User:Silverback/Alleged admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Silverback's accusations against Ryan Delaney and other admins that Silverback alleges to have condoned Ryan Delaney's alleged abuse

The administrator abuse would not be as common as it is if it weren't for a culture of tolerance of that abuse. The "tolerance" of abuse extends beyond mere tolerance to actual support for that abuse, through mocking and attempts to silence or ostracise those who report it. I accuse several administrators in a recent incident of support for or "failure to act" in the face of clear and admitted administrator abuse. But I also want to bring the broader issue of the administrator culture as a whole up for comment. Here are the details of a recent incident.[1].

Here is the report of the abuse by administrator User:Ryan Delaney: [2]

Here is Ryan Delaney's most recent admission of the violation: "I did willfully ignore that part of the protection policy, and I ignored it because I felt the situation called for me to do so. "[3]

Ryan Delaney himself is mocking and dismissive of my objections to his violation in this edit summary "Comments on this absurd situation", and in this edit "I'm not really sure if this warrants a response" [4].

I accuse these administrators of mocking and dismissive support for the violation, note the references to "The wrong version", which apparently contributes to the mocking and dismissive culture. In a circustance such as this, referring to the wrong version should be considered a personal attack:

I'm not quite sure, but this administrator may actually have made a threat:

  • Kelly Martin beat me to it. This article is subject to arbitration, so Silverback coming here was um, not really the brightest idea ever. Is the AMA still active at all? Having advocates around for this kind of procedural thing would save people a LOT of embarresment. Kim Bruning 03:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


Three times administrator User:Dmcdevit has unilaterally removed evidence of the violation that other administrators might have acted upon:[5][6][7]. He made these comments, in his edit summaries:

  • "two admins have decided this stays protected. Removing now, as it's degenerated into the same old discussion, tangential to the protection issue)"
  • "I am sure I removed this. It is decided. Please note at the top of the page: "This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.")"
  • "I am an administrator. I have rejected it. I am removing it. Do not restore it again. This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.)"

This administrator dismissed the violation as an "isolated incident":

  • Blocking is preventative, not punitive. Requesting a block for an isolated instance of behavior of this type is a non-starter, especially since so much time has passed. android79 22:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I also accuse all of the above administrators of a "failure to act" and allowing the violation to stand, plus User:Kelly Martin, although, if Kelly failed to act because this in involved in the arbitration case, that might be a legitimate excuse.

What should the administrator response have been to a reported and admitted violation?

In this case:

  1. At a minimum, the revert by Ryan Delaney should have been reversed
  2. They could also have unprotected the article.
  3. They could have blocked Ryan Delaney.

I submit they were obligated, once they were aware of the violation, to at least provide corrective action number 1. Failure to do so, contributes to the culture of abuse and perhaps should even be considered a violation itself, of ethics at least, if not the rules. --Silverback 06:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Certification

The undersigned certify that administrator User:Ryan Delaney, reverted before protecting Criticisms of communism[8], and that resolution of this dispute was attempted on User talk:Ryan Delaney[9], User talk:Silverback[10], when requesting unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection[11] and on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[12], where he admitted his violation, and in response to his explanation here[13] Furthermore, the above mentioned administrators and probably others who reviewed the reports, have failed to act to correct the violation or to sanction the violator.

Certifiers signify their certification below:

--Silverback 02:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that Ryan Delaney abused his administrative power when protecting and reverting without request. He also admits willfully breaking the policy and manages to make a personal attack at the same time: "To this, I plead guilty as charged; I did willfully ignore that part of the blocking policy, and I ignored it because I felt the situation called for me to do so. Rather than revert while protecting, I could have waited for someone else to revert, and then protect the article, and in so doing avoid all appearance of impropriety: but I feel that would not have been necessary. Ultramarine is one of the most stubborn, persistent, and arrogant Wikipedia editors I have encountered." [14] However, I do not want to include any other persons in the RfC or Wikipedia culture in general. Ultramarine 15:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] comments

This is not intended as an RfC/user but as attempt to reverse this disturbing admin culture. If we have to go to the extreme effort of an RfC/user every time an admin abuses his power, that will be a protection of admin abuse rather than a deterrent. Admin abuses should be corrected immediately. This case would be a good place to start. We need to view the "failure to act" as seriously as the violation itself. Yes, admins are busy volunteers, but if they take the trouble to response to these reports, it is not that much more work to make the correction. And several who reviewed and corrected users violations, certainly could correct admin violations just as easily.


