[WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on

Tue May 31 05:30:01 UTC 2005

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