http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...thy&action=edit
http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title...thy&action=edit
Those are the places to do it ;-)
Full Version: Angela afd: Giano 2, Durova 0
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Thu 6th December 2007, 8:48am) 
Erases unhappy comment from her talk pages
QUOTE
Durova has been getting a lot of messages, so we'd like to ask everyone to please check the village pump first, and maybe discuss and ask questions there, otherwise Durova's talk page would fill up in no time, and she wouldn't be able to do much anymore. --[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] ([[User talk:Kim Bruning|talk]]) 05:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
QUOTE
:How about releasing the archive of the mailing list, with names and UIDs scrubbed, so the average, non-"elite" Wikipedians can see what out overlords have been planning in secret? Actually this is already in progress... [[User:Sukiari|Sukiari]] ([[User talk:Sukiari|talk]]) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand she erases it.
QUOTE
:How about releasing the archive of the mailing list, with names and UIDs scrubbed, so the average, non-"elite" Wikipedians can see what out overlords have been planning in secret? Actually this is already in progress... [[User:Sukiari|Sukiari]] ([[User talk:Sukiari|talk]]) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Let the bastards eat th'er own dog food.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 7th December 2007, 8:52am)
Has anyone coined or defined Wikiopathy yet?
Not that I know of. You thought of it; you do it.
QUOTE(Cedric @ Sat 8th December 2007, 2:01pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 7th December 2007, 8:52am)
Has anyone coined or defined Wikiopathy yet?
Not that I know of. You thought of it; you do it. Wikiopathy. n. Pathological disturbance arising from or relating to excessive engagement with Wikipedia's entrenched dominance hierarchies.
NEWSFLASH: "HARVARD THESIS" INSPIRED DUROVA's ANGELA AFD
Uncomplimentary comments on Durova Talk Page by Cluduc (who quit shortly thereafter) This is actually about the Angela AFD, but somehow seems appropriate here. Durova told him to "refactor his edit" which opposed the AFD.
QUOTEMy comments
... are rather strong, but so is the strong whiff of "courteous" relationships going on in this community. My communications with all other members are aboveboard, for all to see. Any other arrangement is, by my definition, corruption of the principles of openness which Wikipedia once stood for. So no thank you, I do not care to "refactor" my comments, nor do I wish to hide them on a secret mailing list. Cleduc (talk)
Well, I apologize for having offended you. I confirmed this biography subject's wishes by the same means as I confirmed every other BLP article I nominated for deletion. Although I respect the impulse to see these requests posted directly onsite, confirming their authenticity would be problematic that way. Do you have a better suggestion for how to go about it, if this isn't sufficiently above board? DurovaCharge! 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You have not offended me, so no apology is necessary on that account. Your recent actions damaged this project, for which you have already apologized. This AFD draws disturbing parallels with the ongoing controversy, particularly as it involves the now-ominous word "courtesy" and a Foundation insider. The timing of this action could not have been worse: you presently have poor credibility with the community at large. In the best case, this AFD demonstrates very poor judgment on your part. Cleduc (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The previous history of nominating two of Wikipedia's most prominent critics' biographies on the same basis ought to dispel that supposition. Our policy is WP:AGF. I hope everyone weighs the nomination on its own merits, and in light of the precedents cited, without reference to unrelated events. WP:AFD is supposed to be a referendum on the article, not the nominator. DurovaCharge! 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand AGF quite well, thank you, along with the line in red – so if I were you, I wouldn't be dropping that particular card right about now. In any case, thanks for the memories. Cleduc (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well said, and I apologize for any impropriety. DurovaCharge! 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
If it makes any difference to clarify, this nomination was an outgrowth of a discussion I've been having with a Harvard student who's writing a thesis on Wikipedia. For about six weeks we've been in periodic contact. This site's deletion dynamics play a role in her study and she recently mentioned the different outcomes of some similar biography nominations. I had nominated some of the other pages, but never this one. The timing was awkward, I agree, but the previous nominations set such a clear precedent for objectivity that I doubted anyone would contstrue mischief. I haven't nominated anything on that student's behalf, really, (this was my idea) and it's doubtful the result of this would even happen in time for the thesis deadline.(babble babble babble babble droooool) I won't deny we were curious. Another nomination seemed justifiable after half a year and the other precedents. Angela Beesley agreed to try it. DurovaCharge!
