Hello,
I need to request assistance with an issue I am having with an administrator who, for whatever reason, feels the need to be abusive and problematic towards me. This is the first time I'm encountering something like this, the rest of the time people have been extremely helpful, especially when I didn't know how to fix something on the page for pixar's Cars film and they helped troubleshoot a problem I saw with one of the images going over text.
What is going on is at the [[National Council of La Raza]] page. I saw that there was an editing dispute there, editors disagreeing over the content of the page and the nature of the group. I've been reading the sources supplied by the various sides and it seems the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
However, user:Bastique saw fit to revert to a version he preferred, and then semiprotected the page. This seems to be at odds with the protection policy and admin policies which state that admin powers should not be used to win a content dispute.
I reverted the page, and left a note on the talk page, the admins noticeboard, and then Bastique's page as a friendly reminder of what policy states:
Page history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Council_of_La_Raza&ac... Edit on talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANational_Council_of_La_Raza... Edit made to Bastique: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABastique&diff=1148...
Bastique's response was to threaten me by saying "Don't revert me again": he also reverted the page back and fully protected it this time, to "win" his argument by preventing me from doing so. (see page history above).
He has since continued to attack me, violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. He directly called me a liar, and has been lying about the fact that he threatened me, as well as accusing me of "gaming the system" which I am not doing, and it seems obvious despite his claims to the contrary that he has some stake in the content of the page, otherwise he would not have reverted/locked it TWICE nor would he be spending this much time attacking me for pointing out that his doing so is against policy.
It has gotten so bad that I had to create a new section regarding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noti... section fully explains my problem as well as containing the additional difference links.
I do not know what else to do, this is scary to be treated in this manner by an administrator, so I am posting here in hopes that someone can help.
Please, if anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated. User: One Elephant Went Out to Play...
On 13/03/07, Sharon, Lois Bram oneelephant@gmail.com wrote:
Please, if anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated. User: One Elephant Went Out to Play...
Hint: having also created User:Two Elephants Went Out to Play... two minutes later gives a strong impression of bad faith on your part. Not to mention the edits themselves.
- d.
I thought that there was a confirmation email or something, so when it didn't arrive, I tried again.
I didn't do anything about the other account, didn't even log into it. I think it's blocked anyways.
And "the edits themselves"? I was trying to ensure that things were done fairly. Look at my contributions, I'm a good editor. Or I was, even though I'm probably not coming back after seeing this is how you administrators behave.
[[user:One Elephant went out to play...]]
On 3/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/03/07, Sharon, Lois Bram oneelephant@gmail.com wrote:
Please, if anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated. User: One Elephant Went Out to Play...
Hint: having also created User:Two Elephants Went Out to Play... two minutes later gives a strong impression of bad faith on your part. Not to mention the edits themselves.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Gerard wrote:
On 13/03/07, Sharon, Lois Bram oneelephant@gmail.com wrote:
Please, if anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated. User: One Elephant Went Out to Play...
Hint: having also created User:Two Elephants Went Out to Play... two minutes later gives a strong impression of bad faith on your part. Not to mention the edits themselves.
- d.
I'm troubled by the course of the conversation that took place about this on WP:ANI. At least two people were asserting that one should not revert Danny because he's a foundation employee, or Kat Walsh, because of board membership.
There have been many, many assertions of late that we on Wikipedia do not (should not) give credit to credentials, but to the content of contributions. So it's disturbing to see these arguments used. Using these sorts of arguments does Wikipedia no favors, and contributes to the notion that there is a cabal that one should not cross lest one suffer the penalty.
Note that I have no comment (and have developed no opinion) on the content of the contributions of any of the parties involved in the original dispute.
-Rich Holton
Mr. Holton,
when I started out, I thought that I had to get a confirmation email for my account, because so many places do that. When I figured out how to get in, I didn't need the second one, so I let it sit. Feel free to delete the second account, I was just confused about the signup process because I had never used it.
As far as the policies, I took the time to read them once I finally got in. I may have missed the WP:OFFICE policy, but it does not say which accounts are listed. The mere name of "Danny" did not mean anything to me. Nor did it get listed with anything pointing to the WP:OFFICE policy to show me if that was the case. I still really think it isn't the case.
