Skyring wrote:
Grab yourself a sockpuppet account, dive into an edit
war, start
correcting stuff and see what happens when other ditors don't know who
you are.
I'm sorry, but I would personally find this to be unethical behavior.
But I could be convinced to do it if you could show me some links
Then try to forget that you are well-regarded and
experienced here and
you have a great deal of power. Put yourself in the shoes of a new
editor doing what they see as the right thing and encountering
statements like this one: "I will revert you twice a day, for the rest
of history if needs be. Plus I have more allies than you, so your
attempts to restalinise this article must fail."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKhmer_Rouge&diff=14835…
But in this case, this response was absolutely valid. Ruy Lopez was
engaging in an ongoing campaign of vandalism of the article, and letting
him know that we're more patient than he is, is exactly the right thing
to do.
This is from an editor, one heavily supported by
admins and ArbCom
members, who manages to get away with the most shocking abuse, often
involving sexual connotations.
Please show me a diff involving sexual connotations?
Comments form an Arbcom member about protecting this editor, despite
his long history of abuse may be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbit…
This comment does not tell me anything particularly useful. It is
widely acknowledged, even by Adam himself, that he's often difficult.
He doesn't cross the line, but if we put users on a spectrum of
usefulness/difficulty, certainly he scores very very high on usefulness
and higher than average on difficulty.
Adam has no special protection from me or the ArbCom.
I'm not trying to refight old battles here, merely
pointing out that
in my experience, thuggery, threats and hypocrisy are what a new
editor may expect if he gets on the wrong side of "the old soldiers"
here.
I don't see much evidence of that. Of course there are better and worse
examples of everything. But what we're discussing is a handful of
really wild accusations that people are randomly banned if they cross
old timers, etc. A lack of perfection is certainly something that we
always need to be rigorous about examining... but hardly justifies wild
trolling from users who seem to offer no actual evidence of injustice.
I appreciate you offering a few diffs, and hope you'll offer more. I'd
particularly like to see where you got the conclusion that Adam Carr
"manages to get away with the most shocking abuse, often involving
sexual connotations."
--Jimbo