We should not need an additional "follow the policy" policy. That should be a given.--Silverback 02:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Issues as framed by Silverback

[edit] Should "failure to act" is such clear circumstances be considered an ethical violation by an admin?

[edit] Comments

Since I don't believe that these are "clear circumstances", this is a question that will necessarily be left unanswered. --Nlu 07:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Are admins entitled to a one violation per month or an "isolated incident" exception when they abuse their powers?

[edit] Should admins show deference to other admins when they violate the rules, allowing the consequences of that violation to stand?

[edit] Should use of the mocking article m:The Wrong Version by admins be deprecated?

Ryan Delaney actually made this comment about his revert before protecting:

  • "Rather than revert while protecting, I could have waited for someone else to revert, and then protect the article, and in so doing avoid all appearance of impropriety: but I feel that would not have been necessary."

Perhaps Ryan's honesty should be admired. He could have violated the wikipedia protection policy only in spirit by waiting for the "right version" to appear, instead he chose to openly and honestly violate the letter of the policy.

m:The Wrong Version is mocking those who believe that the version that just happened to be protected was chosen in a POV manner. This explicit example and Ryan's mocking acknowledgement of how easy it would be to hide such behavior, shows that the beliefs of the abused users are all too often true.

[edit] Other examples of the culture of tolerance of administrator abuse

Call by Silverback:

Please limit this to clear or admitted violations by administrators, duely reported, that administrators failed to act to correct.

[edit] 6 reverts by admin User:Jpgordon go unpunished by User:Kelly Martin

Faced with a report of a clear 3RR violation by admin Jpgordon, Kelly Martin excused it with this comment:

  • "Please note that the purpose of the 3RR is as a tripwire to stop edit warring; it is not punitive. I therefore recommend against blocking him. Kelly Martin 14:27, August 7, 2005 (UTC)"[15]

When in a later circumstance she said this:

  • "I'm not inclined to care a whole lot. People who hit the 3RR have already gone beyond reasonable editing. Whether they get blocked for 24 hours or a week is not that great of a concern to me."[16]

Could the standard be lower or the 3RR limit higher when an admin is involved?--Silverback 08:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection of her own work by admin User:SlimVirgin supported by admin User:Guettarda

User:OceanSplash posted complaints about SlimVirgin imposing page protection on her own version of Islamophobia after editing the article extensively. I looked into the case and posted documentation that SlimVirgin made 18 major edits to this article within 24 hours prior to page protecting it, thus clearly violating WP:PPol: "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing" (emphasis original).

Admin User:Guettarda responded by excusing SlimVirgin's actions and said they were okay because she used "common sense.":

Ah, but the point isn't to just read one section or another, it's the read the whole thing. And, when you're done with it, read WP:IAR. Common sense trumps rules for the sake of rules, and Slim's approach appears to be common sense. Guettarda 05:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[17]

