[Foundation-l] Request for assistance

Thu Jan 6 18:08:26 UTC 2011

Another sensible answer and commentary that is also deeply appreciated.
Answers are now being given in the proper order.

The user's post was not "about an RFA on Meta." What was posted was a
request for assistance "to all women and men of good faith who are members
of this mailing list," that had links to a RfA. It was on account of posts
made on an RfA and its talk page that the user was asking for whatever
assistance was deemed appropriate and capable of being provided, mainly
helping with answers to the six items listed a) through f). So far, nobody
as provided that kind of assistance.

The fact that the sequence of events started at a RfA was purely
circumstantial. They could have happened at any other page, where the user
would have made some posts that could be used as a pretext for a certain
type of other users and administrators to seek and block the user.

Why a pretext? Because the accusing editor or anybody else haven't
provided any evidence on which their accusations and block is based, and
that they are willing and able to handle a request to unblock in a
reasonable and timely fashion, i.e., providing answers to the six items
listed a) through f), now on the user's talk page, but that they were
aware much earlier, by the accuser's own post on the ban request:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Vapmachado_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_-_ban_request

Neither have they responded to a suggestion, also made on the user's talk
page to make the whole matter irrelevant. The users involved have not
shown any willingness and openness to dialog, and accommodation.
Furthermore, the accusation has been changed, using a privilege that is
denied to the user. Given the choice of erasing the strongly oppose vote
and his comments on the talk page or being blocked, would the user have
any hesitation in choosing the first option? Is a support vote what is so
desired? Is unanimity in the voting what's really at stake here? If the
editor wants to be administrator that badly, even under these appalling
circumstances, and there has not been a single beep as to how he feels
about all this "Much Ado About Nothing," what is the problem of extorting
one more vote under the threat of an "inmediate & indef block" (sic)? The
user would give the "nominee" a thousand votes if he could and if that's
what makes everybody happy, get some characters off his back, and let him
contribute the best way he can and knows.

The above mentioned behavior makes it very hard to make certain users'
good faith believable, mainly when faced with the futility of a previous
request for unblock that was never answered (item (a) mentioned above).
Just like before, and for the fourth time, the objective is to block the
user at all cost, no matter what the reason or its merits. For motives,
you'll have to ask those involved. There are people specially trained that
could help sort those kind of things. This user does not have the required
qualifications.

The user does not take any credit for "not suggest voting in any
particular manner," because that was never an issue and he could care less
how others vote.

We now have two POVs. One states that they "were backhanded insults."
Another that they were "excusable as all of the people doing so do know
how to moderate their enthusiasm." You sort it out. "Frankly, My Dear, I
Don't Give A Damn."

The suggestion not to bring up Meta RfAs on Foundation-l is therefore
besides the point, as that was not the purpose of the request for
assistance as already explained. Some users just thought it was great fun
to make a mockery of a request for assistance, an unruly, derogatory and
outright abusive behavior not unusual on this list, that has been
discussed before, on several occasions.

Not question the sincerity of the user in posting on the list is duly
appreciated.

There is however a statement that has been repeated to exhaustion: "I do
think you have no understanding whatsoever of how Wikimedia works, in
detail or broad overview." My first instinct is to let the author of this
statement live happily with that belief until the end of his time. Why
upset his state of bliss and comfort? Live and let live. Some people
believe in much worse or more reproachable things. A colleague of this
user once insisted that this user's older brother was one year ahead of
them in high school (he was two). To this day, this user still regrets to
have disappointed his colleague explaining that they were talking about
the user's only brother, and prevented his colleague from dying in
blissful ignorance of that small detail. How must he have felt when he
realized that he was wrong about something he had absolutely no doubt
concerning two brothers?

There's no recollection of any instance where evidence has been provided
to support the quoted statement. The user begs to differ and believes that
the author of such statement, disseminated in countless occasions and
pages, has one of two options: either he provides whatever evidence he has
and gives the user equal opportunity for rebuttal in an public forum, or
his insistence in stating his "belief" can only be viewed as uncivil and a
dissemination of mistrust. One must not forget that the author has
recently made an unsavory post about the user
(http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-December/062850.html)
that does not vouch for the good intentions or good faith, for all that it
matters, of "a native speaker of BS."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard)

It would be unfair not to thank the author and all the remaining cast of
characters for the extraordinary entertainment they have provided this
user and for all the time they have distracted him from more pressing,
boring and outright annoying obligations. It has been great fun since day
one and this user is looking forward to many more healthy years of great
fun. Thank you all for being there for him, and for being what you are.

Y'all have a Merry Kings' Day.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

On Wed, January 5, 2011 10:06 pm, David Gerard wrote:
> On 5 January 2011 21:51, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam at fct.unl.pt> wrote:
>
>> Is this supposed to be funny?
>> Time to address this matter to the list moderators.
>
>
> I would say that posting about an RFA on Meta is not specifically
> off-topic for here, but I wouldn't like it to happen for *every* RFA.
> It is entirely to your credit that, in posting the link to the RFA,
> you did not suggest voting in any particular manner.
>
> I'm not sure it's a good idea for others to post their support for
> Peter's admin nomination - merely on the basis of assuming that any
> given style of posting will be duplicated until it's a bad idea - but
> I think it's excusable as all of the people doing so do know how to
> moderate their enthusiasm.
>
> I would suggest Meta RFAs not be brought up on foundation-l in
> general, but I would trust in the good sense of contributors (there
> may, after all, be a case in which doing so is a good idea) rather
> than making a rule as such.
>
> I do not question your sincerity in posting here. I do think you have
> no understanding whatsoever of how Wikimedia works, in detail or broad
> overview, but that's quite different from questioning your sincerity
> in any way. I see no reason not to assume good faith. An actual troll
> would have given up long ago.
>
>
> - d.
>