Yet another citation of the WP:IAR non-policy as being
a policy-like basis for a policy-covered decision.
Wonderful.
SV
"This is not 'Nam, Smokey. This is bowling. There are
rules."
--- Phroziac <phroziac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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?"
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
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around