reason.
I doubt anyone would pull a block he put in place as long as he made it clear it was for legal reasons.
Simply put, if Jimbo needs to get involved in a 'wheel war', he doesn't need his actions to be undone. He's busy enough as it is, I'm sure, and I'm absolutely confident, as many of us are, that he is always doing what is best for Wikipedia and its future.
I will of course accept he is trying to do that. However I don't think the position that he has never made a mistake is defendible.
The moral of the story? Instead of talking about how immature the 'wheel war' is, we should be trying to move on from it, and we should be making it yesterday's news today.
[mode=cynical] Probably the simpest way to do that would be to start another deletion debate[/mode]
It was mentioned earlier in this thread that 'these rules' don't apply to Jimbo, and that is something I agree with. Without Jimbo, Angela and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation, there is no Wikipedia. We need to trust their actions, and get back to building Wikipedia, not questioning it.
You know back when Jimbo was basicaly planning to outright apoint arbcom this year he stated that the community would still have control because they made policy. I'm sure you can see the issue here.~~~~
-- geni
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sean Barrett
- From what mandate does your authority as spokesman for the
community derive? There are, after all, vast numbers of people who disagree with you, including those elected from the community to arbitrate serious disagreements. (That those of us directly appointed by Jimbo disagree with you is hardly remarkable.)
It seems to me that considerable evidence suggests that you will be disappointed in the outcome this affair and in any similar affairs to come. Both the Board and the Arbitration Committee have endorsed the fact that Jimbo has the powers of a GodKing and occasionally will use them. And the consensus of the community seems to me to be a vehement "whatever."
Jimbo stepped in to defuse an unpleasant situation. He then quickly directed the ArbCom to investigate and act. While I wish that the silly situation hadn't got to the stage it did, I think he did exactly the right thing once it had, and it is now in the hands of the ArbCom, who have the direct support of both the community and Jimbo.
The challenge is to find some way of minimising the necessity for Jimbo to intervene directly again. Few doubt that he should have the ability to intervene in emergency, but if he were to do so as a matter of everyday business, then wikiadministration would rapidly become complex and tense. Well, more so than it is now.
Peter (Skyring)
On 2/7/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Like it or not, these rules don't apply to Jimbo. Did you forget that Jimbo retains the power to ban anyone from Wikipedia, and that there is no appeal or discussion if he chooses to do so? Everyone who edits is here because he and the board permit them to. And anyone who reverts his block of a user is wheel warring. By definition, Jimbo cannot participate in a wheel war because anyone who undoes his block is wrong.
For what it's worth, I think the reason that Jimbo can't get into a wheel war is because he is a bigger wheel than anyone else. As was demonstrated - they can attempt to block him, but he just desysops them and hence wins. Rendering any attempted wheel war totally pointless.
Presumably if there were other people with desysopping powers (I imagine there are), then he could wheel war with *them*, but there are probably yet more means at his disposal...
Personally, I like it, because I think there has to be /someone/ who can step into shit heaps like this and just flush the whole thing down the toilet where it belongs; and that's exactly what he did.
Personally, I like it too. I'm pleasantly surprised that he's actually willing to soil his shoes in this way.
(that's a vote of support for Jimbo here :))
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/7/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Like it or not, these rules don't apply to Jimbo. Did you forget that Jimbo retains the power to ban anyone from Wikipedia, and that there is no appeal or discussion if he chooses to do so? Everyone who edits is here because he and the board permit them to. And anyone who reverts his block of a user is wheel warring. By definition, Jimbo cannot participate in a wheel war because anyone who undoes his block is wrong.
For what it's worth, I think the reason that Jimbo can't get into a wheel war is because he is a bigger wheel than anyone else. As was demonstrated - they can attempt to block him, but he just desysops them and hence wins. Rendering any attempted wheel war totally pointless.
Any steward could have taken the action that Jimbo took, although I imagine if they had done so they would have enjoyed less community support. Wheel warring is by definition limited to technical powers -- if a steward had de-stewarded Jimbo then he would have been within his rights to demand that a sysadmin rectify the situation. Demands aren't wheel warring though.
-- Tim Starling
On 2/7/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The usual procedure for a controversial block is to go through normal channels. A similar thing happens with speedy deletions---if I speedy-delete someone as non-notable and it gets undeleted by someone who claims otherwise, it's not appropriate to simply speedy-delete again without discussion.
Rubbish like this should be killed as soon as possible. When "proper channels" hamper us, we should drop them. Administrators are expected to show commonsense and not dig in their heels inappropriately over the great god Process.
On blocks, I've always believed in subjecting my blocks to review. I perform the block and write it up on Administrators' Noticeboard. In my experience it makes for firmer blocks, far less likely to be challenged. One or two reviews of this kind have resulted in blocks being extended as administrators pieced together more incriminating information suggesting a long term career of abuse, which was not immediately apparent to me or any of the previous blocking admins. --~~~~
On 2/8/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On blocks, I've always believed in subjecting my blocks to review. I perform the block and write it up on Administrators' Noticeboard. In my experience it makes for firmer blocks, far less likely to be challenged. One or two reviews of this kind have resulted in blocks being extended as administrators pieced together more incriminating information suggesting a long term career of abuse, which was not immediately apparent to me or any of the previous blocking admins.
Funny, I thought that was standard process for all blocks. Should it not be?
Steve
On 2/8/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/7/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The usual procedure for a controversial block is to go through normal channels. A similar thing happens with speedy deletions---if I speedy-delete someone as non-notable and it gets undeleted by someone who claims otherwise, it's not appropriate to simply speedy-delete again without discussion.
Rubbish like this should be killed as soon as possible. When "proper channels" hamper us, we should drop them. Administrators are expected to show commonsense and not dig in their heels inappropriately over the great god Process.
Waiting 7 days is not hampering.
-- geni
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Rubbish like this should be killed as soon as possible. When "proper channels" hamper us, we should drop them. Administrators are expected to show commonsense and not dig in their heels inappropriately over the great god Process.
I didn't mean to imply that any greatly-convoluted Process should be followed, just that a bit of discussion is better than wheel-warring (just like with edit-warring). If I blocked someone and another admin blocked them, I would definitely post a message on their talk page and not immediately reblock. An exception would be something time-critical like a vandalbot, but I don't imagine those get unblocked much anyway.
-Mark