FeloniousMonk's admin powers - WikiEN-l

25 Jan 2006

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…
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.

Further, FeloniousMonk has just banned the User "Jason Gastrich" on equally
poor basis. In the wake of this ban, and before the ban, FeloniousMonk
himself continued to violate Wikipedia rules and throw around unfounded
accusations. The admin FeloniousMonk is abusing his admin powers, both to
punish users he doesn't like and to influence AfD disputes in his favor.

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)