(oh! HARVARD you said! BECAUSE THAT MEANS EVERYTHING YOU DO IS OK - (remember Harvard was the reason Durova gave for Brandt's bio being undeleted)
We didn't know that this was related to the HARVARD thesis request. It all ties together! The nutjob Harvard thesis Durova request to undelete Brandt, the Angela AFD, and the chocolate cookies she backed yesterday)
Unless I'm mistaken, the focus of the Harvard research is the dynamics of dominance hierarchies, of which Wikipedia is a premier example.
The irony is that Durova's bumbled intervention here is a more salient example of a dysfunctional dominance hierarchy in action than the one the student was originally documenting.
The irony is that Durova's bumbled intervention here is a more salient example of a dysfunctional dominance hierarchy in action than the one the student was originally documenting.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 9th December 2007, 9:18am)
Durova's bumbled intervention here is a more salient example of a dysfunctional dominance hierarchy in action than the one the student was originally documenting.
Not really. Durova's intervention is the grappling of a desperate despot who's been kicked off her throne and is frantically grasping onto the last shards of her old identity. Which is already long gone.
She WAS the most salient example of a dysfunctional dominance hierarchy. And the fact that Durova's been intervening with the student is one of those Wikipedia "not sure whether to laugh or cry" moments.
Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".
This is a triumphant day for us at Wikipedia Review. Please -- let us draft a short paragraph that emphatically underlines how one of Wikipedia's guiding lights does not herself even trust the system to credibly document her biography. Then we need to include that paragraph in any of our communications on blog comments, letters to editors, etc.
Greg
P.S. I wonder if they're going to clean up all the messy links to "Angela Beesley" elsewhere in the encyclopedia?
This is a triumphant day for us at Wikipedia Review. Please -- let us draft a short paragraph that emphatically underlines how one of Wikipedia's guiding lights does not herself even trust the system to credibly document her biography. Then we need to include that paragraph in any of our communications on blog comments, letters to editors, etc.
Greg
P.S. I wonder if they're going to clean up all the messy links to "Angela Beesley" elsewhere in the encyclopedia?
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 9th December 2007, 5:14pm)
Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".
This is a triumphant day for us at Wikipedia Review. Please -- let us draft a short paragraph that emphatically underlines how one of Wikipedia's guiding lights does not herself even trust the system to credibly document her biography. Then we need to include that paragraph in any of our communications on blog comments, letters to editors, etc.
Greg
P.S. I wonder if they're going to clean up all the messy links to "Angela Beesley" elsewhere in the encyclopedia?
Is this getting no feedback from the WR faithful because it represents a big win-win for the Review, but we don't want the Wikipediots to figure that out?
That's what I'm going to tell myself.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 9th December 2007, 8:48pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 9th December 2007, 5:14pm)
Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".
This is a triumphant day for us at Wikipedia Review. Please -- let us draft a short paragraph that emphatically underlines how one of Wikipedia's guiding lights does not herself even trust the system to credibly document her biography. Then we need to include that paragraph in any of our communications on blog comments, letters to editors, etc.
Greg
P.S. I wonder if they're going to clean up all the messy links to "Angela Beesley" elsewhere in the encyclopedia?
Is this getting no feedback from the WR faithful because it represents a big win-win for the Review, but we don't want the Wikipediots to figure that out?
That's what I'm going to tell myself.
A blog entry probably would be quite good here to demonstrate how much trust in Wikipedia has declined. Perhaps add in the quote where she says something to the effect of "I doubt anyone will know what a wiki is in 50 years."
