Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:21, 1 November 2007

RFC Close?

WP:SNOW.I call for the close of this RfC, and continue the discussion at WP:AN/I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, but I think you need to start an outside view on the main page for endorsement there. I hate duplication of process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. An RfC is appropriate at this time. I'm planning on posting a comment myself, but I'm actually (gasp!) giving it some thought before I post. Please leave the RfC open. --Elonka 23:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing is one thing, deleting is another. This RFC was certified and there was no obvious reason to delete, so it's reasonable that it was restored. Friday (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Certified? Within hours after the discussion started at AN/I, how can the claim be made that there had been efforts to resolve the dispute that had failed? I am as disgusted at seeing the abuse at RfC/U as I am of the abuse that was occurring at CSN. If there is an ongoing discussion at AN/I, where the issue is being dealt with, how can it be certified that other options had failed? Something needs to be done about the abuse of these processes throughout Misplaced Pages, because it allows users to be railroaded. This RfC is redundant to the AN/I thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Certified by who? Endorse closure and archiving. - Crockspot 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The certification may or may not be legit. There's generally 48 hours to figure that out. Friday (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is going to certify? Zscout? He has resolved his dispute with Jimbo. If this RfC wasn't such a serious abuse of process, it would be a joke. RfC's are not for "class action" suits. Who is even the "initiator" of this request? That isn't apparent on the project page. - Crockspot 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Certification requirements are rarely checked, rarely upheld, and the process is a joke, which lends itself to railroading and "voting" before discussing. I hope people will see that now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC) (And for the record, I don't agree with the desysopping. My concern is to stop the abusive actions that railroad users without discussion and thorough analysis of evidence.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• My simple analysis of this cause: Jimmy Wales blocked in error. There was a block warning in place. Administrators should yield to an existing warning and wait to determine if same will hold, even if the administrator is Jimmy Wales. At that very least, Jimmy should have consulted with the administrator that issued the warning. (i.e., Durova.) End of story. It is in Jimmy Wale's court to do the "I am sorry" thing. Once and Forever 03:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wouldn't that comment belong on the AN/I ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

An endorser indef blocked

One of the endorsers was subsequently indef blocked for something else, ie User:A.Z.. Is his endorsement legitimate or should it be removed? SqueakBox 03:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's handled like it's handled other places; you just put a note under it indicating indef block (best not to remove or strike others' comments). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and done, SqueakBox 03:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dictator"