Nowhere did Guettarda explain how SlimVirgin's edits were common sense. In fact, any honest review of the history of Islamophobia shows SlimVirgin essentially rewrote the entire article to her own version on October 15th [18] then page protected it less than 24 hours later [19] and a second time only one week later [20]. By sanctioning and excusing this incident, admin Guettarda exhibited clear bias and tolerance of an administrator abusing her powers. Rangerdude 19:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Common sense requires that you take a pragmatic view of the rules rather than a legalistic one. Our policies were not written by lawyers and should not be interpreted as it they were. If a policy say "don't do X" and two lines later it says "you should avoid doing X", then you need to figure out what the underlying spirit of the rule is, and use common sense in applying it. Reading the rule as you did, if you edited a page for clarity two years ago, and haven't touched it since, you can never protect the page to stop an edit war. Imagine an edit war of WP:RFA or WP:AN - find me an admin who has not edited one of those two! As I said, common sense is needed in interpreting policies and rules. Guettarda 15:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You're avoiding the issue, Guettarda. The Islamophobia page was NOT edited two years prior but rather less than 24 hours prior, and in a major way. WP:PPol defines admin "involvement" in the page as "making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page." At the very minimum, that definition would cover recent major edits to the article. The spirit of this particular rule seems to be designed for stopping admins from applying protection to articles that contain large amounts of their own recent work. In this case large amounts of recent work were indisputably present in the protection. Rangerdude 17:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
You're absolutely right - I'm avoiding the issue. The argument you presented up front was misleading, and I pointed that out. It's equally misleading to take that comment and cite it as evidence on an "admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse". I'm glad you finally figured that out. Guettarda 15:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The evidence is there for anyone to see, Guettarda. It shows that she page protected an article she had virtually rewritten less than 24 hours prior. WP:PPol is explicit that admins should not do that, and yet all you've offered are excuses on why you think those rules should not apply. If that is not a demonstration of "admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse" then I don't know what is. Rangerdude 17:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
So...does this mean that you are saying you don't know what you are talking about? You said "this is a violation of policy which clearly says X" and I said no, policy does not clearly say what you assert it to say. Taking issue with your misrepresentation of policy is not a judgement on whether some aspect of policy was or was not broken. But then, I'm getting the impression that this is what you have been doing all along. Guettarda 19:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem, Guettarda, is that contrary to your claims the policy is explicit. "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism...Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page). Admin powers are not editor privileges—admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you. Not only is this the preferable method, it is also considered more ethical to do so as it helps reduce any perceived conflict of interest." (emphasis original) There is not a single word of that policy that can be reasonably construed as giving sanction to page protecting something you've edited yourself. Rangerdude 18:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
No policy is binding in all circumstances. WP:ISNOT a bureaucracy. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The evidence is there for all to see, Rangerdude, and this is what it shows. I've edited Islamophobia about twice in the last six months: once a minor edit in June, and another more extensive one in October. I vprotected it [21](i.e. protected it against vandalism) for eight-and-a-half hours 24 hours after having last edited it following a request from the other editors, because an anon IP kept adding the VfD tag. [22] The Islam pages are vandalized a lot. Any admin, whether someone who has edited the page or not, is allowed to protect against vandalism. A week later, I was told that a new editor was adding material from websites of dubious reliability, including his own, to several Islam-related pages, and revert wars had broken out because of it. I therefore protected the pages, which included Islamophobia [23] and made suggestions on the talk pages about how to handle the issue of less-than-ideal sources, and editors quoting themselves. His edit quoted himself as saying: "The more one learns the truth about Islam the more dangerous and spiteful is [sic] looks," [24] and yet he was editing anonymously and had set up the website anonymously, so the insertion was in violation of WP:NOR and WP:V, which are both policy, and of WP:RS, a guideline. This new editor initially agreed to the suggestions I made on the talk pages, [25] [26] but then when he saw I had a good relationship with one of the Muslim editors he objected to, he decided I was an Islamist who was biased against him. I therefore unprotected the page, and left a note on WP:AN/I asking someone else to keep an eye on it instead. That was the end of it. At no point did I protect a page regarding a content dispute I was involved in. I made clear on the talk page: "[T]his is just my opinon, and because I've protected the page, I can't edit it; I can only make suggestions with a view to resolving the dispute." SlimVirgin (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Slim - again, I do not doubt that you felt you were doing the right thing in protecting this page. What I did take issue with, however, is the way you handled it and its noncompliance with Wikipedia policy. WP:PPol is explicit that "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." It goes on to state "Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with" and defines involvement as "making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page." I believe it is a fair statement to say your edits on October 15th were "substantive." The policy even continues with very clear instructions on what to do when you're involved in a page but nevertheless feel page protection is necessary: "If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you. Not only is this the preferable method, it is also considered more ethical to do so as it helps reduce any perceived conflict of interest." (emphasis added) I took issue with your page protection because (1) you had been involved a day earlier on that article per the definition in PPol, and (2) you did not follow PPol's instructions to seek another admin for the block when you are involved. Anyhow, I propose we continue this discussion further back at [27]. Rangerdude 18:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree it's pointless to discuss it here, but I want to clarify again: (1) I wrote the sentence you keep quoting in WP:PP that "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism," so obviously I agree with it, and (2) the page protection I imposed 24 hours after editing was for a case of simple vandalism, as I've told you many times. I vprotected it. The v stands for vandalism. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Android79

