Message: 4
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 07:42:52 EDT
From: Bruynsf(a)cs.com
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Zoe's Abuse of Power as a Sysop
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <216.871626d.304edabc(a)cs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Zoe, a Sysop on Wikipedia, has seriously abused her
position of
authority and
responsibility at my expense. ...
In clear
violation of
the "assume good faith" Wikipedia policy, however,
That's right. There are a long trail of contributors
who have found that autocratic admins never assume
good faith, they assume the axiomatic bad of whatever
you are doing in an article and axiomatic good of
their view against it. Even when they punish only one
side of a 2-sided fight over links, for "link spam",
when both sides have behaved identically. It's only
their own good faith that they demand to have assumed.
Zoe
sent me an
official
warning accusing me of deliberate vandalism. I
responded by telling her
that I
would seek arbitration if she continued to lodge
such
accusations
against me.
She, in turn, blocked me from Wikipedia and claimed
that my editing
problems
could not possibly have been accidental (Again, See:
User Talk:
Moriori). Her
official reasons for blocking me were the vandalism
that I never
committed and my
warnings that I would seek arbitration, which she
termed "threats".
Furthermore, finding that I could not reach the
administrative
noticeboard to plead my
case and not having an individual e-mail address, I
resorted to
attempting to
start new accounts,
That's right, you weren't spamming or trying to break
rules, you were trying to get around an unfairness to
access a page that in name you are entitled to use!!
You are frustrated by the extreme corruption that a
block imposed arbitrarily by 1 person blocks your
access to the community issues pages where you could
contest it and whatever issue caused it.
"I have a
very low opinion of spammers. Besides, I'm in the
middle of several
brush fires
and am quite irritable right now." (User talk:
Dragons
flight). This
clearly
indicates that her abusive behavior towards me is
unprofessional and
irresponsible and that she allows her moods to
determine her decisions
in her very
important role as a sysop, which I assert to be
unacceptable.
Yes, it does.
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:51:31 -0500
From: Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Zoe's Abuse of Power as a Sysop
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<47683e9605090610511e5acbf5(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Felix
You really need to look at how you address people
and
address conflict.
Your
complaint about Moriori was posted, verbatim, in
dozens of separate
places.
Posting the same message in a
whole lot of places is considered spamming.
Isn't it also considered doing his best to resolve his
issue by maximising its reach in the community and the
feedback it can get?
Other users do not constitute "official
channels",
That proves it unfair that blocks block use of the
various types of dispute-res page.
This is a
community, not a
structured bureacracy. Yelling at people never
helps.
You say that when
you
told Zoe that you would "seek arbitration" she
called
it a "threat". It
is a
threat.
Now, this is key. If you announce you are going to try
to stand up for yourself, in terms of the rules
indeed, in any way at all, - that counts as a threat.
But when an admin threatens you with ban unless you
kowtow to his POV over an article, that doesn't count
as a threat. That is this project exploded, once and
for all.
Creating new accounts to bypass a block is strictly
forbidden. What's
the
point of blocking someone for misconduct if they can
just come back
under a
new name? You have asked that "punitive action" be
taken against Zoe,
but
Inserting hard
returns into people's
comments is considered vandalism.
What are "hard returns"?
If you had come here and pleaded your
case,
PLEADED!! PLEADED!!!! Listen to this.
accepted
responsibility for what you had done wrong,
He didn't think he had done anything wrong. In the
real world you don't confess unproved guilt as the
first round of "pleading" to make anything happen at
all.
Your
actions met the definitions of "vandalism" and
"spamming", even if you
did
not intend them to.
So did he know they did? The definitions aren't made
obvious on a level plane to everyone, as per the open
policy that all rules are warpable in the project's
interests.
And a word to the wise - people
who
want to get into
vendettas should really start with an easier target
than Raul/Mark.
Other
than Jimbo and the Stewards, I dount there is anyone
more
powerful/influential in En.
This is a clear statement that differences of personal
influence affect the outcomes of cases. Is that any
basis for presenting the public with written information?
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security
Centre.
http://uk.security.yahoo.com