[WikiEN-l] Re: Violation of Blocking Policy

Sat Sep 17 02:18:59 UTC 2005

Travis Mason-Bushman <travis at gpsports-eng.com> wrote:
>[[WP:NOT]] overly legalistic or bureaucratic.  That's what
>[[WP:IAR]] is for.  Nobody's going to "call to the carpet"
>Phroziac for issuing a perfectly respectable block against
>someone who is clearly gaming the system. You still haven't
>explained why you kept unilaterally removing information
>without ever discussing anything. As I said, the ultimate check
>on blocking is that there are more than 500 Wikipedia admins
>capable of blocking and unblocking. The fact that not one of
>them has done anything speaks volumes about your case,
>or lack thereof.
>-FCYTravis @ en.wikipedia

I wouldn't say that despondency speaks volumes about Mr. Brockmeyer's case.  I think it says more about degradation in our system.  Wikipedia was founded on the concept of the best article naturally rising to the top.  Now we see administrative power artificially influencing which article become permanent.  Mr. Brockmeyer is naturally confused because Wikipedia purports itself to be a society of equals, and he doesn't feel like an equal.  He played within the rules, just like the administrator that blocked him, but that administrator made up a new rule: Thou shalt not game the system.  Where is gaming the system on the "exhaustive list of the situations that warrant blocking?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocks_may_be_used
It's not there.  It's one that Phroziac made up.  How can he do that?!!  It's easy in an overgrown hierarchical system like this one.  The guy on the top simply cannot keep up with all of the complaints about his administrators, so he can no longer stem corruption.  It's why every hierarchical system in history has failed.

Societies of equals endure as long as they can keep anyone from gaining power over the system.  In my opinion, getting Wikipedia back to the concept of a society of equals must be our number one priority if we are to be considered a reliably and NPOV resource.  I realize that different people have different jobs, like sysop and administrator, but the tools available for those jobs must not be allowed to influence the articles.  When there is evidence of this, no matter how much we love Phroziac, we must take away his tools for the sustainability and reliability of this incredible project.  If he wants to run for administrator again in the future, I would love to entertain his application.

If the administrators can't monitor themselves, the only alternative I can see is of creating a secret ballot system for votes of no confidence available to all editors.

Zephram Stark
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________

---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. 