Nor did I revert Danny at all. Nor does any policy specifically give a list of editors that it is a "bad idea" to revert. I did revert user:Evrik, but that was because he was edit warring, and I made a note on the talk page that edit warring was bad and things should have been discussed first.
The organization that the page covers is controversial, but that wasn't why I did what I did. I didn't even know about the page when Danny made his revert, nor when Mindspillage protected it. Apparently the protection expired, because someone named DumbBOT removed the tag later, and someone else reverted it yet again. I did what I did because policy says edit warring is bad and using admin powers to win a dispute is worse.
I still don't have a preferred version, I think the truth is somewhere between the two versions, but it's obvious that there's not going to be movement when Bastique is using his powers to control the page like that.
But what happened to me was ridiculous. I complained to the WP:ANI because Bastique was going nuts attacking and threatening me. Instead of help, what I got was more attacks, and Bastique apparently started going around back channels trying to "prove" I'm someone I'm not, and what am I supposed to do about that? The behavior of Bastique has shown me that there really is some group on here that if you cross them, no matter how well intentioned you are, they will destroy you just out of spite.
Merzbow has asked me to return. "MiddleEastern", a user with a big problem axe to grind who's been leaving rants about "Zionists", says I should stay gone for "censoring."
And what do I get from you people? I get threats from Bastique and Jersey Devil. I get attacked out of nowhere by someone called slimvirgin, and I have no idea what his/her major malfunction is, he/she seems obsessed with finding whoever it is he/she's accusing me of being everywhere from looking back on his/her conversations and all the stuff he/she provides.
I've been accused of being someone I'm not for "turning up" on [[Allegations of Israeli Apartheidhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_Apartheid]], the same article that is listed two spots down from my original complaint on WP:ANI, and I only commented on that because I saw the report and MiddleEastern was just being a jerk.
If there isn't a cabal, if there isn't some group someone "should not cross lest one suffer the penalty", then there sure as heck is SOMETHING like that going on, because there's no way in anything resembling a fair system that someone brings a minor concern and it turns into something like this where bringing an honest complaint gets you attacked over and over again.
[[user:One Elephant went out to play...]]
On 3/14/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 13/03/07, Sharon, Lois Bram oneelephant@gmail.com wrote:
Please, if anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated. User: One Elephant Went Out to Play...
Hint: having also created User:Two Elephants Went Out to Play... two minutes later gives a strong impression of bad faith on your part. Not to mention the edits themselves.
- d.
I'm troubled by the course of the conversation that took place about this on WP:ANI. At least two people were asserting that one should not revert Danny because he's a foundation employee, or Kat Walsh, because of board membership.
There have been many, many assertions of late that we on Wikipedia do not (should not) give credit to credentials, but to the content of contributions. So it's disturbing to see these arguments used. Using these sorts of arguments does Wikipedia no favors, and contributes to the notion that there is a cabal that one should not cross lest one suffer the penalty.
Note that I have no comment (and have developed no opinion) on the content of the contributions of any of the parties involved in the original dispute.
-Rich Holton
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com writes:
I'm troubled by the course of the conversation that took place
about
this on WP:ANI. At least two people were asserting that one
should not
revert Danny because he's a foundation employee, or Kat Walsh,
because
of board membership.
...
This should surprise no-one. The last person I remember reverting Danny's work was de-adminned and indefinitely banned.
-Rich Holton
On 3/14/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com writes:
I'm troubled by the course of the conversation that took place
about
this on WP:ANI. At least two people were asserting that one
should not
revert Danny because he's a foundation employee, or Kat Walsh,
because
of board membership.
...
This should surprise no-one. The last person I remember reverting Danny's work was de-adminned and indefinitely banned.
-Rich Holton
-- Gwern Inquiring minds want to know.
Are they really that bad?
This is really scary, I didn't think Wikipedia was like that at all. It seems like I'm very correct to just quit if that is how you act!
On 3/14/07, Sharon, Lois Bram oneelephant@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/14/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com writes:
I'm troubled by the course of the conversation that took place
about
this on WP:ANI. At least two people were asserting that one
should not
revert Danny because he's a foundation employee, or Kat Walsh,
because
of board membership.
...
This should surprise no-one. The last person I remember reverting Danny's work was de-adminned and indefinitely banned.