I'm not really sure why my name is included here. I merely commented on a post to WP:AN/I, where Silverback called for Ryan's blocking based on one incident of perceived impropriety. I pointed out that blocks are preventative, not punitive, and as such Ryan could not and should not be blocked for an incident that a) occurred so far in the past and b) was not part of an ongoing pattern of abuse. Blocks are often perceived as punitive by Wikipedians and I wanted to correct this misperception, nothing more. I didn't look into the issue any further than that, and to suggest that I am somehow "obligated" to correct whatever Silverback thought was incorrect is absurd. I'm a volunteer administrator with limited time. By this logic, any administrator who happened to read Silverback's complaint on WP:AN/I, even without commenting on it, was obligated to act and therefore should also be a subject of this RfC. I'm guessing that would be a very, very long list.

In addition, this RfC is improperly formatted. RfCs need to be certified by at least one other party; this has not been done, and indeed there is no place for it to be done. If it is not done in the required 48 hours since filing, it should and will be deleted.

android79 17:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

As stated elsewhere, I don't intend this as an RfC/user. But I do fear that the admin culture is so hostile to criticism, that it will take the 48 hour opportunity to delete this anyway, while others laugh and mock. So if you could assist me in getting this certified I would appreciate it. -- thanx, --Silverback 02:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view, from a thoroughly befuddled Nlu

Silverback, you are not close to presenting a compelling case; in fact, you are presenting no real case at all. If you believe that Ryan Delaney abused his admin privileges, please explain how did he do so (rather than a conclusory accusation that he did abuse his privileges. As a non-admin, I am quite baffled by the way you are phrasing things, and the way that you are framing the issues are nothing but confusing and non-conducive to your arguments. --Nlu 07:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Additional thought after reading Ryan Delaney's comment as you cited:

In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism.

In my short time here, I've already observed a few fairly nasty edit wars -- not involving the parties here. My feeling: Avoid is not the same as not. In this case, if Ultramarine's conduct is as Ryan Delaney alleged (a hypothetical that I am not equipped to answer) then I think his actions would not be abuse at all; it would be more than justified and necessary. --Nlu 07:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Does Ryan Delaney's prejudgement of the outcome of that arbitration case, really excuse his violation? Keep in mind that Ultramarine does not own that version of the article that Ryan reverted, I and others have contributed to it.--Silverback 07:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, taking an example of a case that I am familiar with:
In the case of Derek Jeter, which is currently under mediatin, certainly many people have worked on it and therefore contributed to the two competing versions eventually ended up in mediation -- a mediation that I called for but do not participate in since I was not involved in the edit war itself -- I certainly believe that one party was more at fault for the edit warring (regardless of the merits of the edit) than the other party, and while the case is still in mediation, regardless of how the mediation went (which really comes down to the merits of whether factually, the particular asserted fact about Jeter was true or not, and therefore is, I admit, a simpler question than the issue presented here), I think that any admin would have been justified to protect the version not favored at the party more at fault for the edit warring. The fact that others have "contributed" to both of the versions at issue is not material, in my opinion. --Nlu 07:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Others who endorse this outside view

  1. I thoroughly do not understand what allegedly was alleged to allegedly have allegedly occured. ~~ N (t/c) 16:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Sean Black

This is absurd. No more food for the troll.--Sean|Black 07:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Others who endorse this outside view

