User talk:Rldavisiv: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<center>Copies of this User talk: '''Rldavisiv''' and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daynal Daynal] are archived [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Daynal_talkpage here]</center> |
|||
== April 2008 == |
|||
[[Image:Information.svg|left|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to [[:Landon Garland]], did not appear to be constructive and has been '''automatically [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]''' by [[User:ClueBot|ClueBot]]. Please use [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|the sandbox]] for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{User:ClueBot/Tracker}} '''If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please [[User:ClueBot/FalsePositives|report it here]] and then remove this warning from your talk page.''' If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: [[Landon Garland]] was [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Landon+Garland&diff=207296108&oldid=203139913 changed] by [[Special:Contributions/Rldavisiv|Rldavisiv]] [[User:Rldavisiv|(u)]] [[User talk:Rldavisiv|(t)]] blanking the page on 2008-04-22T05:32:37+00:00 <!-- MySQL ID: 333055 -->. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> [[User:ClueBot|ClueBot]] ([[User talk:ClueBot|talk]]) 05:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
---- |
|||
Most interesting as this is the comment received when I wrote the article in the first place. Perhaps automated 'editors' cannot discern the difference. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
---- |
|||
<div style="background-color:black; color: white; font-size:130%; border:Red solid 8px; padding: 1em;"> |
|||
<br> |
|||
<center><big><big><big>'''Why is this page black?'''</big></big></big></center> |
|||
<br> |
|||
<br> |
|||
# Because I am mourning the loss of [[Wikipedia:civility|<span style="color:white;">civility</span>]] and and the [[WP:MWP|<span style="color:white;">loss</span>]] of too many good editors from the Wikipedia. |
|||
# Because the Wikipedia has become a victim of its own success and its internal mechanisms for helping maintain civility have not scaled well. |
|||
## '''[[WP:RFC|<span style="color:white;">Requests for comments</span>]]''' now generates more heat than light. |
|||
##Even some members of the '''[[WP:MC|<span style="color:white;">Mediation Committee</span>]]''' admit that it is not working and skip '''[[WP:RFM|<span style="color:white;">Requests for mediation</span>]]''' and go on to the next step. |
|||
##Finally there is '''[[WP:RFAR|<span style="color:white;">Requests for arbitration</span>]]''', which takes forever to make decisions, and seemingly refuses to take on the bad behavior of some administrators unless the admin's behavior is so egregious that it can't ignore it. |
|||
##I will not even attempt to enumerate the other dysfunctional areas of the Wikipedia, such as '''[[WP:AFD|<span style="color:white;">Articles for deletion</span>]]'''. |
|||
<br> |
<br> |
||
'''Just one part of the solution:''' There are some editors who don't necessarily need to be banned, but just need a '''[[time out|<span style="color:white;">time out</span>]]''', which is why the Wikipedia has a [[WP:BLOCK|<span style="color:white;">temporary blocking process</span>]]. Well admins are editors too, and they also occasionally step over the bounds of appropriate behavior for editors. What is worse is that they can use their admin tools to do their misbehavior. |
|||
[[Image:Information.svg|left|25px]] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to [[:Timothy Wyllie]]. Your edits have been '''automatically''' marked as [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|unconstructive/possible vandalism]] and have been '''automatically''' [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. {{User:ClueBot/Tracker}} '''If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please [[User:ClueBot/FalsePositives|report it here]] and then remove this warning from your talk page.''' If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: [[Timothy Wyllie]] was [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timothy+Wyllie&diff=207296156&oldid=207247541 changed] by [[Special:Contributions/Rldavisiv|Rldavisiv]] [[User:Rldavisiv|(u)]] [[User talk:Rldavisiv|(t)]] blanking the page on 2008-04-22T05:33:01+00:00 <!-- MySQL ID: 333056 -->. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning2 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> [[User:ClueBot|ClueBot]] ([[User talk:ClueBot|talk]]) 05:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Right now there is no quick and effective way to punish a misbehaving administrator or even stop their misbehavior. If another admin blocks them, they can unblock themself. If an article is protected, they can edit it anyway. If they are in a revert war, they can continually use their rollback tool. And they can do all of this basically with impunity. |
|||
---- |
|||
Most interesting as this is the comment received when I wrote the article in the first place. Perhaps automated 'editors' cannot discern the difference. |
|||
Because admins are trusted members of the Wikipedia community I feel that their misbehavior must be taken more seriously than those actions of other editors. There needs to be a small group of trusted supervisor administrators who have the ability to temporarily block misbehaving admins from doing any editing for periods of time up to a week and removal of admin powers for at least a month based upon the severity of the misbehavior. Any further misbehavior would be grounds for permanent removal as an administrator and they would have to reapply at Requests for adminship. |
|||
