5 ms·

My initial reaction to this was that this was typical. I was similarly treated. But frankly, I know Guy and something doesn’t seem quite right. I’m not certain

My initial reaction to this was that this was typical. I was similarly treated. But frankly, I know Guy and something doesn’t seem quite right. I’m not certain we have heard the full story on this. One thing I will say: I often regret creating the admin’s noticeboard. It helped centralise control and the incidents offshoot is a cesspool of conflict. It often is not managed well at all.

mirimir 8y ago
I gotta say that, after reading this,[0] I am very glad that I never started contributing to Wikipedia. 0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive299#Philip_Cross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...
- lucideer 8y ago
  I don't know Guy, but purely from that linked discussion (Guy on George Galloway): > He is without question a controversial figure, and not in a good way That is, without any need for further context, a statement of bias, and if the user Guy is espousing such views of relevant subjects here they absolutely shouldn't be involved in decision-making of any kind on this topic. This follow-up statement is worse again: > ... and allow PC to definitively clear his name Presumption of innocence is one thing, but presumption of a future outcome of arbitration is quite another. It's pretty clear where Guy stands on this from the outset, and it's not good.
  - lobotryas 8y ago
    Are you saying that people can't be controversial in "not a good way"? I hope not. Whether this applies to Galloway is a matter of popular opinion. Look at Assange. First he was hailed as a hero in the West; now he's looked at as a Russian agent.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Ummm. Parent isn't saying that. They're quoting Guy, who's saying that. Edit: Unless I missed a multiple negative.
    - lucideer 8y ago
      > Are you saying that people can't be controversial in "not a good way"? I hope not. Of course not. I'm just saying that judgement of whether it is in "a good way" or "not a good way" will always be subjective, and representative of a biased viewpoint. Noone is completely unbiased but espousing such a viewpoint publically on a thread about arbitration isn't in keeping with responsibilities of Wikipedia's admins. > Whether this applies to Galloway is a matter of popular opinion. The popularity of the opinion should not be a qualifier for it to make up a part of a Wikipedia aministrator's discourse on non-biased arbitration.
  - eftpotrm 8y ago
    With respect, I would suggest a quick reading of George Galloway's biography would substantiate that suggestion. Mr. Galloway has a long history of loud oppositional politics and tribal attacks on his opponents. There are politicians I profoundly disagree with and yet respect for their service and their conduct; George Galloway is not one of them.
    - lucideer 8y ago
      I think you're missing the point here. Your opinion of Galloway shouldn't matter; whether you're a supporter or detractor of his, you shouldn't allow that to come into the discussion if you're claiming to act as a non-biased admin. Guy did that.
      - eftpotrm 8y ago
        Not at all. There are people who are controversial because their opinions are difficult or challenging, and there are people who are controversial because their opinions are provably wrong or their actions are demonstrably hostile. Neutrality between fact and proven falsehood isn't neutrality but pandering. Noting when discussing Mr. Galloway that his conduct has repeatedly fallen far from truth and decency is a reasonable and well-referenced baseline. We wouldn't require an admin on a page discussing the physical structure of the earth to recuse themselves because they had expressed a public opinion that it wasn't flat and carried on the back of a turtle, would we?
  - tetromino_ 8y ago
    > It's pretty clear where Guy stands on this from the outset ... and it's mostly irrelevant. A good Homo wikipediens, like a good judge or journalist or scientist, may well have his biases and private opinions, but is supposed to be able to put those initial biases and private opinions aside, impartially delve into the sources, and write a neutral, well-researched article about a subject.
    - lucideer 8y ago
      I agree. My point is that this user has not kept their biases private, they've brought them to the public discussion on arbitration.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      Right. And that particular Wikipedian has a long and sordid history, including repeated formal admonishments, for doing precisely _not that_: * http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44
      - mirimir 8y ago
        Even without taking sides, that is over-the-top crazy stuff.
  - mjw1007 8y ago
    For a clearer statement from Guy, explaining why he unilaterally shut down the original complaint, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=842039777 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&old... : « being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right »
    - lucideer 8y ago
      > being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right Ok this just further proves my point. If you're justifying your actions based on the identity of individuals who criticise them (particularly individuals you've already previously stated your own negative views on), then that's the very definition of bias. If you need to do this to defend your position, personalising and individualising it rather than sticking to objective statements, there's a problem and you are not a neutral party.
      - FireBeyond 8y ago
        To an extent, but it's hardly the first time that any of these people involved have had their fair share of controversy, backroom dealings, being shown to openly and repeatedly lie about the topics they're admin'ing or "neutrally" arbitrating. Hell, half of them are so voluminous in their misdeeds that they got entire subforums dedicated to them on Wikipedia Review (before that place turned into a ghost town inhabited by crazy folk): * http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44
Kim_Bruning 8y ago
Anything centralized on en.wikipedia these days is likely to exceed Dunbar's-Number-Of-Participants. That makes such things quite exciting and entertaining, but perhaps not always as useful ;-) (Ironically: in small wikis you actually need to have centralised places like this, else no community can form. :-/ )

mirimir 8y ago

I gotta say that, after reading this,[0] I am very glad that I never started contributing to Wikipedia. 0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive299#Philip_Cross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...