I don't even know what an Angela Beesley is, and now there's no unreliable way to find out.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 10th December 2007, 12:13pm)
I don't even know what an Angela Beesley is, and now there's no unreliable way to find out.
Except this.
I expect there'll be an article on Wikinfo or somewhere if there isn't already. And of course her user page is still a good source of info!
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 9th December 2007, 4:14pm)
Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".
Some fairly respected folks are asking for Mercury's recall on his talk page. His response? First come up with some ridiculous recall conditions, then threaten to pull a Ryulong and simply remove himself from the recall category.
The sins of the project have an annoying habit of visiting themselves upon Mercury. Now he finds himself battling systemic unfairness and the short-circuiting of due process.
I can empathize (even if ArbCom cannot).
I can empathize (even if ArbCom cannot).
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Mon 10th December 2007, 1:30pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 9th December 2007, 4:14pm)
Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".
Some fairly respected folks are asking for Mercury's recall on his talk page. His response? First come up with some ridiculous recall conditions, then threaten to pull a Ryulong and simply remove himself from the recall category.
What's the point of listing yourself for recall if you remove yourself from recall as soon as someone requests it? Only took three hours after the first request. Only minutes, after the requests started piling up.
Mercury is clearly afraid of losing the tools, and I feel bad for him because he clearly knows he's lost the faith of a good portion of the community.
QUOTE(Firsfron of Ronchester @ Mon 10th December 2007, 3:20pm)
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Mon 10th December 2007, 1:30pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 9th December 2007, 4:14pm)
Our favorite guy to withdraw in humiliation from ArbCom elections (Mercury) has deleted the Angela Beesley article from Wikipedia and Doc Glasgow re-directed to "Wikia".
Some fairly respected folks are asking for Mercury's recall on his talk page. His response? First come up with some ridiculous recall conditions, then threaten to pull a Ryulong and simply remove himself from the recall category.
What's the point of listing yourself for recall if you remove yourself from recall as soon as someone requests it? Only took three hours after the first request. Only minutes, after the requests started piling up.
Mercury is clearly afraid of losing the tools, and I feel bad for him because he clearly knows he's lost the faith of a good portion of the community.
Ah, looks like he didn't just threaten to remove himself from recall eligibility, he actually did it. Nothing like courage in the strength of your convictions. Did he promise to be available for recall in his RFA? Yes, he did - right in his opening statement. Now that's character for you.
QUOTE(jorge @ Mon 10th December 2007, 9:56am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 10th December 2007, 12:13pm)
I don't even know what an Angela Beesley is, and now there's no unreliable way to find out.
Except this.
Angela grew up in a slough?
She cleaned up well.
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Mon 10th December 2007, 9:58pm)
Ah, looks like he didn't just threaten to remove himself from recall eligibility, he actually did it. Nothing like courage in the strength of your convictions. Did he promise to be available for recall in his RFA? Yes, he did - right in his opening statement. Now that's character for you.
I don't see that the initial situation warranted recall, but withdrawing himself from the category probably does.
I hadn't heard of the WP:TROUT policy before. It's amazing how many policies there are.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 10th December 2007, 3:01pm)
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Mon 10th December 2007, 9:58pm)
Ah, looks like he didn't just threaten to remove himself from recall eligibility, he actually did it. Nothing like courage in the strength of your convictions. Did he promise to be available for recall in his RFA? Yes, he did - right in his opening statement. Now that's character for you.
I don't see that the initial situation warranted recall, but withdrawing himself from the category probably does.
Of course it does. In some cases it's questionable, but he likely recieved adminship only because he promised to be open to recall. And it's clear that in any situation where someone actually requested it, he would say "no, you're using this to gain an advantage against me!" Too bad that nobody seems to think blatant lies about recall are actionable.
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Mon 10th December 2007, 11:56pm)
Too bad that nobody seems to think blatant lies about recall are actionable.
Even framing it that way misses the point.
Recalling Gore's "no controlling legal authority", an administrative class that's quick to accuse regular editors of "wikilawyering" should they point out that they broke no rules to deserve a block here finds deep meaning in the fact that there's currently no mechanism for holding them to their word: therefore their word doesn't count.