-Rich Holton
-- Gwern Inquiring minds want to know.
Are they really that bad?
This is really scary, I didn't think Wikipedia was like that at all. It seems like I'm very correct to just quit if that is how you act!
No, it was a misunderstanding/overreaction, and Erik is a board member now.
On 14/03/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com writes:
this on WP:ANI. At least two people were asserting that one
should not
revert Danny because he's a foundation employee, or Kat Walsh,
because
of board membership.
...
This should surprise no-one. The last person I remember reverting Danny's work was de-adminned and indefinitely banned.
Yes, but Erik recovered quite well from it, I think ;-)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 14/03/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com writes:
this on WP:ANI. At least two people were asserting that one
should not
revert Danny because he's a foundation employee, or Kat Walsh,
because
of board membership.
...
This should surprise no-one. The last person I remember reverting Danny's work was de-adminned and indefinitely banned.
Yes, but Erik recovered quite well from it, I think ;-)
- d.
Two points:
1. There is a substantial difference between someone like Erik (who knew who Danny was and what his role was) reverting Danny and some random user reverting Danny, who for all intents and purposes appears to be just another random user.
2. I thought part of the aftermath of the whole Erik/Danny thing was to make insist that Danny make it clear when he is performing an Office action versus just editing like anyone else. Am I misinformed?
I am truly puzzled that there is no further reaction to the issue that I brought up with my earlier post. Have we really come to the point where where have a de-facto class of editors who are un-revertable, where reverting them is seen to be an offense, regardless of the merits of the case?
-Rich
On 14/03/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
- I thought part of the aftermath of the whole Erik/Danny thing was to
make insist that Danny make it clear when he is performing an Office action versus just editing like anyone else. Am I misinformed?
Yep.
I am truly puzzled that there is no further reaction to the issue that I brought up with my earlier post. Have we really come to the point where where have a de-facto class of editors who are un-revertable, where reverting them is seen to be an offense, regardless of the merits of the case?
I suspect it's overlearning from those with a compulsion to Taylorise all possible judgement away.
- d.
On 3/15/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I am truly puzzled that there is no further reaction to the issue that I brought up with my earlier post. Have we really come to the point where where have a de-facto class of editors who are un-revertable, where reverting them is seen to be an offense, regardless of the merits of the case?
Worst case scenario: We have a class of editors who are un-revertable, consisting of Jimbo and Danny and no one else. This is not a very bad case - we can trust them not to make harmful edits. And it's not even the case. So let's drop it.
Steve
On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/15/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I am truly puzzled that there is no further reaction to the issue that I brought up with my earlier post. Have we really come to the point where where have a de-facto class of editors who are un-revertable, where reverting them is seen to be an offense, regardless of the merits of the case?
Worst case scenario: We have a class of editors who are un-revertable, consisting of Jimbo and Danny and no one else.
Nope there are quite a few foundation bods who have a claim to this.
It's when some of the committee people started to try and claim that power that it got anoying.
On 3/20/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Nope there are quite a few foundation bods who have a claim to this.
It's when some of the committee people started to try and claim that power that it got anoying.
Oh? Hadn't heard of this. If it's a major issue, start a new thread and we'll examine it properly.
Steve
On 20/03/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/20/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Nope there are quite a few foundation bods who have a claim to this.
It's when some of the committee people started to try and claim that power that it got anoying.
Oh? Hadn't heard of this. If it's a major issue, start a new thread and we'll examine it properly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Blockiptext
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Blockiptext
As it was a) admin-facing internal infrastructure, b) he was opposed by several people, c) those people were (on the whole) right, and d) he was able to keep arguing with them and editing the page, I think generalising from this case to "OMG Foundation cabal has unrevertable editorial control" is a little disingenious.
On 3/19/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Nope there are quite a few foundation bods who have a claim to this.
It's when some of the committee people started to try and claim that power that it got anoying.
Are you referring here to the sitenotice?
-Matt
On 3/20/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Are you referring here to the sitenotice?
No.
An old argument over [[MediaWiki:Blockiptext]]. It doesn't matter any more.
Just wanting to clariffy it is more than Jimbo and Danny.
At the present time the accepted convention appears to be:
Board members Foundation employees and in certian areas developers.