lucideer 8y ago
I don't know Guy, but purely from that linked discussion (Guy on George Galloway): > He is without question a controversial figure, and not in a good way That is, without any need for further context, a statement of bias, and if the user Guy is espousing such views of relevant subjects here they absolutely shouldn't be involved in decision-making of any kind on this topic. This follow-up statement is worse again: > ... and allow PC to definitively clear his name Presumption of innocence is one thing, but presumption of a future outcome of arbitration is quite another. It's pretty clear where Guy stands on this from the outset, and it's not good.
- lobotryas 8y ago
  Are you saying that people can't be controversial in "not a good way"? I hope not. Whether this applies to Galloway is a matter of popular opinion. Look at Assange. First he was hailed as a hero in the West; now he's looked at as a Russian agent.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Ummm. Parent isn't saying that. They're quoting Guy, who's saying that. Edit: Unless I missed a multiple negative.
  - lucideer 8y ago
    > Are you saying that people can't be controversial in "not a good way"? I hope not. Of course not. I'm just saying that judgement of whether it is in "a good way" or "not a good way" will always be subjective, and representative of a biased viewpoint. Noone is completely unbiased but espousing such a viewpoint publically on a thread about arbitration isn't in keeping with responsibilities of Wikipedia's admins. > Whether this applies to Galloway is a matter of popular opinion. The popularity of the opinion should not be a qualifier for it to make up a part of a Wikipedia aministrator's discourse on non-biased arbitration.
- eftpotrm 8y ago
  With respect, I would suggest a quick reading of George Galloway's biography would substantiate that suggestion. Mr. Galloway has a long history of loud oppositional politics and tribal attacks on his opponents. There are politicians I profoundly disagree with and yet respect for their service and their conduct; George Galloway is not one of them.
  - lucideer 8y ago
    I think you're missing the point here. Your opinion of Galloway shouldn't matter; whether you're a supporter or detractor of his, you shouldn't allow that to come into the discussion if you're claiming to act as a non-biased admin. Guy did that.
    - eftpotrm 8y ago
      Not at all. There are people who are controversial because their opinions are difficult or challenging, and there are people who are controversial because their opinions are provably wrong or their actions are demonstrably hostile. Neutrality between fact and proven falsehood isn't neutrality but pandering. Noting when discussing Mr. Galloway that his conduct has repeatedly fallen far from truth and decency is a reasonable and well-referenced baseline. We wouldn't require an admin on a page discussing the physical structure of the earth to recuse themselves because they had expressed a public opinion that it wasn't flat and carried on the back of a turtle, would we?
- tetromino_ 8y ago
  > It's pretty clear where Guy stands on this from the outset ... and it's mostly irrelevant. A good Homo wikipediens, like a good judge or journalist or scientist, may well have his biases and private opinions, but is supposed to be able to put those initial biases and private opinions aside, impartially delve into the sources, and write a neutral, well-researched article about a subject.
  - lucideer 8y ago
    I agree. My point is that this user has not kept their biases private, they've brought them to the public discussion on arbitration.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    Right. And that particular Wikipedian has a long and sordid history, including repeated formal admonishments, for doing precisely _not that_: * http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Even without taking sides, that is over-the-top crazy stuff.
- mjw1007 8y ago
  For a clearer statement from Guy, explaining why he unilaterally shut down the original complaint, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=842039777 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&old... : « being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right »
  - lucideer 8y ago
    > being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right Ok this just further proves my point. If you're justifying your actions based on the identity of individuals who criticise them (particularly individuals you've already previously stated your own negative views on), then that's the very definition of bias. If you need to do this to defend your position, personalising and individualising it rather than sticking to objective statements, there's a problem and you are not a neutral party.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      To an extent, but it's hardly the first time that any of these people involved have had their fair share of controversy, backroom dealings, being shown to openly and repeatedly lie about the topics they're admin'ing or "neutrally" arbitrating. Hell, half of them are so voluminous in their misdeeds that they got entire subforums dedicated to them on Wikipedia Review (before that place turned into a ghost town inhabited by crazy folk): * http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44

Kim_Bruning 8y ago

Anything centralized on en.wikipedia these days is likely to exceed Dunbar's-Number-Of-Participants. That makes such things quite exciting and entertaining, but perhaps not always as useful ;-) (Ironically: in small wikis you actually need to have centralised places like this, else no community can form. :-/ )