Stepping back from the procedural debate, the fact is that he's making a liar of himself. Should Wikipedia be administered by liars?
I can't find any actionable rule that prohibits it.
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Mon 10th December 2007, 6:56pm)
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 10th December 2007, 3:01pm)
QUOTE(Bob Boy @ Mon 10th December 2007, 9:58pm)
Ah, looks like he didn't just threaten to remove himself from recall eligibility, he actually did it. Nothing like courage in the strength of your convictions. Did he promise to be available for recall in his RFA? Yes, he did - right in his opening statement. Now that's character for you.
I don't see that the initial situation warranted recall, but withdrawing himself from the category probably does.
Of course it does. In some cases it's questionable, but he likely recieved adminship only because he promised to be open to recall. And it's clear that in any situation where someone actually requested it, he would say "no, you're using this to gain an advantage against me!" Too bad that nobody seems to think blatant lies about recall are actionable.
Actionable?
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Mon 10th December 2007, 6:21pm)
Stepping back from the procedural debate, the fact is that he's making a liar of himself. Should Wikipedia be administered by liars?
Now that's a trick question!
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 10th December 2007, 6:48pm)
Actionable?
Hopefully they just mean "enforceable," i.e., within the context of the site's internal policies. I would certainly concur that the word "actionable" should be avoided when discussing how to apply Wikipedia rules to Wikipedia disputes.
Observable suffices.
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 10th December 2007, 6:59pm)
Hopefully they just mean "enforceable," i.e., within the context of the site's internal policies. I would certainly concur that the word "actionable" should be avoided when discussing how to apply Wikipedia rules to Wikipedia disputes.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 11th December 2007, 12:21am)
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Mon 10th December 2007, 11:56pm)
Too bad that nobody seems to think blatant lies about recall are actionable.
Even framing it that way misses the point.
Recalling Gore's "no controlling legal authority", an administrative class that's quick to accuse regular editors of "wikilawyering" should they point out that they broke no rules to deserve a block here finds deep meaning in the fact that there's currently no mechanism for holding them to their word: therefore their word doesn't count.
Stepping back from the procedural debate, the fact is that he's making a liar of himself. Should Wikipedia be administered by liars?
I can't find any actionable rule that prohibits it.
The context of recall has changed since I agreed to it, yes, I believe it has. It has been used to short circuit things. Unfortunate. It was a good tool, but in its current context, it is a very different category now then when I initially joined it.
...So I abandoned it.
O
QUOTE(Oracle @ Mon 10th December 2007, 9:42pm)
...lest you be recalled?
Whether you meant it that way or not, this gives the appearance of refusing to allow a recall vote that you think you'd lose.
QUOTE(Oracle @ Mon 10th December 2007, 8:42pm)
The context of recall has changed since I agreed to it, yes, I believe it has. It has been used to short circuit things. Unfortunate. It was a good tool, but in its current context, it is a very different category now then when I initially joined it.
Uhh, what Robster said...
But assuming we accept that statement at face value, I still don't see how the context has changed all that much... The whole point of being "open to recall" was that non-admins could get an admin desysopped if he/she "abused the tools," right? So has the definition of "abused the tools" changed?
I'll admit that you're being tarred with the Durova Brush™ here, and that may not be totally fair, but by defending her you've caused the non-admins to lose faith in your sense of fair play and good judgement. In that context, I'd say it's a perfectly appropriate use of the "recall" mechanism, such as it is.
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 11th December 2007, 3:15am)
QUOTE(Oracle @ Mon 10th December 2007, 8:42pm)
The context of recall has changed since I agreed to it, yes, I believe it has. It has been used to short circuit things. Unfortunate. It was a good tool, but in its current context, it is a very different category now then when I initially joined it.
Uhh, what Robster said...
