As you can see, I have not paid a lot of attention to this thread.
"Making up rules" is allowable under [[WP:IAR]]. Remember, I only
blocked one person for this, I have not unilaterally started forcing
any "made up rules" on everyone. I also have absolutely no interest in
the article I blocked him for reverting, and I don't even remember
what it was. Sure, I'd like to see it be featured on the main page,
but I'm not interested in directly contributing to it.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's a few things in the blocking policy and
3rr policy that say things such as, "you are not entitled to three
reverts per day", and that you can be blocked for "excessive"
reversions. 3RR is not a hard limit, and you can even break it and not
get blocked at all, depending on what the admin who responds to the
situation feels would be best. We don't even have an exhaustive list
of everything that can be blocked for.
Desysopping me over one possible policy breach would be kinda silly.
Nobody has ever been desysopped for that. The amount of admins who
have ever lost their privileges can be counted on one human hand. Also
note that no admin that I am aware of UN blocked Brian...we have like
600 of them.
Oh, and don't forget that the block has expired quite a while ago, and
if for some technical reason it lasted longer then exactly 24 hours,
we're sorry. And i'm sorry if the term "gaming the system" has
offended anyone here. Maybe that term was too harsh for the situation.
I could make a huge rant about this, but I'm sure you would rather not read it.
On 9/17/05, Zephram Stark <zephramstark(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Travis Mason-Bushman <travis(a)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_u…
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(a)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.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l