As someone who supports some of the goals of this RfC, I think this line -

Actions performed as "dictator" will be explicitly stated as such in the future

- is quite extreme and IMO weakens the merits of the RfC. Is it okay if I remove it? (I couldn't really find any helpful guidance in the RfC guidelines... seems like a case-by-case, often gray-area issue.) — xDanielx /_C 05:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. The sunder king 18:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Once people have endorsed a view, it is not usually a good idea to make changes to that view. - Crockspot 18:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Its been deleted as an invalid afd, an act I support as apparently none of the endorsers were involved in the dispute and so shouldn't have endorsed, SqueakBox 05:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One doesn't have to be involved to endorse a summary or view. — xDanielx /_C 05:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a separate space for those supporting but not directly involved as is standard on all rfcs. Having said that, I didn't delete and only know what Will said in his action summary, SqueakBox 05:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but I think it would help if the editor who wrote the RfC had at least put their name in as certifier. In most RfCs we expect folks to have had direct discussions with the subject as part of the resolution process. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There currently isn't anyone signed under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" which means that this RfC can't be certified at the 48-hour mark, right? Cla68 06:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone just signed as a certifier which means it needs one more certifier if I understand right. Cla68 06:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of a special case since a heap of users sort of tried & failed to resolve the dispute, but it's hard to point to individuals since Jimbo didn't engage in substantial dialog in response to individual comments. Somewhat unorthodox RFC, but IMO the most appropriate place to have this discussion. — xDanielx /_C 06:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Sounds correct, the one user who has endorsed missed the deadline. And was she involved? SqueakBox 06:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy; we shouldn't ignore a certification because the guy was sleeping at the wrong time. — xDanielx /_C 06:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Where do you put the line then? Without bureaucracy there is anarchy and I would greatly prefer the former, SqueakBox 06:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think common sense will do in this particular case. — xDanielx /_C 06:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I am very much hoping common sense will prevail, and the endorsements of Ryan, Deskana, Jossi and Crockspot indicates that this is likely, SqueakBox 06:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming support not to go any further with this RfC this page should at least be courtesy blanked and probably deleted rather soon. I'm tempted to MfD the thing but if people are this insistent that we should go through with it I'll leave it for now. violet/riga (t) 09:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's plenty of opposition to closing/deleting this, it just appears less vocal since there's no obvious place to express opposition to the "this is worthless" views. Let the flowers blossom, no one is forcing anyone to participate. — xDanielx /_C 09:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting this page will create more heat/drama than leaving it to run its course. Please, nobody delete it again. -GTBacchus 20:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Blanking a page people are using is hardly a "courtesy". Let's not ruleslawyer here; it may be a bit irregular but people are using it in a good faith effort to resolve/understand/comment on the dispute. Some may think this page is pointless- that's perfectly alright; nobody is required to read it or edit it. Friday (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's protected and no longer in use, so I would suggest a courtesy blank would be a good option at some point in the near future. violet/riga (t) 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales made what might become an important statement of policy on this page, and he has not requested that the page or any part of it be blanked, so I submit that the page should be retained, notwithstanding any policy of deleting uncertified or problematically certified RfC's that might otherwise be argued to apply. Newyorkbrad 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. The discussions seem over now and it doesn't matter that much. violet/riga (t) 22:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Certification

