[WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on

Tue May 31 05:56:54 UTC 2005

Hear hear! A great message, there must be at least a dozen quotable
lines to immortalize on policy pages somewhere.

Mr. Mouse's claim that he has to be anonymous in order not to be
hounded off the list is just not borne out by the archives - we've
had many spirited debates among reasonable people, even said things
we regretted later and apologized for them, and nobody got banned
from anywhere for it.

Stan

Phil Sandifer wrote:

> Oh for god's sake.
>
> The technical evidence against Cranston is a slam dunk. He's a troll.  
> He's a vicious, sockpuppeting troll who uses sockpuppets to try to  
> generate fake consensus. He's the sort of user we routinely shoot on  
> sight, and it's a good thing we do, because we have too damn many of  
> them, and every time one manages to generate the headache that this  
> has become, good users get driven off. Kudos to every admin who  
> blocked him, everyone who called for his removal from this list, and  
> everybody who tried to shut this mess down.
>
> As for those who want to plead for more leniency and say that people  
> were dismissive of him, wake up. This project is huge. Huge projects  
> attract idiocy. They attract idiocy of the page vandal sort, and  
> idiocy of the far more insidious sort. People who come to the project  
> for their own ego, people who come to the project to advance their  
> own agendas, and people who want to cause the project harm and who  
> are actually good at doing it.
>
> Expansion kills online communities. Fundamentally, eternal growth is  
> a perpetual strain. We understand this from a technical perspective,  
> but we don't understand it socially. We are continually wasting our  
> breath and energy debating things that need to be slam dunks. If  
> every Cranston Snerd gets this much debate - hell, if one Cranston  
> Snerd out of 10 gets this much debate, it's a disaster. We're only  
> going to get more Cranston Snerds. Just like we'll get more Lirs,  
> more  CheeseDreams, more Alberunis, and more of every other sort of  
> bad user. We cannot keep them from coming in. All we can do is get  
> very, very good at shooting them as soon as we see them. This means  
> being unrelenting. This means being swift and figuring out the story  
> later. And this means that people who immediately assume there's some  
> conspiracy against them instead of just sending a polite note to the  
> effect of, "I'm sorry, I seem to have done something wrong and gotten  
> blocked, do you mind telling me what it is so I can avoid it" get run  
> off. You know what? Fine. We've got lots of people. We can afford to  
> accidentally run some off.
>
> This doesn't mean we don't welcome new users. It doesn't mean we  
> treat everybody with suspicion. But it means that we learn to call a  
> spade a spade, and we stop feeling bad about coming down like a ton  
> of bricks on people who are disrupting the project. We do not need to  
> care why. We need to be willing to make social decisions with the  
> same dispassionate "What will make this situation better" eye that we  
> handle our articles with. If a user is breaking articles and making  
> it so people can't edit, we shoot them.
>
> That's it. That's all that's going to work. If we do not learn to  
> come down on Cranstons with fury and speed, over time, this community  
> will implode. One need only look at nearly every other Internet  
> community to figure that one out.
>
> Good job David. Good job SlimVirgin.
>
> -Snowspinner
>
> On May 30, 2005, at 10:51 PM, A Nony Mouse wrote:
>
>> I have been watching the last week's events with dismay. I have  been 
>> trying to compose this email for two hours, but every time I  get 
>> close, something else comes up.
>>
>> I have decided to make this anonymous. I do not know how some of  you 
>> would react and I do not wish to take any chance that I would  be 
>> harassed for this.
>>
>> There are two cases that bother me. Jack Lynch aka Sam Spade and  
>> Cranston Snord aka Enviroknot. Both of these cases scare me because  
>> of the precedent that they have set.
>>
>> In the case of Jack, there was a question of a block war.  
>> Administrators were fighting over what to do with him. This is not  a 
>> good thing for Wikipedia editors no matter who they are. It  
>> indicates that the user is less of a concern than something between  
>> the two Administrators.
>>
>> It is the case of Cranston Snord aka Enviroknot that worries me  
>> more. This is the case that has made me take the drastic step of  
>> sending an email to the list anonymously. I had originally been  
>> trying to type up a response to Cranston's concerns about being  
>> blocked. I believe that SlimVirgin violated policy by doing so.  
>> Unfortunately for me, such an email would likely now be a day late  
>> and a dollar short.
>>
>> Cranston was a disruption to the list, but much of that disruption  
>> was caused by other people on this list treating him with  incredible 
>> disrespect. I was taken aback by his accusations against  
>> administrators but having looked at the cases in hand I believe  that 
>> he has a point.
>>
>> There were emails on this list asking whether anyone was taking him  
>> seriously. This is the height of arrogance, and it is something  that 
>> frightens me. Administrators should never be acting as if  ordinary 
>> editors do not matter.
>>
>> As for his complaints about being blocked, the dismissiveness on  
>> this board hurt me. No matter who it is making a complaint, we have  
>> a duty to investigate it. We are listed as the last resort for  users 
>> who have been wronged. I took the time to investigate  SlimVirgin's 
>> blocking of Enviroknot, and I believe that it is not  valid.
>>
>> By the time I got to the discussion, it was a good series of emails  
>> long, and despite the number of list members who had posted, none  
>> save SlimVirgin had bothered to address Enviroknot's concerns on  the 
>> block in any way. SlimVirgin herself made a bad judgement call.  An 
>> edit made in good faith should never be considered a reversion,  even 
>> if it contains some content that is included in a later  reversion.
>>
>> Instead of acknowledging this fact, the list members were  
>> universally dismissive of Enviroknot from the first email. One went  
>> so far as to demand that the term "rogue admin" not be used,  without 
>> addressing the reasons that it had been brought up in  multiple cases 
>> recently.
>>
>> We have a problem with administrators exceeding their authority on  
>> Wikipedia. We have a problem with administrators not applying  policy 
>> correctly. And we have a problem with arrogance on these  lists, with 
>> administrators believing that they are somehow better  than others.
>>
>> With the increased power of administrator access comes a  
>> responsibility to use it fairly and adhere to the established  
>> procedures and policies. The actions of an Administrator should  
>> themselves be NPOV. We have stated policy that when a user is found  
>> to be violating policy, if they return and do not break policy,  
>> their previous transgressions should not be held against them.
>>
>> There are a number of administrators who are failing in that  
>> responsibility, and they are present on this list. One of them,  
>> rather than addressing Enviroknot's concerns in a calm tone and  
>> actually going over policy, chose to kickban Enviroknot entirely.
>>
>> I have never until today been ashamed to be a part of Wikipedia,  but 
>> there it is. Take it as you will.
>>
>> A.Nony.Mouse, for the purpose of this conversation.
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Create the ultimate online companion - meet the Meegos! http:// 
>> meegos.msn.ie
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>