--[[User:Rldavisiv|Rldavisiv]] ([[User talk:Rldavisiv#top|talk]]) 05:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:(Also, the number of admins is growing so large, and the Wikipedia is growing so complex, that it would be a very good idea to have volunteer "mentor" admins to help show the newbie admins the lay of the land.) |
|||
==[[Wikipedia:Sock puppet|Sockpuppetry]] case== |
|||
{| align="left" |
|||
|| [[Image:Puppeter template.svg|50px]] |
|||
|} |
|||
You have been accused of [[Wikipedia:Sock puppet|sockpuppetry]]. Please refer to [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daynal]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect|notes for the suspect]] before editing the evidence page. [[User:Pastordavid|Pastordavid]] ([[User talk:Pastordavid|talk]]) 20:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Look at the '''[[WP:RFA|<span style="color:white;">Requests for adminship</span>]]''' page. It says, "<u>Admins...are held to high standards, as they are perceived by some users as the "official face" of Wikipedia.</u>" Unfortunately the first part of that statement is not true. Instead, because they are admins, they can do practically anything they want without facing any consequences in almost all cases of admin misbehavior. Because they are admins they are given much more slack than other Wikipedia editors for any of their misbehavior. This needs to be changed.</div> <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.250.232.242|72.250.232.242]] ([[User talk:72.250.232.242|talk]])[http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rob_Davis Rob Davis] 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== User name block == |
|||
Why didn't you simply change your user name? Now you are creating more headaches for yourself. Wikipedia users operate transparently; sock puppets are strongly discouraged unless the practice fits with our policies and the socks are openly revealed without any effort to use them abusively. I cannot change your user name for you (admins with special privileges perform these functions on the referenced notice board). You should have followed the instructions within the unblock message and then your account would have been properly updated. Now it again appears that you wish to behave surreptitiously, or impatiently, and behave as a [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]]. If you had remained transparent and operated with our community's guidelines, I would have supported your efforts to contribute. Even so, your submissions may very well remain as part of the project, but unless I see some actions that back up the reasonable responses I've gotten from you via email, I'm going to support whatever actions other administrators choose to take in connection with your disregard for our policies and procedures. - <font face="Verdana">[[User:Cobaltbluetony|CobaltBlueTony™]] <sub>[[User_talk:Cobaltbluetony|talk]]</sub></font> 20:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
<center>=]</center> |
|||
---- |
|||
<center>Please see the main user account and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daynal talk] page for an integrated review of '[[dialogue]]'. |
|||
--[[Special:Contributions/75.104.157.17|75.104.157.17]] ([[User talk:75.104.157.17|talk]]) 23:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 07:21, 10 March 2023
- Because I am mourning the loss of civility and and the loss of too many good editors from the Wikipedia.
- Because the Wikipedia has become a victim of its own success and its internal mechanisms for helping maintain civility have not scaled well.
- Requests for comments now generates more heat than light.
- Even some members of the Mediation Committee admit that it is not working and skip Requests for mediation and go on to the next step.
- Finally there is Requests for arbitration, which takes forever to make decisions, and seemingly refuses to take on the bad behavior of some administrators unless the admin's behavior is so egregious that it can't ignore it.
- I will not even attempt to enumerate the other dysfunctional areas of the Wikipedia, such as Articles for deletion.
Just one part of the solution: There are some editors who don't necessarily need to be banned, but just need a time out, which is why the Wikipedia has a temporary blocking process. Well admins are editors too, and they also occasionally step over the bounds of appropriate behavior for editors. What is worse is that they can use their admin tools to do their misbehavior.
Right now there is no quick and effective way to punish a misbehaving administrator or even stop their misbehavior. If another admin blocks them, they can unblock themself. If an article is protected, they can edit it anyway. If they are in a revert war, they can continually use their rollback tool. And they can do all of this basically with impunity.
Because admins are trusted members of the Wikipedia community I feel that their misbehavior must be taken more seriously than those actions of other editors. There needs to be a small group of trusted supervisor administrators who have the ability to temporarily block misbehaving admins from doing any editing for periods of time up to a week and removal of admin powers for at least a month based upon the severity of the misbehavior. Any further misbehavior would be grounds for permanent removal as an administrator and they would have to reapply at Requests for adminship.
- (Also, the number of admins is growing so large, and the Wikipedia is growing so complex, that it would be a very good idea to have volunteer "mentor" admins to help show the newbie admins the lay of the land.)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.250.232.242 (talk)Rob Davis 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)