I went ahead and added my name as a certifier. Though the original incident involving the block of one user and the de-sysopping of an administrator has been addressed, we still have a larger issue involving out-of-process actions taken by the head of the project which resulted in a great deal of disruption, and seem to have resulted in a violation of WP:POINT. I have attempted to address these issues both on- and off-wiki, but do not feel that the issue has been resolved. Therefore, I am certifying that this RfC is appropriate and should continue. It is my genuine hope that this RfC can be used not to chastise Mr. Wales, but instead to try and focus the community attention on the larger problem, and hopefully even identify successful ways of moving forward so that this problem does not recur. By "problem", I am saying not just that the conduct of the user (Jimbo) should be addressed or critiqued, but I would like to see if we can identify the problems with the current policies and enforcement thereof, that made Jimbo feel that the only possible way for him to deal with the situation was to personally step in and block someone that he regarded as a problem user. I think that many of the thoughtful members of the Misplaced Pages community agree that there is indeed a current problem on Misplaced Pages with trolls, griefers and other "conflict-junkies" taking up too much of the time of the other editors, and that dealing with these problem cases is getting in the way of actually building an encyclopedia. I think that Jimbo's actions were a reflection of that frustration. But when we have a situation where the head of the project feels that the only possible reaction is for him to personally block users, that's a problem. We need to figure out a better way to empower the community to deal with its own problems, rather than requiring personal action on the part of Jimbo. Whether this is creating new policies, modifying existing policies, making a community decision on how policies are to be enforced, or some other method, I don't know. But hopefully this RfC will help figure this out. --Elonka 06:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide some diffs to show you were directly involved in the dispute, otherwise you should be with the larger group of those endorsing the presentation of events, SqueakBox 06:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's quite easy to game the system when the subject of the RfC refuses to engage in meaningful debate with the community. If everyone was allowed to do this no user RfC's would ever be certified. EconomicsGuy 11:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am challenging the standing and basis of both editors attempting to certify. No evidence is present that shows that either user is directly involved in the dispute, nor that any other dispute resolution processes have been attempted by them. This is a fraudulent abuse of process. - Crockspot 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My certification is appropriate. Also, I have to admit some disappointment with those rules-lawyers who are trying to delete an RfC based on some kind of technicality. May I please point out that I wrote most of the User Conduct RfC instructions, and I've spent some time analyzing what RfCs are supposed to be used for. Yes, sometimes they're mis-used, but they can also be tools for good. At its worst, a User Conduct RfC is a lynch mob. At its best, it's a useful tool which allows a focused place for community discussion towards the worthy goal of solving a complex problem. It's my intent that this RfC be used for good purposes. We clearly have a problem here, we clearly have community members who wish to comment. I have my own comments which I wish to post, which I'm spending quite a bit of time thinking about before I post, but I have to admit I'm feeling some frustration here, as though several admins have their fingers poised over the "delete" button and they're desperate to find some technicality which allows them to get rid of this page. Can someone please explain why this RfC is seen as such a threat, as opposed to seeing it as a useful tool which may help improve things? --Elonka 16:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You still have not provided any evidence of direct involvement while Mr.grantevans2 wasn't involved in the dispute either. I agree with Crockspot that both should be challenged. Elonka, its not about lawyering but about ensuring a fair process on one of the people who most needs a fair process on Rfc, SqueakBox 20:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, Elonka. I disagree with the issue being on two fora at once, but I fully support your good faith attempt to sort out how we resolve disputes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Moved from main page per RfC/U instructions: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• "When you overide a Jimbo ban, you should expect the possibility of being desysopped" and "Whether you like Jimbo or not, he has ultimate authority here, and if you start messing with that, you lose your bit." trouble me a lot. Since when can he do what the hell he likes? Please link to where it states Jimbo can desysop in retaliation for someone reversing a decision of his that he made as an ordinary user. What he did goes both against steward policies and admin policies. Majorly (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Where does it say he can't? whether you like it or not Majorly, he has the authority to do what he likes here, period. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If the community disagrees, no he can't.. particularly as this was done as an ordinary admin, and not the "Misplaced Pages ruler". Majorly (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes he can. This is proved by the fact that he has done and no steward or bureaucrat will overrule him. --Deskana (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It was not done as another admin, he specifically said don't unblock. Zscout unblocked and lost his bit for a week - c'est la vie. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Deskana, what would happen if one did overrule him? Would they lose their bit too? Majorly (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I suspect so. I don't know, there's no precedent. I'm certainly not undoing it and making a precedent. --Deskana (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The one at fault here Zscout370. Let's keep the focus where it should be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fault for daring to undo another admin's actions? Hmm Majorly (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fault for undoing Jimbo's actions. Stop pretending that it was "any other admin", that's just ridiculous. --Deskana (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No admin should undo any other admin's actions without discussing it with them. There was no emergency. Corvus cornix 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ryan P., per my endorsement above.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Majorly. Fault for unblocking against consensus, and without discussing the unblock first with the blocking admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bleh, if a admin gets punished for everytime he blocks someone without another admin concent, half the admins will be desyropped, including some of you guys yourself. Bad yes, but not desyroppable. Jbeach 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• When you see that Jimbo has banned someone, it should be clear that a lot of thought has gone into that ban. Pardon me, Ryan, but that's just silly. You seem to be saying that "Jimbo knows all", and his actions are never to be questioned. That seems your reasoning for the initial ban, and again for your defense of his desysopping of Zscout370. Well, this outside observer sees his action regarding Zscout as petty, vindictive and arbitrary, and one made in haste with9out a thought or care for the community's reaction. This is not the first time he's run a solid admin off of the project. I am glad this Rfc was established. This shows that (to paraphrase Animal Farm) while all editors are equal on Misplaced Pages, some editors are more equal than others. I have no problem with that, per sé, but Wales should just make that clear and not harp on consensus. If we are actually ruled by fiat, let him say so. Jeffpw 10:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with Jeffpw to the point where he says "let him say so". It's also up to any people being ruled as to whether or not they accept that status. This community may at some point need to reach consensus as to whether it wants or likes to be ruled by fiat.It seems apparent to me that Jimbo is comfortable with that relationship but there is no consensus as to whether the rest of us are comfortable with it as well. The "love it or leave it" approach has always been shallow and a false choice because there is always, in any venue with as many people involved as this venue has, the ability to effect structural and procedural change from within. Notwithstanding the need to address the bigger picture somewhere and sometime, this RfC seems to be an appropriate process to deal with the specific events it itemizes. Mr.grantevans2 13:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed from Crockspot outside view