  1. Calton | Talk 13:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Doc ask? 14:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. I agree, assuming that admin violations and tolerance of them is considered the food. That would solve the problem.--Silverback 14:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. This is stupid. Martin 15:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. 172 | Talk 15:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. While, as I say above, I don't understand it, this RFC seems at first glance like someone simply upset that the wrong version got protected. ~~ N (t/c) 16:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 01:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Postdlf 05:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. William M. Connolley 13:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC). I was going to consider the second sentence rather harsh, until I noticed Sb has also signed up to this and tried to twist it. This RFC is silly.
  10. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC) With fire.
  12. Silverback, you do realize that by signing on to this summary, you've proclaimed yourself a troll. Frankly, your record on Wikipedia does nothing to lend credibility to your case. As for this culture of admin abuse, I recommend reading up on paranoia.--Scïmïłar parley 22:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Silverback never did understand what was happening when he made the 3RR accusation against me. This was a case of a persistant POV warrior (known as the "fatboy anon") using a sockpuppet either to avoid a 3RR violation or to get around his own blockage for a 3RR violation (I don't recall which anymore; it was months ago). The rest of the RfC is, I imagine, as pointless. --Jpgordon 22:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. This rfc just doesn't seem constructive. Karmafist 21:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] comment

Nickptar, first glances can be deceiving. This is about an admin that reverted and protected. His violation of policy was reported and there was a failure to act by other admins. I submit that this "failure to act" culture is not unusual, in fact, mocking and attacking the whistleblower as is being done here, is more the norm. I have called attention to admin and user abuses repeatedly here on wikipedia, just as I have protested police misconduct in real life. Unfortunately the responses have been similar.--Silverback 02:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside (inside?) view by Ral315

When referring to m:The Wrong Version, I did so not out of disrespect to anyone, nor to mock anyone. I did it because within the parody, there is a point. No matter which version an admin protects to, somebody's going to be mad. In this case, it was Silverback. I have no knowledge of the actual arguments and reverts being made, but I'm willing to assume good faith on Ryan Delaney's part.


Others who endorse this outside view

  1. Agreed. However, perhaps people should avoid referring directly to m:The Wrong Version, given the high level of emotions. While it doesn't seem mocking to me, apparently it is to some. Instead, I suggest that there be an explanation that some version has to be protected and that the choice of the protected version is arbitrary and not an endorsement. While it's impossible to write something that won't offend someone somewhere, I think this is a situation we can treat more delicately. -- Kjkolb 03:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] comments

  • You don't have to assume good faith by the user who reported that Delaney reverted before protecting. There is evidence and an admission. Evidence should trump the assumption.--Silverback 10:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Kjkolb, yes the version is supposed to be arbitrary, in fact, it is supposed to the version that is there except in cases of vandalism. Ryan Delaney reverted to the version he wanted to protect, in a clear and admitted violation. Ryan evidently feels that the rules should not get in the way of his superior sense of justice.--Silverback 03:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by 172

Similar instances of disruption are reported in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback, though the disregard for WP:POINT seems to be becoming more and more blatant. 172 | Talk 14:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Others who endorse this outside view

[edit] Outside view by McClenon

This RfC is not presented properly.

I think that Silverback does have a valid, but greatly exaggerated, issue. Some admins do abuse their powers, and some admins are guilty of tolerance of abuse by other admins. A user conduct RfC about any specific abuse by an admin is the means to present a specific complaint about an admin.

However, Silverback does not appear to be complaining about user conduct, so much as complaining about the Wikipedia culture, and trying to change that culture by railing against it. If so, a user conduct RfC is not the way to accomplish that change, and it is not clear to me whether Silverback will be able to change the Wikipedia culture to be consistent with his expectations. Wikipedia has a loosely organized hierarchical structure. I think that Silverback does not like that. The obvious alternative is the anarcy of Usenet. If Silverback prefers an anarchic electronic culture, it is waiting for him in Usenet.

If Silverback is trying to request specific changes to Wikipedia procedures, he should specify what they should be. I agree that Wikipedia procedures need to be improved, but I have tried to state my ideas in ways that can be discussed.

