[WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia

Sun Jun 4 15:15:45 UTC 2006

On 6/4/06, BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There has never been a shortage of criticism of certain admin actions.  A
> > high proportion of this has always been mud-slinging by those rightly the
> > target of admin sanctions.
> >
> > The issue of 'bias' is better phrased another way.  Do admins apply admin
> > powers in attempts to control article content, in a way that is negative
> > from the point of view of compliance with fundamental policies on content?
> > It turns out that it is much harder to make a good case of this kind, than
> > to make general accusations on 'bias'.
>
> It is not. A user named Saladin1970 was recently indefinitely banned
> by administrators because his political views was diametrically
> opposite to theirs.

You mean the one who kept insisting that Britain's most prolific mass
murderer be identified as a "Jew" in the lead, the one who kept
inserting copyvios in other articles, kept logging out and using his
IP to violate 3RR, etc? That one?

> There was absolutely no reason for that ban, and
> had Saladin1970's political views been better aligned with theirs, he
> wouldn't have been blocked at all.

Well, aside from his sly 3RR violations, his poorly written,
unsourced, POV, and arguably anti-Semitic insertions, his copyvios,
etc.

> Since virtually all his edits were
> reverted solely because they were made by a blocked user, it should be
> painstakingly clear that (some) admins apply admin powers in attempts
> to control article content and that that is negative for Wikipedia.

Actually, what is painstakingly clear is that not only were his edits
a net detriment to Wikipedia, but also that your posts on this list
are pretty much the same; uninformed, POV, and almost always factually
incorrect. What is also painstakingly clear is that the only reason
you defend him (apart from your inevitably choosing the wrong-headed
position on any situation) is that his political views coincide with
your own.

BJorn, you've been asked to stop projecting your own faults on others;
if you cannot desist from this, at least please stop using this list
for doing so.

> And it won't change, because despite the probably hundreds of policies
> wikipedian-en has, not a single one of them says that when an admin
> fucks up that bad, s/he shouldn't be an admin.

Well, except for all the admins who have been de-sysopped.

> So while Saladin1970 is
> stuck with some weird arbitration thing with Fred Bauder,

Saladin1970 is not involved "with some arbitration thing with Fred
Bauder".  Can you not even get the simplest facts straight?  He is
involved in an arbitration case with the Arbitration Committee.

> the admins
> can continue their free roll. Saladin1970 is far from the only case,
> he just happened to be particularly persistent and polite when
> complaining in this list.

Actually, Saladin1970 indundated this list with a series of lengthy,
dubious, and often factually false e-mails; for example, his copyvios
would be pointed out to him time and again, yet he would still post
further lengthy diatribes insisting he had never been shown them, and
also insisting on apologies.  Much like you, he seems to have
completely missed (or avoided reading) every e-mail which detailed the
actual behavioral reasons he was blocked, and instead concocted a
bizarre conspiracy theory which blamed admins for blocking him for
political reasons.  This, in fact, accords with his political views in
general - the world is controlled by a conspiracy of secret forces
(and you can guess exactly who those secret forces are) - but there's
no reason why this list (or Wikipedia) need be subjected to them.

Jay.