Per the instructions on RfC/Us, threaded discussion are not entered on the main page. Outside views can be endorsed by other users. I will notify this editor that I have moved the comment:

• Comment: Not seemly, I should think...to have a court (RFC) that does not allow the accused any form of defense? (i.e., gag the witness so he or she cannot speak?) It appears, to me, Mr. Wales blocked while a legitimate warning was in place. Is it not right, that administrators yield to each other in a dispute? If Jimmy cast the first stone, in error, clearly he could step up and admit same? Once and Forever 13:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Crockspot's view

You know, saying that the RfC is "invalid" on some procedural ground is a pretty darn bureaucratic position to take. This isn't moot court; we're not following Robert's Rules of Order here. Calling the RfC invalid is just kind of an empty assertion - why not say what you think about the content instead? What profit is there in deciding that it isn't "valid"? -GTBacchus 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're responding to here, GTB (my sig is here only because I moved that comment from the RfC to the talk page), but rushing to vote on RfC when there is ongoing discussion on AN/I can also be considered "a pretty darn bureaucratic position to take". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Um... I wasn't talking to you. I was "replying to Crockspot's view". I don't consider an RfC to be something that is "voted" on. Calling it a vote seems bureaucratic to me. What I see on that page is human beings, talking about what they think - nothing more. -GTBacchus 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's better, thanks. Hard to tell here with a comment by one user to another user's post on another page over my sig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

GT, I will have to strongly disagree with you. A user conduct RfC is structured, and has rules, for a very good reason, so as not to do unnecessary harm to editors. If you want to have a free form discussion, take it over to one of the several discussions that are running concurrently off of ANI. If you, as an admin, cannot see the need for a strict structure in a user conduct RfC, then we have a huge problem here at Misplaced Pages. Personally, I think that these user-conduct RfCs should go the same route of extinction as the CSN. - Crockspot 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Um... this is going to do unnecessary harm to... Jimbo? Seriously? This is Jimbo's house; we can't harm him by having a slightly irregular RfC. The page is what it is; what concrete harm will come from it? Please note that I'm not saying anything about you in this comment. You seemed to feel it necessary to say something about me. -GTBacchus 21:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you say that I can take it to one of the several discussions running off of AN/I. Um... I'm participating actively in those, and I haven't participated in the RfC at all. Have you? -GTBacchus 21:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was well underway when I found it, and I participated so far as objecting to its existence, and to endorse other objections. Sorry if it sounded as though I was criticizing you personally, or telling you what to do. It was directed more generally. - Crockspot 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is not the only editor who has ever had a user conduct RfC called upon him. Are you suggesting that we treat Jimbo like any other editor, EXCEPT when we are smacking him around? - Crockspot 21:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not what I'm saying. -GTBacchus 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also request that you answer my direct question above. Did you miss it, or think it rhetorical? It wasn't. -GTBacchus 21:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Which question? I see several question marks. The one I want to address does not have a question mark, which is that I did not intend to single you out specifically, but you as a typical admin to have the view that a user conduct RFC for anyone should not have to be properly certified disturbs me, because I believe you are a typical admin, and it is clear that you are not the only admin who would hold that view. The harm is to the community, for a waste of time on a process that is already playing out (with some resolution) in other venues. Harm to Jimbo, because it's yet another "official" page about how much he sucks. - Crockspot 23:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

problems

2007 appears to be the year where Misplaced Pages is starting to falling apart. It appears that this year has been the subject of more controversy, drama, dispute and problems than any other in its history. People won't want to come and edit wikipedia if this is what they hear about all over the internet. Basically this case though appears that wikipedians don't understand that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Basically if Jimbo says jump, we jump. We don't to tell him what's right or wrong. Delete again per WP:SNOW by the looks of things this page is going to get us nowhere but into deeper and more violent arguments, and WP:ANI has already covered this. The sunder king 18:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

