| Revision as of 02:06, 15 December 2009 editProtonk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers24,727 edits →Anecdote: marx probably isn't the right starting point← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:04, 15 December 2009 edit undoChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)43,041 edits commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| :::Well my glib reply is that marxians (or marxists, I suppose) overstate the implications and spread of class interest. We are far better described by Bourdieu's comments about ] and ]. Marx presupposes (or asserts, if you will) animosity between our bourgeois and proles (I guess admins and regular editors...). It is much more likely that admins (and/or "regulars") attempt to protect orthodoxy by establishing implicitly what kinds of discourse are acceptable and unacceptable--a distinction which could easily shuffle complaints about abuse into the "unacceptable" category. On the surface it would appear that we are attempting to maintain decorum, but subconsiously we are eliminating the basis for dissent. So as you say above, we demand that folks ask nicely because those who ask nicely tend not to want outlandish things, ]. But posing these questions as a matter of class interest precludes nuance. I can't distinguish between admins acting as a ] and those ]. And I can't tease out selection bias when making broad inferences about who gets blocked and why--meaning that admins get blocks at a '''much''' lower rate than non admins, not just because they have friends/tools/etc but because they misbehave at a lower rate (due to a variety of reasons). | :::Well my glib reply is that marxians (or marxists, I suppose) overstate the implications and spread of class interest. We are far better described by Bourdieu's comments about ] and ]. Marx presupposes (or asserts, if you will) animosity between our bourgeois and proles (I guess admins and regular editors...). It is much more likely that admins (and/or "regulars") attempt to protect orthodoxy by establishing implicitly what kinds of discourse are acceptable and unacceptable--a distinction which could easily shuffle complaints about abuse into the "unacceptable" category. On the surface it would appear that we are attempting to maintain decorum, but subconsiously we are eliminating the basis for dissent. So as you say above, we demand that folks ask nicely because those who ask nicely tend not to want outlandish things, ]. But posing these questions as a matter of class interest precludes nuance. I can't distinguish between admins acting as a ] and those ]. And I can't tease out selection bias when making broad inferences about who gets blocked and why--meaning that admins get blocks at a '''much''' lower rate than non admins, not just because they have friends/tools/etc but because they misbehave at a lower rate (due to a variety of reasons). | ||
| :::And eliminating that nuance damages attempts to make a resolution. Why do admins edit war with rollback and not get punished? Because in order to remove rollback from an admin we have to remove the whole bit and often edit warring with rollback is insufficient to justify de-sysopping (often, but not ]). Solution? Devolved rollback from the bit completely. But we can't reach that solution if we are convinced that the true problem lies in a refusal of the "admin and proto-admin class" to recognize failure/abuse. The list can and does go on. ] (]) 02:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | :::And eliminating that nuance damages attempts to make a resolution. Why do admins edit war with rollback and not get punished? Because in order to remove rollback from an admin we have to remove the whole bit and often edit warring with rollback is insufficient to justify de-sysopping (often, but not ]). Solution? Devolved rollback from the bit completely. But we can't reach that solution if we are convinced that the true problem lies in a refusal of the "admin and proto-admin class" to recognize failure/abuse. The list can and does go on. ] (]) 02:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Escalation== | |||
| Hey Protonk. I just have one comment on something that struck me from your comments at ANI. You talked a lot about "escalation" in your accusations, yet the original dispute is a good faith editor who has made very substantial improvements to our content being indefinitely blocked. So to accuse anyone who seeks a better outcome of escalating the situation seems patently absurd and outrageous. If you want to deescalate the situation, unblock the fellow and work out an amicable solution. Braying about others "escalating" situations where you and your cronies have silenced and caged someone you disagree with outside the community shows a level of arrogance and willfull neglect that just isn't right and that you should be embarassed about. It's disgraceful. It would be amusing to hear these admin complaints about those who don't appreciate their brutalist approach to community and encyclopedia building if it weren't for the very real damage that's being done to the encyclopedia and the community. That it takes a level of daring to question the often robust, biased, and abusive enforcements carried out by our admins should give you serious pause. ] (]) 04:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:04, 15 December 2009
 | Welcome to Protonk's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply. |
Program guides
Hi. I semi-randomly selected you (Firsfron, Masem, Protonk) as major participants in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive 30#Per station television schedules, which I didn't follow closely. The subject has arisen again at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Forbidding programme guides, and I was wondering if any of you could give a short/neutral summary at the VPump, of what the WT:NOT thread's consensus was, if any. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Made a limp response at VP. Thanks for asking my opinion, but I don't know how well I can judge consensus on that thread. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
All gnus, all the time
Yes, if you're going to have infotainment, you might as well have it with added cleavage. But as for these two people, they're nobodies. Washington needs the return of the Right man for the job. -- Hoary (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Signpost?
Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Misplaced Pages talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom RFC
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Calibration
I unprotected because I blocked the IP that was vandalizing it. I have no objection if you wish to reprotect, however. Enigma 18:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bloviate (3rd nomination)
You participated in the AfD discussion of Bloviate in July 2008. A year and five months after Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bloviate (2nd nomination) was closed as keep, the article has been renominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the debate, please comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bloviate (3rd nomination). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Anecdote
I gave enough information for most editors who were active on ANI at the relevant time to know immediately who I meant. You are right - there are many admins who I feel should have apologized for their behaviour, as I said, I do not recall if you were involved (there are several who I do recall without having to look back into the history). My comments were directed at readers of the board generally rather than to you specifically, so I am sorry if it came across as being directed at you, for that was not my intent. I'm posting this here rather than in the thread because it's already too messy there. DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine. Thanks for taking the time to come here. My comments were literally directed at you, since I have seen you hurl general accusations about admins enough to feel irked about it. Please consider the prospect that there is enormous heterogeneity in the admin corp. There are admins like me who aren't terribly active but post on the drama boards. There are admins who log hundreds of uncontentious actions a week. There are admins who mostly edit content but use the tools sparingly. there are admins who belong to cliques, have distinct politics (wiki or otherwise) and so forth. There are editors who sound like admins and aren't (and vice versa). We are all quite different from each other. Some of us (as noted in the support/oppose thread) are relatively more willing to handle dissent than others, either because of frustration or some internal willingness to accept autocracy. Obviously, if I feel stung about a particular accusation, I may protest too much, but please understand that some value is lost in escalating small disputes by accusing editors of conspiracies or conflating minor issues with "admin abuse". Protonk (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, too few of the good admins seem willing to take to task the really bad ones (and there are several of them). We do see "groupthink" on the noticeboards (the expression of class-interest, a Marxist like Rowse would call it) - heterogeneous groups do find common ground, and too often the common ground that they find on Misplaced Pages is that of status. We also do see double standards (again often an expression of class-interest) - in the last year even to the extent of admins arguing (succesfully to the extent that the villain of the piece was not blocked) that calling someone a pervert was acceptable, while those calling him a bigot for his long history of bigoted language were threatened with blocks. I'll readily agree that my style is not always the most emollient, but in my experience asking nicely and meekly don't achieve much.
- As for CoM - I have no particular opinion of him either way, except that I see him as a symptom of some of the grave underlying faults in Misplaced Pages's structure. It sticks in my craw to see non-admins hounded for behaviour that is no more disruptive than that which is indulged in by certain favoured editors and admins (an expression of my own class-interest), and I do feel that reform needs to start at the top rather than the bottom.
- I appreciate that it is very difficult for admins to do anything about those of their colleagues who give the rest of you a bad name, but it is a thousand times harder for the rest of us. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well my glib reply is that marxians (or marxists, I suppose) overstate the implications and spread of class interest. We are far better described by Bourdieu's comments about symbolic capital and awareness of status. Marx presupposes (or asserts, if you will) animosity between our bourgeois and proles (I guess admins and regular editors...). It is much more likely that admins (and/or "regulars") attempt to protect orthodoxy by establishing implicitly what kinds of discourse are acceptable and unacceptable--a distinction which could easily shuffle complaints about abuse into the "unacceptable" category. On the surface it would appear that we are attempting to maintain decorum, but subconsiously we are eliminating the basis for dissent. So as you say above, we demand that folks ask nicely because those who ask nicely tend not to want outlandish things, given that they are asking nicely. But posing these questions as a matter of class interest precludes nuance. I can't distinguish between admins acting as a local clique and those abusing powers unilaterally. And I can't tease out selection bias when making broad inferences about who gets blocked and why--meaning that admins get blocks at a much lower rate than non admins, not just because they have friends/tools/etc but because they misbehave at a lower rate (due to a variety of reasons).
- And eliminating that nuance damages attempts to make a resolution. Why do admins edit war with rollback and not get punished? Because in order to remove rollback from an admin we have to remove the whole bit and often edit warring with rollback is insufficient to justify de-sysopping (often, but not always). Solution? Devolved rollback from the bit completely. But we can't reach that solution if we are convinced that the true problem lies in a refusal of the "admin and proto-admin class" to recognize failure/abuse. The list can and does go on. Protonk (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Escalation
Hey Protonk. I just have one comment on something that struck me from your comments at ANI. You talked a lot about "escalation" in your accusations, yet the original dispute is a good faith editor who has made very substantial improvements to our content being indefinitely blocked. So to accuse anyone who seeks a better outcome of escalating the situation seems patently absurd and outrageous. If you want to deescalate the situation, unblock the fellow and work out an amicable solution. Braying about others "escalating" situations where you and your cronies have silenced and caged someone you disagree with outside the community shows a level of arrogance and willfull neglect that just isn't right and that you should be embarassed about. It's disgraceful. It would be amusing to hear these admin complaints about those who don't appreciate their brutalist approach to community and encyclopedia building if it weren't for the very real damage that's being done to the encyclopedia and the community. That it takes a level of daring to question the often robust, biased, and abusive enforcements carried out by our admins should give you serious pause. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)