Yes, I used it again.
As I said: until such time as she starts to follow Wikipedia policy, I
consider her a Rogue Admin.
At least one user on Wikipedia seems to have it right. It's a pity none of
the Admins bother with paying attention to policy.
-Enviroknot
P.S. I've included the relevant part of the discussion below.
1 -- The diff
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14451571&oldi…)
on the first two edits combined with the discussion page
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Edits_Today) for the article
paints a very different picture from what you are claiming. Good-faith edits
to a page never count as reverts.
Your comments on the mailing list like "However, I won't be responding to
any further e-mails from you to the mailing list" do not help: they indicate
that you are not interested in operating in the open and in good faith.
Your comment "Partial, complex reverts count as reverts like any other. The
problem with gaming the system, as you are doing, is that this kind of
miscalculation is inevitable from time to time" could easily be construed as
an insult itself. I have read the byplay and there is no "invective" but the
quite real frustration of a persecuted user who was wrongly blocked.
User:80.237.206.62
2 -- So-called "good-faith reverts" count just as much as "bad-faith
reverts", except in cases of vandalism, and edits to the talk page are
irrelevant. This user account and other sockpuppets have been
editing-by-revert since they arrived, and I've no idea what you mean about
reading the "byplay" and finding no invective: unless you're me or
Enviroknot, you're unlikely to have read all his e-mails to me. SlimVirgin
(talk) 00:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
3 -- There is no such thing as a "good-faith revert" with the exception of
vandalism cases. There are plenty of cases of good-faith edits being
misconstrued as reverts by admins who are persecuting users for some
personal reason.
I have read all the emails on the mailing list, and have checked your
history and the user's history. I've also checked the Request for
Arbitration that you included this user in. You appear to be in the wrong
here, and I have stated so.
Claiming that an edit made during the working out of a consensus is a
"revert" is counter to Wikipedia policy on what constitutes a revert and
also counter to Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. The behavior of other admins on
the mailing list recently towards new users is frightening, as it is showing
a marked cliquishness and hostility towards newcomers that you epitomize.
Besides calling you a rogue admin and then pointing out Wikipedia policies
you have violated, what has Enviroknot said to you? I would ask the same of
him but you have rendered him incapable of putting forth any responses on
here for me to see, and you have already stated that you will not discuss
this in good faith and in public on the mailing list.
This block and 3RR report are in bad faith. I urge any admin who comes by to
remove the block immediately. User:80.237.206.62
From: "steven l. rubenstein"
<rubenste(a)ohiou.edu>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] cool it
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:27:03 -0400
I am no one to throw stones, so let's just say that I know perfectly well
what it is like to lose my temper and to be unable to fight the urge to use
harsh, even insulting language. Fortunately, when this happens there are
usually plenty of people who tell me to stop, or even to apologize.
Can we please stop using the phrase "rogue admin," especially in the
subject space for the e-mail.
This isn't about the fact that I think SlimVirgin is a dedicated editor who
has added much to Wikipedia. We can discuss questions of improper action,
or possible reasons for it, here or more appropriately at the Admin
bulletin board, incident report page, whatever. But it doesn't matter who
you are talking about. This phrase "rogue admin" is inflammatory,
unnecessarily insulting, and has no place at Wikipedia. If we as a
community or some body representing the community decides that a sysop
should be de-sysopped, okay, we de-sysop the person. But until that
happens, they are an administrator. Period. If you don't like what that
administrator has done, fine, but focus on the action. And certainly don't
go around calling someone a rogue administrator -- this insults the whole
community because the person using this phrase is abrogating the authority
to decide who is or is not a legitimate administrator. You may not like
what they did, you may not like them personally, but as long as they are
administrators, call them that, or don't call them anything at all.
And for all those who do not like the phrase "rogue admin" or who do not
think X deserves to be called rogue admin, please change the subject
heading of your e-mail. Will it screw up the thread? Don't worry, anyone
going through the archived list-serve will figure it out.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/