But assuming we accept that statement at face value, I still don't see how the context has changed all that much... The whole point of being "open to recall" was that non-admins could get an admin desysopped if he/she "abused the tools," right? So has the definition of "abused the tools" changed?
I'll admit that you're being tarred with the Durova Brush™ here, and that may not be totally fair, but by defending her you've caused the non-admins to lose faith in your sense of fair play and good judgement. In that context, I'd say it's a perfectly appropriate use of the "recall" mechanism, such as it is.
I do not recall supporting Durova. I recall abhorring the release of emails. There are processes where we send emails, OTRS, and the local ArbComs. Now whether or not people support those processes, they are there. I challenge anyone to find a diff where I supported the block.
[[User:Mercury/OpenLetter]] explains things better.
O
QUOTE(Oracle @ Mon 10th December 2007, 9:23pm)
I do not recall supporting Durova. I recall abhorring the release of emails. There are processes where we send emails, OTRS, and the local ArbComs. Now whether or not people support those processes, they are there. I challenge anyone to find a diff where I supported the block.
I'd assume there isn't one - I just meant you were being tarred by the same brush because of your association with her, what with the RfA nom, the mentoring thing, the assumption (correct? incorrect?) that you were on the "investigations" list too, etc.
Should those things be enough to warrant a recall? Personally I wouldn't think so, but then again, I wouldn't have thought the Durova "sleuthing" mess would have blown up like it did. Let's face it, Durova has never been popular, and lots of people were probably looking for a chance to take her down a few pegs. When she resigned voluntarily, some of those people might have felt cheated somewhat, and not all of them are WR members. Remember, Wikipedia is all about getting revenge.
Beyond that, though, you've got to trust in the wisdom of the crowd, don't you? Live by the free encyclopedia, die by the free encyclopedia? Take a stand! If you're gonna go down, go down fighting! Man up!
QUOTE
[[User:Mercury/OpenLetter]] explains things better.
You misspelled the word "contributor"...
QUOTE(Oracle @ Mon 10th December 2007, 7:42pm)
The context of recall has changed since I agreed to it, yes, I believe it has. It has been used to short circuit things. Unfortunate. It was a good tool, but in its current context, it is a very different category now then when I initially joined it.
...So I abandoned it.
O
Please don't take this as an attack, Mercury. I really think you've been treated a bit unfairly (the ArbCom nomination and all, where everyone opposed you, springs to my mind). Being rejected by the entire community had to hurt.
You state above that recall has changed since you agreed to it. But you were still open to recall as of yesterday. The recall process didn't change between yesterday, when you stated you were open to recall and today, when you changed your mind about being open for recall. The only thing that changed was the number of people asking for your recall. Or was it just that you realized recall had changed since you agreed to it? Which part had changed, though?
The category has remained basically unchanged for months. And aside from Durova, no one else has been recalled in months. (link).
QUOTE(Firsfron of Ronchester @ Tue 11th December 2007, 3:50am)
QUOTE(Oracle @ Mon 10th December 2007, 7:42pm)
The context of recall has changed since I agreed to it, yes, I believe it has. It has been used to short circuit things. Unfortunate. It was a good tool, but in its current context, it is a very different category now then when I initially joined it.
...So I abandoned it.
O
Please don't take this as an attack, Mercury. I really think you've been treated a bit unfairly (the ArbCom nomination and all, where everyone opposed you, springs to my mind). Being rejected by the entire community had to hurt.
You state above that recall has changed since you agreed to it. But you were still open to recall as of yesterday. The recall process didn't change between yesterday, when you stated you were open to recall and today, when you changed your mind about being open for recall. The only thing that changed was the number of people asking for your recall. Or was it just that you realized recall had changed since you agreed to it? Which part had changed, though?
The category has remained basically unchanged for months. And aside from Durova, no one else has been recalled in months. (link).
I was naive. I did not realize it would be used to gain an upper hand in an ongoing dispute/DRV. I think it would be appropriate in other circumstance, but I have lost confidence in it. It is a tool for the community. Not a dispute resolution tool. The new context hit me, when the new context was applied today.