2007 appears to be the year where Misplaced Pages is starting to falling apart? Misplaced Pages has been online just a few years with tremendous success and unparalleled growth and momentum. This type of project has never been attempted before in history, so it is expected that these issues will manifest. There will be more, no less in the next few years. Hold on to your hats! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 2007 does appear that way. As did 2006 and 2005. I'd like to think that this year will turn out no worse than those did. —Random832 19:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How can we expect to improve as an encyclopedia and a community if we don't face controversy and dispute? Although this RFC is closed, I think it provides some food for thought both about the workings of IAR and Jimmy's so-called "God King" status. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Many of the Misplaced Pages forks are doing quite well, and are providing tens of thousands of credible scholarly expert-approved articles using the original Misplaced Pages material as a starting point. Perhaps that's Misplaced Pages's ultimate destiny. To be a giant vat from which the raw materials for more useful things can be dredged. Enrico Dirac 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to Sean William

In the same fashion that you would ask a checkuser before undoing a checkuser IP block, or asking the Arbitration Committee before undoing a ban, you need to talk to Jimbo before undoing his administrative action.

The premise is false. Admins aren't required to ask a checkuser before undoing any block by someone who happens to be a checkuser, or to assume that any block by an arbcom member is a ban. While Jimbo is free to SAY that he is banning someone, or (either say, or imply by saying it's sockpuppetry) that he is blocking based on checkuser data, etc, it is not and should not be implied by the fact that it is Jimbo who is blocking. Just as a block from User:Charles Matthews should not be taken (unless he says it is) to mean that Arbcom has banned someone, or a block from User:Voice of All should not, without at the very least a claim of sockpuppetry, be taken as a block by a checkuser qua checkuser, neither should a block from Jimbo be automatically taken to mean either. —Random832 20:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the term "checkuser block" is used in block summaries to mean a block based specifically on checkuser information, which should not be undone without consultation by other admins who don't have access to the information. You are right that it doesn't refer to any block by an admin who happens to also be a checkuser. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sean's view, though, is that any block by an admin who happens to be Jimbo should be considered a "Jimbo block", though. That was my point - the analogy falls flat. If Jimbo wants to ever act as a normal admin, he shouldn't be exempt from the comment box. —Random832 20:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was quick...

Jimbo makes his call and the rfc is closed an hour and a half later. Live in the UK, or Europe, or Japan, or Africa, or Australia, or Asia? Well, obviously nobody needs you to endorse... and yar-boo if you live outside the US timezone.

For the record;

Response by Jimbo Wales - users who endorse this summary;

• Excellent, making the distinction is vital. LessHeard vanU 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would wish that some were a little more trusting in allowing some outside of Jimbo's immediate locality the opportunity in expressing their thoughts. LessHeard vanU 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was stuck in traffic, so did not get the chance to endorse, but I would have wholeheartedly. - Crockspot 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pearls of wisdom

Oh, good - well, clearly we will need to keep this page as a record of these pearls of wisdom emanating from our great leader, although I wonder where this leaves "assume good faith".

No doubt we shall find out in due course who is on the hit list to be liquidated, but I can think of a number of prominent "silly sausages" who would benefit from some forceful encouragement to be more civil. Even greater use of block buttons by admins is bound to achieve that end.

Now, where was that encyclopedia were were writing? -- !! ?? 11:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)