Also, Bishonen is correct about the rules about an RfC. Requests for Comments are used when a less structured method of discussion has failed. Threaded comments in response to outside opinions are not useful. They make it more difficult to determine who has said what. Silverback: Please respond only in your own sections of the RfC or on the talk page.

This appears to be a flame more than an RfC. If Silverback is mostly saying that Wikipedia is governed by a cabal, it is not clear how criticizing the cabal is likely to change its behavior.

Endorsements of this outside view

  1. Robert McClenon 15:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Thank you. ~~ N (t/c) 16:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Arker 16:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Yep.--Sean|Black 18:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. --Nlu 23:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Friday (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Except for that last sentence, I agree with this summary. And I really don't know where Silverback's criticism should go. There should be a place for this. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Scïmïłar parley 22:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. I agree with Quadell. - ulayiti (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Well said. Let's not take a "ban 'em all and let Jimbo sort 'em out" approach. --InShaneee 08:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I do not view this as a user conduct RfC. I notified those mentioned as a courtesy, since their names were being used in an example. I intend this to be a more general RfC raising the issues. The handy glaring if minor example presented the oppotunity. Ryan Delaney cooperated nicely by being totally unrepentent about his ends justify the violation action. It also helped that he couldn't wait for a nearly complete ARBCOM case, but had to prejudge the matter. I think it we don't follow the rules in small cases, when a large case like the O.J. Simpson case comes along, we are completely out of practice. Besides, the small cases are more frequent and impact a far larger portion of the community, and so are more important than the show cases for giving wikipedia its look and feel for fairness or unfairness.

BTW, I am not saying it is a cabal, it is a culture which is more subtle. Even admins who may disapprove of brazen rules violations, or wouldn't have done them themselves "fail to act". There is a sense of deference and respect for the territory of an admin who has acted on an article, you don't interfere with his/her decisions or judgement. Let me know if you think the formality applies to a non-user RfC, I thought these were more free wheeling.

Also, note that I have brought this up in less formal settings. I have noted and reported this violation and others before. I have even protested against the use of the m:The wrong version before, both to individuals and a few months ago on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). So this should not be dismissed as a first time rant. I know you want to dismiss this just as you find it easier to "fail to act" when admins abuse. The parallels between admin and police culture are frightening, what they call slimeballs, you call trolls. They dismiss and mock the protests "from below" and so do you admins. They think that in the serious cases they will ultimately do the right thing, and that the bad members of their organization that reflect poorly upon them as a group will eventually go too far lose their position, but they don't need to do anything yet. But our community is more educated and thoughtful that those brutish cops right? Look how even you have degenerated, the hubris of thinking the rules are for others or just the serious cases, and that those who violate the rules are so bad they justify your violations or your "failure to act.

Changing procedures only makes sense if there is a culture that expects them to be followed. Do we need a procedure that says "follow the procedures"?

Feel free to put this in a different section if it is wrongly located.--Silverback 00:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Bruning defence-ish

(this is highly irregular, if I have done something rfc-able, please open a separate rfc with my name)

Expanding my statement:

At a glance, I understand that Silverback is currently the subject of an arbitration? If this is correct, then all other avenues of dispute resolution on that subject are (or should be) currently closed until the arbitration case ends.

If Silverback had a wiki-advocate who knew the procedures, he could have spared himself quite some embarrasment.

Case in point is this rfc. I strongly reccomend for Silverback to go to WP:AMA and request an advocate.

Kim Bruning 17:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] comment

See my comment above. I don't intend this as a RfC/user but informed you as a courtesy, since you were being mentioned in a rather blatant example. I have requested an wiki-advocate to help make sure this issue gets thoroughly discussed. Frankly, you kid yourself if you expect me to feel embarrassment about some kind of violation of procedures for an organization which doesn't respect or follow their own procedures themselves. I am trying to make sure the community is worthy of respect.--Silverback 01:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interpolation

I would like to encourage interested parties to visit Wikipedia:Ombudsmen and the relevant talk page. --HK 01:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/l/User%7ESilverback_Alleged_admin_culture_of_abuse_and_tolerance_of_abuse_4ea8.html"