O
This recall thing is just a tactic for prospective administrators to gain support during RFAs. No one intends to ever honor such an agreement. Durova even fought her recall attempt despite many Wikipedians in good standing wanting her to resign her tools.
So far, the Dispute Resolution process is the only way (well, and lynch mobs, of course) to eventually get an administrator desyopped. And it is usually only in very clear cut cases that the ArbCom desyops someone. If Mercury's handling of the Angela situation is brought to ArbCom, the worst that would happen to him is maybe ArbCom would say he should have done better understanding consensus. But given the BLP issues, I'm not sure they'd even go that far. ArbCom does not want precedent of desyopping administrators over BLP issues. Otherwise, an administrator might be reluctant to act on BLP problems.
Mercury, I think, is safe, though his relationship with the core community may have suffered. As an aspiring bureaucrat, this may haunt him unfortunately.
So far, the Dispute Resolution process is the only way (well, and lynch mobs, of course) to eventually get an administrator desyopped. And it is usually only in very clear cut cases that the ArbCom desyops someone. If Mercury's handling of the Angela situation is brought to ArbCom, the worst that would happen to him is maybe ArbCom would say he should have done better understanding consensus. But given the BLP issues, I'm not sure they'd even go that far. ArbCom does not want precedent of desyopping administrators over BLP issues. Otherwise, an administrator might be reluctant to act on BLP problems.
Mercury, I think, is safe, though his relationship with the core community may have suffered. As an aspiring bureaucrat, this may haunt him unfortunately.
QUOTE(Oracle @ Mon 10th December 2007, 7:23pm)
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 11th December 2007, 3:15am)
Uhh, what Robster said...
But assuming we accept that statement at face value, I still don't see how the context has changed all that much... The whole point of being "open to recall" was that non-admins could get an admin desysopped if he/she "abused the tools," right? So has the definition of "abused the tools" changed?
I'll admit that you're being tarred with the Durova Brush™ here, and that may not be totally fair, but by defending her you've caused the non-admins to lose faith in your sense of fair play and good judgement. In that context, I'd say it's a perfectly appropriate use of the "recall" mechanism, such as it is.
I do not recall supporting Durova. I recall abhorring the release of emails. There are processes where we send emails, OTRS, and the local ArbComs. Now whether or not people support those processes, they are there. I challenge anyone to find a diff where I supported the block.
[[User:Mercury/OpenLetter]] explains things better.
O
So, because you don't agree with the concerns raised, you are absolved of the obligation to make good on your promise? Doesn't it kinda defeat the point if you have to agree you should be desysopped?
Oracle, can I suggest that your good name should
be of more importance to you than your sysop bit?
The most serious punishments WP hands out are
emphatically not banning and desysopping. The
most serious punishments WP hands out are
damage to people's privacy and reputation.
be of more importance to you than your sysop bit?
The most serious punishments WP hands out are
emphatically not banning and desysopping. The
most serious punishments WP hands out are
damage to people's privacy and reputation.
QUOTE(Oracle @ Tue 11th December 2007, 2:42am)
The context of recall has changed since I agreed to it, yes, I believe it has. It has been used to short circuit things. Unfortunate. It was a good tool, but in its current context, it is a very different category now then when I initially joined it.
But you gained adminship in part by stating that you were open to recall. Come on, Navou/Mercury/Oracle, you're not dumb, and neither are we: you don't want to give up the tools, or the status that accompanies them. That doesn't need an explanation, does it? Because we both know that adminship is a *very big deal.* Part of getting it is pretending it's not a big deal. There's lie number one.
Lie number two is stating that you're open to recall.
See, the problem with Wikipedia promotions isn't just that they fail to weed out dishonest people, but that they strongly prefer them. Case in point, Crzrussian won adminship stating he was open to recall. When he was recalled, he gave up the bit without a fight, because he's an honest man, whereas dishonest individuals like Ryulong and Mercury are still administrators, thanks to their trickery.
