[Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] One week later and I am still blocked, nobody is doing a fucking thing

Mon Feb 19 07:12:51 UTC 2007

Andre Engels schreef:
> 2007/2/19, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
>   
>> The notion of the sysops having too much power, is always seen from the
>> outside. From the inside you will notice that the more power you seem to
>> have the more careful you have to be when you wield it.
>>     
>
>
> I've been on the inside, and I indeed found I had to be very careful. Very
> careful to not do something to upset other sysops, that is. If I had not
> interfered with the actions of other sysops, I would not have been in
> problems.
>   
Interfering with other sysops did not get you in problems to the extend 
that you had to give up being a sysop. It was your choice to give up 
your sysopship. Were you to stand again for sysop, chances are that you 
would be voted in again. I would vote in favour. Being careful not to 
upset other people IS the name of the game.
> One great strategy
>   
>> with people who complain is to make them part of the "establishment", this
>> allows them to do "better". This is when the people still on the outside
>> start to say that "power corrupts ...". The Dutch Wikipedia has on
>> occasion
>> added large groups of people to the rank of admin to prove that there is
>> no
>> such thing as a cabal. With hind sight is it obvious that this does not
>> work.
>>     
>
>
> By adding more people to sysophood, the only effect is that you draw more
> and more of the fighting behind the closed doors of sysophood, which
> actually makes it easier, not more difficult, to ignore the voices of
> non-sysops on the matter. Also, you increase the likelihood of having rogue
> admins, and lessen the chances of them losing their sysophood.
>   
Rogue admins can be de-sysoped. They can even be banned. This is what 
happened to Waerth.
> With the removal of the possibility of the use of proxies, it becomes more
>   
>> difficult to do nefarious deeds like sock puppetry. This is in and of
>> itself
>> a good thing. It will hopefully calm down our community.
>>     
>
>
> Unlikely if one of the things that the community is getting wild about is
> the blind blocking of proxies. "Just let me do what I want, and everything
> will be fine" is not the way to alleviate the worries of people who think
> you have too much power.
>   
How come that you assume that proxies are blocked blindly; have you 
spoken about this with Ronald ? Read what he wrote on the mailing list, 
it is reasoned and it sounds that he is willing to arguments to refine 
his ways. He presented on this subject on multiple occasions, last 
Saturday in Nijmegen at the "Moderator workshop". He is approachable.
> Where you say assume good faith, you definitely will find in the Dutch
>   
>> community that people assume that with no indications to the contrary the
>> other party means well. There are however people who in word and deed
>> demonstrate that there are indications that they do not mean well. When
>> abuse has to be accepted because someone is "angry" and when this right of
>> being angry is reserved to them then this is to much to ask from me and
>> from
>> many others.
>>     
>
>
> Apparently using an anonymous proxy is demonstrating that there are
> indications that you do not mean well? We're not just talking about assuming
> good faith in Waerth here. We're talking about the good faith we assume of
> the random new user coming to Wikipedia. Apparently when that user comes
> through an anonymous proxy all good faith we might have, has already been
> lost.
>   
Using proxies is certainly a red flag raised. It does however not 
automatically mean that bad faith is certain. It is however reasonable 
depending on the type of proxy to have a different strategy to deal with 
this. It is a right to edit anonymously however this right is not absolute.
> Where Andre says that his opinion is irrelevant because he is no sysop, I do
>   
>> disagree strongly. I know that many people will, and do listen when he
>> makes
>> his point. I know that I do.. then again I am no nl.wikipedia sysop
>> either.
>> I do know that I have my contacts in the Dutch community and I may make a
>> point and this occasionally does have its consequences.
>>     
>
>
> How? RonaldB does his blocks, and even if I do convince people, he'll just
> go on with the support of that part of the population I did not convince.
> It's either convincing him, or having no effect at all.
>   
Like me, you do convince people. However, like me you do not convince 
people all the time. When a particular policy that you do not like is 
supported by a substantial group of the community, you really have to 
convince and you may fail at that. That is how the cookie crumbles.
>
> In the past Waerth has threatened to do things that were incompatible with
>   
>> the role that he played in the WMF. As a consequence he is no longer a
>> steward nor is he a sysop. This time he explicitly informed us that all
>> his
>> edits are copyright violations in the assumption that we will believe him
>> and delete all he has ever done. This deletion of his work is something he
>> informed the Dutch community that he wanted before. So yes, the relations
>> are very much disturbed. Waerth made his bed, he can lie in it. It is his
>> choice to be abusive. It is his choice to move away from the Dutch wiki
>> community.
>>     
>
>
> There's more people involved here than just Waerth. He's just one of a
> series of people who feel wronged. Just look at the arbitration committee
> that is now being formed. There are people who are voting against all sysops
> in that election, because otherwise there would be too much concentration of
> power. If they did not think that being a sysop would entail having power,
> they would not vote so. I personally do agree with them that sysops are
> having quite a bit of power, though they should not have, although I don't
> agree that it should have any bearings on their capacity to serve in the
> committee. So I guess it's my choice to move away from the Dutch community
> too?
When Waerth feels wronged, when anyone feels wronged, it does not mean 
that he/she has a right to become obnoxious, abusive. It does not give 
him/her a right to threaten people or threaten the system. When there 
are people who vote against sysops on principle, they may but they are 
in my opinion stupid. People have a right to be stupid, they have a 
right to be wrong. They should not be surprised when they are then 
ignored because this behaviour is explicit "assume bad faith".

Yes, it is your choice to do whatever. I value you as a person, I hope 
you will do the right thing. That is why I take ample time to reply.

Thanks,
     GerardM