[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Ban of user "Itake"

Tue Jan 24 03:40:59 UTC 2006

This email got rejected from the moderation queue because of some sort
of corruption (or an ill-advised use of Gmail's text formatting
features instead of plain text). The user has kindly re-sent the email
in plain text:

~Mark Ryan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Itake <tchakolli at gmail.com>
Date: 23-Jan-2006 22:53
Subject: Re: Your email to WikiEN-l about your "ban"
To: Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com>

Ok, I don't know what "garbled" text is, was is that I used the gmail
text formatting features? Anyways, here it is again:

Username: Itake
IP: 213.67.50.30.

I was banned by the user "FeloniousMonk" because he felt I violated
wikipedia's civility code even though I was warned several times. Not
only is this untrue, but it is clear that the user in question has a
bias against me because he and I are involved in an ongoing AfD
dispute.

First off, I'd like to say that I did indeed violate the rules in
question. At that time, I wasn't aware that there even existed rules
for civil conduct on wikipedia. I was warned that my behavior was
against the rules.
I replied to the warnings on my talk page. I didn't even edit the AfD
disputes any further, or violate the civil conduct rules again, but
then suddenly I was banned. So user FeloniousMonk is lying. I wasn't
warned several times, I was told I violated it one time and continious
violations would lead to my ban. I didn't continue to violate it, yet
I was banned.

Further, I belive the user FeloniousMonk should have his admin powers
removed. He is quite clearly abusing them. I direct your attention
first to examples of uncivil conduct found on the wikipedia page about
it:

rudeness
judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped
rambling crap")
belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another
starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even
if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.
More serious examples include:

Taunting
personal attacks
racial, ethnic, and religious slurs
profanity directed at another contributor
lies
defacing user pages
calling for bans and blocks
First off, the users Feloniousmonk is grouping with fit in on several
of these criteries. Yet he didn't ban them. For example:

From my user talk page:
::Both of you need an objectivity lesson. And Itake needs a civility
lesson. [[User:Daycd|David D.]] [[User talk:Daycd|(Talk)]] 17:05, 21
January 2006 (UTC)

::: What's the matter, Daycd?  Can't you just feel that "Christian"
love?  - [[User:WarriorScribe|WarriorScribe]] 19:14, 21 January 2006
(UTC)

That's it, you've pushed it too far
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter&diff=36030780&oldid=36027828
this time].  Continue violating [[WP:CIVIL|the civility guidelines]]
and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  --<font
style="background: #000000" face="Impact"
color="#00a5ff">[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]</font> 04:19, 21 January 2006
(UTC)

::::: Interesting.  So you interpret Matthew 5:39 as not applying to
you, then? - [[User:WarriorScribe|WarriorScribe]] 01:05, 22 January
2006 (UTC)

Delete pity we can't delete the author. — Dunc| ☺ 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

(last one was from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice)

Secondly, the admin himself violated several of these principles in a
very serious way. As can be shown by his comments on the AfD in
question, he does not only have a serious bias that no doubt played a
role in my ban, but he also does some uncivil conduct himself:

Delete Neither diploma mills nor their presidents warrant articles.
Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on
non-notables, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of
non-notable bios, Gastrich. FeloniousMonk 22:08, 20

Your campaign here to promote your diploma mill is its most notable
aspect. Who knows, maybe they'll name a "hall" in your honor...
FeloniousMonk 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Another tool off the diploma mill assemblyline. FeloniousMonk
22:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Though I was impressed with the fact that "he regularly reads
academic papers at Oxford University." But since I regularly read the
Pixley Press and the ingredients on the back of cereal boxes and I
don't get an article here, why should he? FeloniousMonk 03:53, 19
January 2006 (UTC)

The admin in question is quite clearly being rude, he's throwing
around accusations, he's doing blatant lying, he is taunting and he is
being judgemental. In my opinion, he has violated more of these
criterias then I have. But because of his admin powers, not only does
he escape justice but all the users who favor his side of the argument
and violate these criterias seem to escape being banned aswell.

I feel the entire AfD dispute around the Louisiana Baptist University
articles is being handled very poorly, and it gets even worse when
admins like FeloniousMonk comes along to abuse their powers. I hope
this dispute, FeloniousMonk's status as an admin, and my ban all gets
the attention it deserves.

Yours sincerely,

Itake.

(ps. I didn't quite get the procedure for these kinds of things. There
was something about a mailing list, but I think that signing up to it
wasn't necessary? If my inquiries are going to the wrong place or so,
please tell me so I know who to send them to .ds)

On 1/23/06, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
> An email was received to the WikiEN-l (English Wikipedia) mailing list
> from your email address with a subject concerning your ban. However,
> the contents of your email were garbled text. If this was a genuine,
> non-spam email message, please re-send the email in text-only format.
>
> ~Mark Ryan
> WikiEN-l mailing list administrator
>