[WikiEN-l] Because they can: why dictators, totalitarians, and abusive admins do what they do

[George Herbert]

On 4/10/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/10/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/10/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > George, you're a regular laugh a minute.
> >
> > Always nice to keep things properly in perspective.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > > Why would I believe unblock-en-l is any different? Why should anyone?
> The
> > > statistics show that three users answer more than 90% of the unblock
> > > requests on-wiki. THREE users, and they uniformly deny them all. Why
> would I
> > > believe that a secretive email list where nobody can see in, is any
> > > different? I don't see a reason why.
> >
> > "The statistics" is an interesting claim - no statistics are in
> > evidence, nor am I aware of anyone having generated any.
>
> I was speaking of the statistics of  the {{unblock}} template, though
> there's a fair amount of abuse of that too - especially abusive
> administrators who block someone  and then lock their talk page or revert
> their attempt to place the {{unblock}} template before another user sees it.

There's no connection between {{unblock}} and unblock-en-L.  They're
parallel mechanisms which can do the same thing.

> > In some cases we find admins have made mistakes, or done something
> > abusive, in which case we go talk to the admin.  On rare occation an
> > unblock-en-L member has just unblocked, without talking to the
> > blocking admin first, but we operate under the principle that it's
> > better to talk first and avoid wheel warring over blocks.
>
>  Funny, that - that's precisely the policy that's made appealing to "another
> administrator" a complete joke. You continually state that users have the
> "right" to appeal to any other administrator, but the policies as put in
> place say otherwise: an administrator is required to "talk" with the abusing
> administrator, who merely has to keep their mouth shut in order to stonewall
> action.

No, if we believe there's been a major error made, and the blocking
admin isn't reasonably responsive, people will unblock and notify the
blocking admin.  It doesn't happen often, but it doesn't have to
happen often.  Admins usually respond.  One of the advantages of
unblock-en-L is that we have a bunch of admins there who are willing
to push the issue politely; if I find something I ask the blocking
admin to reconsider, and they don't, Luna or Yamla or Clowns can often
show up and chime in on the blocking admin's talk page (or any of many
others, just a few off the top of my head).

Deferring to the blocking admin doesn't mean ignoring the situation if
they don't respond or are unreasonable.

> > >> "anyone who thinks we need more oversight is welcome to propose
> > more oversight."
> > >
> > > Bullshit. I'd have been happy to do so, but your corrupt freaks decided
> that
> > > anyone who dissents, anyone who gets too close to the truth about their
> corruption,
> > > has to be banned before those with power get exposed.
> >
> > Unblock-en-L has very little power to be corrupt with.  If we stood in
> > the way, blocking other mechanisms of block appeal, it might be
> > possible for us to cause problems.  But we don't.  Any blocked user
> > has 1300-odd admins they can appeal to directly via email;
> > unblock-en-l; posting the templates on their talk page; Arbcom; and
> > the Foundation in extremis.
>
> All of which are rubber stamps, more or less. And your claim that they can
> appeal to 1300-odd admins "directly via email" is doubly duplicitous, since
> the rules on "wheel warring" basically prohibit any administrator following
> up.

The rules on wheel warring most certainly don't prohibit any admin
from following up.  That's a ridiculous view of the situation.  Wheel
warring just means don't *keep* doing something which gets undone; go
talk about it.    We take situations to AN/I all the time, asking for
independent review and comment.  The unblock-en-l admins and other
volunteers are really good at doing per-policy notification, advocacy,
and escalation.  We don't have to do it very often, but we do it.

> > Unblock-en-L has not been granted any special power by the Foundation,
> > Arbcom, or community.  We're just there to help clear things up for
> > people, and if they need help, we can provide it.  There's no special
> > power in the list, or list members.  The Foundation or Arbcom could
> > come stomp on us tomorrow if they felt we were abusive, or the wrong
> > mechanism or any such.
>
> And why would they stomp on a rubber stamp?
> > I don't like being rude, but really.  Put up or shut up.
>
> I don't like being rude, but really, you're just being a prick now. You've
> seen the behavior that leads me to distrust the claims you're making, and
> you're just going on like this now?

I believe a lot of people have grounds for complaints about the
process.  But that's not the same as being paranoid about the whole of
WP infrastructure being out to get you.

> >   We're open
> > to oversight and review.
>
> I'll believe it when I see it. The behavior I've seen, not just in relation
> to unblock-en-l but in relation to wikien-l and wikipedia in general, shows
> that administrators think "oversight" is another tool for abusing people and
> maintaining POV-clique control of the article space.
>
> >   It's possible that there's no overlap
> > between the set of people you'd trust to propose to review
> >
> > Unblock-en-L and the set of people who we'd trust with people's
> > privacy enough to do the oversight role.
>
> It's possible. I don't know yet. See below.
> > If that turns out to be true
> > then we have a mutual problem.
>
> There are plenty of problems with Wikipedia, generally. If this was a mutual
> problem, at least you'd be admitting it was a problem, which would likely be
> a first.
>
> >   But you haven't made the effort to
> > attempt to nominate someone for a review or oversight role.
>
> Because any nomination, as long as the abuse by David Gerard hangs over all
> this, is rather futile now isn't it?  I mean, seriously. I propose one.
> Someone else - likely David or one of his cronies - says absolutely not,
> because the person I nominate now has a connection to me. The abuse and
> flaming by David and his corrupt cronies will go on, and before you know it,
> the whole thing's torpedoed.

I don't think David's on unblock-en-L and I don't think anyone but
Jimbo or the Board would get veto power over people joining it.

> Ah, what the hell. The worst you can do is make more enemies for your
> corrupt selves.
>
> You mentioned Marc. I don't know him that well. I don't know if he's
> suitable or not. I'd prefer to see Saintonge, because he at least APPEARS to
> be one of the few trustworthy wikipedians who's had any connection to this
> list - but I note even he went silent, probably again at the hands of Gerard
> and his minions. So I really can't say for certain.

That's not the right spelling for his account name, and I'm not
recalling the correct one... I just went wandering through a bunch of
stuff and couldn't get it, either.