[WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on

Tue May 31 14:07:36 UTC 2005

Man, Everyking, if you're gonna go anonymous, change your writing  
style a bit.

-Snowspinner

On May 31, 2005, at 1:30 AM, A Nony Mouse wrote:

> Whether he is "barely" deserving of a fair treatment or otherwise,  
> nobody here has given him a fair treatment by any stretch of the  
> imagination.
>
> That won't do.
>
> I also have Phil's "circle the wagons" rant up above. He thinks  
> expansion kills online communities. I think he's right.
>
> Expansion kills online communities because of people like Phil who  
> won't admit that they need to let go and they need to deal with the  
> new people coming in fairly. People like Phil who think that "shoot  
> them all unless they are exactly like us and make no noise  
> whatsoever" is the way to go about dealing with newbies.
>
> Now you know why I went anonymous. If I didn't Phil would be  
> leading a charge to have me removed right now for saying that.
>
> David and SlimVirgin's behaviour in this matter has been sub-par.  
> So has the behaviour of the rest of you on this list. This doesn't  
> just affect that one user. It affects everyone they tell about  
> Wikipedia. It affects everyone who agreed with them on one topic or  
> another at Wikipedia. I've only looked at the Enviroknot profile  
> for any length of time but based on its list of contributions there  
> was potential for a good editor. Solid edits were made and backed  
> up on talk pages, edit summaries and wikipedia policies were  
> properly referenced.
>
> The only offense I can see in the Enviroknot profile is a pair of  
> 3RR violations. The one SlimVirgin put in tonight is totally  
> unjustified. The one earlier when people were claiming Enviroknot  
> was also another IP address is pushing your luck.
>
> Meanwhile, editors and administrators alike have been hounding that  
> profile looking for any excuse to attack it. None of you bothered  
> to set aside your feelings long enough to look at the situation.
>
> That isn't right. The behaviour of all of you in this scenario is  
> making me sick to my stomach. I thought you were better than this.  
> If that's really Phil's attitude, then there's no way he should be  
> given power at Wikipedia. If the rest of you share that attitude,  
> then Wikipedia is doomed.
>
> A.Nony.Mouse, for the purpose of this conversation.
>
>
>> From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>
>> To: tempforcomments at hotmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on
>> Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 23:11:03 -0400
>>
>> While I agree with your points with respect to admin behavior, I
>> wanted to point out that Enviroknot edits from the same IP as a known
>> block evading pest who keeps creating socks to support his position.
>>
>> I think everyone deserves a fair treatment, but Enviroknott has made
>> that very difficult with his accusations, and is probably only barely
>> deserving of a fair treatment considering that it's almost certain
>> that he is a sock as claimed by others.
>>
>> On 5/30/05, A Nony Mouse <tempforcomments at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > I have been watching the last week's events with dismay. I have  
>> been trying
>> > to compose this email for two hours, but every time I get close,  
>> something
>> > else comes up.
>> >
>> > I have decided to make this anonymous. I do not know how some of  
>> you would
>> > react and I do not wish to take any chance that I would be  
>> harassed for
>> > this.
>> >
>> > There are two cases that bother me. Jack Lynch aka Sam Spade and  
>> Cranston
>> > Snord aka Enviroknot. Both of these cases scare me because of  
>> the precedent
>> > that they have set.
>> >
>> > In the case of Jack, there was a question of a block war.  
>> Administrators
>> > were fighting over what to do with him. This is not a good thing  
>> for
>> > Wikipedia editors no matter who they are. It indicates that the  
>> user is less
>> > of a concern than something between the two Administrators.
>> >
>> > It is the case of Cranston Snord aka Enviroknot that worries me  
>> more. This
>> > is the case that has made me take the drastic step of sending an  
>> email to
>> > the list anonymously. I had originally been trying to type up a  
>> response to
>> > Cranston's concerns about being blocked. I believe that  
>> SlimVirgin violated
>> > policy by doing so. Unfortunately for me, such an email would  
>> likely now be
>> > a day late and a dollar short.
>> >
>> > Cranston was a disruption to the list, but much of that  
>> disruption was
>> > caused by other people on this list treating him with incredible  
>> disrespect.
>> > I was taken aback by his accusations against administrators but  
>> having
>> > looked at the cases in hand I believe that he has a point.
>> >
>> > There were emails on this list asking whether anyone was taking him
>> > seriously. This is the height of arrogance, and it is something  
>> that
>> > frightens me. Administrators should never be acting as if  
>> ordinary editors
>> > do not matter.
>> >
>> > As for his complaints about being blocked, the dismissiveness on  
>> this board
>> > hurt me. No matter who it is making a complaint, we have a duty to
>> > investigate it. We are listed as the last resort for users who  
>> have been
>> > wronged. I took the time to investigate SlimVirgin's blocking of  
>> Enviroknot,
>> > and I believe that it is not valid.
>> >
>> > By the time I got to the discussion, it was a good series of  
>> emails long,
>> > and despite the number of list members who had posted, none save  
>> SlimVirgin
>> > had bothered to address Enviroknot's concerns on the block in  
>> any way.
>> > SlimVirgin herself made a bad judgement call. An edit made in  
>> good faith
>> > should never be considered a reversion, even if it contains some  
>> content
>> > that is included in a later reversion.
>> >
>> > Instead of acknowledging this fact, the list members were  
>> universally
>> > dismissive of Enviroknot from the first email. One went so far  
>> as to demand
>> > that the term "rogue admin" not be used, without addressing the  
>> reasons that
>> > it had been brought up in multiple cases recently.
>> >
>> > We have a problem with administrators exceeding their authority on
>> > Wikipedia. We have a problem with administrators not applying  
>> policy
>> > correctly. And we have a problem with arrogance on these lists,  
>> with
>> > administrators believing that they are somehow better than others.
>> >
>> > With the increased power of administrator access comes a  
>> responsibility to
>> > use it fairly and adhere to the established procedures and  
>> policies. The
>> > actions of an Administrator should themselves be NPOV. We have  
>> stated policy
>> > that when a user is found to be violating policy, if they return  
>> and do not
>> > break policy, their previous transgressions should not be held  
>> against them.
>> >
>> > There are a number of administrators who are failing in that  
>> responsibility,
>> > and they are present on this list. One of them, rather than  
>> addressing
>> > Enviroknot's concerns in a calm tone and actually going over  
>> policy, chose
>> > to kickban Enviroknot entirely.
>> >
>> > I have never until today been ashamed to be a part of Wikipedia,  
>> but there
>> > it is. Take it as you will.
>> >
>> > A.Nony.Mouse, for the purpose of this conversation.
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > Create the ultimate online companion - meet the Meegos! http:// 
>> meegos.msn.ie
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > WikiEN-l mailing list
>> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> More features, more fun, still absolutely FREE - get Messsenger  
> 7.0! http://messenger.msn.co.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>