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 11th December 2007, 6:42am)
QUOTE(Oracle @ Tue 11th December 2007, 2:42am)
The context of recall has changed since I agreed to it, yes, I believe it has. It has been used to short circuit things. Unfortunate. It was a good tool, but in its current context, it is a very different category now then when I initially joined it.
But you gained adminship in part by stating that you were open to recall. Come on, Navou/Mercury/Oracle, you're not dumb, and neither are we: you don't want to give up the tools, or the status that accompanies them. That doesn't need an explanation, does it? Because we both know that adminship is a *very big deal.* Part of getting it is pretending it's not a big deal. There's lie number one.
Lie number two is stating that you're open to recall.
See, the problem with Wikipedia promotions isn't just that they fail to weed out dishonest people, but that they strongly prefer them. Case in point, Crzrussian won adminship stating he was open to recall. When he was recalled, he gave up the bit without a fight, because he's an honest man, whereas dishonest individuals like Ryulong and Mercury are still administrators, thanks to their trickery.
whatever.
O
QUOTE(Oracle @ Tue 11th December 2007, 6:54am)
Good man. I apologize for having drawn such a speedy conclusion.
The sad thing is that, supposing that you're actually recalled, it will prove that you're not dishonest enough to remain an administrator.
May I also offer that the deletion close looks like a pretty weak reason to recall you.
Mercury, how exactly do you think the recall would be used in a dispute? I'm certanly no expert on Wikipedia policies, but adminship doesn't give make your voice any stronger, does it?
Or would people opposing you cry "don't listen to him, he's been recalled yesterday"?
Or would people opposing you cry "don't listen to him, he's been recalled yesterday"?
I'm impressed; I think this shows I misjudged you on a number of levels, Mercury, and for that I apologize. Not that it means anything to you I'm sure :-P
Almost any rule, protocol, policy, guideline, or procedure can be abused (applied in an unexpected or unorthodox manner) to achieve a partisan advantage that unbalances the game.
In the end, if one wants balance, fairness, evenhandedness, justice, or due process, one has to abandon their naive reliance on mere rules, protocols, policies, guidelines, or procedures to achieve that outcome. In the end, one has to ascend the Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder to the uppermost rungs of integrity in ethical treatment of others.
In the end, if one wants balance, fairness, evenhandedness, justice, or due process, one has to abandon their naive reliance on mere rules, protocols, policies, guidelines, or procedures to achieve that outcome. In the end, one has to ascend the Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder to the uppermost rungs of integrity in ethical treatment of others.
QUOTE(cyofee @ Tue 11th December 2007, 9:56am)
Mercury, how exactly do you think the recall would be used in a dispute? I'm certanly no expert on Wikipedia policies, but adminship doesn't give make your voice any stronger, does it?
Yes, it does, because people are much more hesitant to punish
administrators because it is viewed as unsupportive. And, as
it has been recently demonstrated, you can give up your admin
bit in lieu of getting banned.
Run-of-the-mill editors, however, can be blocked for absolutely
no good reason, and admins will be reluctant to reverse the
decision for fear of wheel-warring.
Upper hand?
Wow. You know, if I were still involved, the only difference is that I would have waited until after the DRV went through. Regardless of the result, you simply proved that you have no concept of consensus or the required trust. The Angela AfD result wasn't what caused it, it was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. Your removal from the recallable admins when people questioned you about it is simply more evidence that you can't be trusted.
For shame.
Wow. You know, if I were still involved, the only difference is that I would have waited until after the DRV went through. Regardless of the result, you simply proved that you have no concept of consensus or the required trust. The Angela AfD result wasn't what caused it, it was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. Your removal from the recallable admins when people questioned you about it is simply more evidence that you can't be trusted.
For shame.
Yeah, its a bad time to make self-appointed one-off decisions for the masses.
Ok, it's always a bad time for that - but when everyone is watching it is not only wrong, but it is stupid.
Ok, it's always a bad time for that - but when everyone is watching it is not only wrong, but it is stupid.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.