>Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 20:15:59 +1000
>From: David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] And the bad faith continues from Wikipedia.
> ALL ADMINS are Rogue Admins
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>MacGyverMagic/Mgm (macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com) [050531 20:13]:
>> David and profanity? Maybe I missed it. I can't keep up with all these
>> What did he say?
>I called him a "lying fuck". Which he is, but it's still unseemly. I have
>taken away my biscuit.
When is a person a "fuck", rather than just being a person who has told
lies? Or are you just annoyed at the person and want to call him a "fuck"?
>Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 08:28:04 +0100
>From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>>Somewhere along the way, Wikipedia seems to have lost something
>>valuable. I look at this list and just about everything I see is one
>>group of editors bickering with another group.
>We gained ... an encyclopedia: 500000 articles in March, 10% added
>Nobody should kid themselves that there was ever a golden time when there
>was no 'bickering'. If you look at the traffic numbers you see huge
>Every month or so an asocial user kicking up a fuss about the way things
>handled... it's the price we pay for being a radically open community.
>Remember, this is a big volunteer project; all that happens is that some
>people simply make it too hard for them to be accepted as volunteers.
How true that is.
>Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 06:30:01 +0100
>From: "A Nony Mouse" <tempforcomments(a)hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>Whether he is "barely" deserving of a fair treatment or otherwise, nobody
>here has given him a fair treatment by any stretch of the imagination.
>That won't do.
I wouldn't know. I'm not acquainted with the banned user.
>I also have Phil's "circle the wagons" rant up above. He thinks expansion
>kills online communities. I think he's right.
>Expansion kills online communities because of people like Phil who won't
>admit that they need to let go and they need to deal with the new people
>coming in fairly. People like Phil who think that "shoot them all unless
>they are exactly like us and make no noise whatsoever" is the way to go
>about dealing with newbies.
Heck, expansion kills other communities, too, when people happen to be
bigots about either the newcomers or the old-timers. Phil, not all
newcomers are like you. Some newcomers like to have fun, but they aren't
necessarily out to be trolls. Anony, people like Phil are all over the
place, not just on Wikipedia. There are probably numerous open-minded
chaps on Wikipedia nonetheless. (Phil, if you want to be viewed as
open-minded, well, open up your mind, I guess unless, of course, you ARE
open-minded, in which case, try not to rush to conclusions on every Newbie
that comes within your reach.
>Now you know why I went anonymous. If I didn't Phil would be leading a
>charge to have me removed right now for saying that.
If Phil did that, that would be unnecessary and POV censorship.
>David and SlimVirgin's behaviour in this matter has been sub-par. So has
>behaviour of the rest of you on this list.
Anony: What behavior? I didn't act before because I was busy and because I
didn't know very much about the issue. Therefore, I shouldn't be accused
of sub-par behavior, for I hadn't performed ANY behavior at the time of
your letter. No doubt there are others. Here's a case of POV on
>This doesn't just affect that one
>user. It affects everyone they tell about Wikipedia. It affects everyone
>agreed with them on one topic or another at Wikipedia. I've only looked
>the Enviroknot profile for any length of time but based on its list of
>contributions there was potential for a good editor. Solid edits were
>and backed up on talk pages, edit summaries and wikipedia policies were
If that's the case, then Enviroknot shouldn't have been banned right away;
he should've been WARNED beforehand, at least once or twice, or given a
>The only offense I can see in the Enviroknot profile is a pair of 3RR
>violations. The one SlimVirgin put in tonight is totally unjustified. The
>one earlier when people were claiming Enviroknot was also another IP
>is pushing your luck.
I wouldn't know about those offenses. Don't ask me - I'm no admin.
>Meanwhile, editors and administrators alike have been hounding that
>looking for any excuse to attack it. None of you bothered to set aside
>feelings long enough to look at the situation.
If that is true, then it's stupid.
>That isn't right. The behaviour of all of you in this scenario is making
>sick to my stomach. I thought you were better than this. If that's really
>Phil's attitude, then there's no way he should be given power at
>If the rest of you share that attitude, then Wikipedia is doomed.
>A.Nony.Mouse, for the purpose of this conversation.
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT DOOMED, OK? I fail to see how being a bit trigger-happy
necessarily dooms Wikipedia, although I recognize it as being somewhat bad
policy if it can be avoided.
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 21:04:15 -0700
> From: Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] And the bad faith continues from Wikipedia.
> ALL ADMINS are Rogue Admins
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <429BE23F.9050600(a)apple.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Cranston Snord wrote:
> > Apparently, for following Wikipedia policy and bringing my complaints,
> > I have been blocked.
> > I am not going to swear at you, despite SlimVirgin's lies and David
> > Gerard's profanity.
> > But I hope you are happy. I now know why Wikipedia isn't worth
> > anything. It's because Wikipedia policy isn't worth the electrons used
> > to store it.
> > All Wikipedia Admins ARE Rogue Admins.
> Personally I favor being a Barbarian Admin, although
> Archaeologist Admin is good for a change of pace, and
> Valkyrie Admin has its equipment advantages at lower
How about Viking Admin? :-)
Whether he is "barely" deserving of a fair treatment or otherwise, nobody
here has given him a fair treatment by any stretch of the imagination.
That won't do.
I also have Phil's "circle the wagons" rant up above. He thinks expansion
kills online communities. I think he's right.
Expansion kills online communities because of people like Phil who won't
admit that they need to let go and they need to deal with the new people
coming in fairly. People like Phil who think that "shoot them all unless
they are exactly like us and make no noise whatsoever" is the way to go
about dealing with newbies.
Now you know why I went anonymous. If I didn't Phil would be leading a
charge to have me removed right now for saying that.
David and SlimVirgin's behaviour in this matter has been sub-par. So has the
behaviour of the rest of you on this list. This doesn't just affect that one
user. It affects everyone they tell about Wikipedia. It affects everyone who
agreed with them on one topic or another at Wikipedia. I've only looked at
the Enviroknot profile for any length of time but based on its list of
contributions there was potential for a good editor. Solid edits were made
and backed up on talk pages, edit summaries and wikipedia policies were
The only offense I can see in the Enviroknot profile is a pair of 3RR
violations. The one SlimVirgin put in tonight is totally unjustified. The
one earlier when people were claiming Enviroknot was also another IP address
is pushing your luck.
Meanwhile, editors and administrators alike have been hounding that profile
looking for any excuse to attack it. None of you bothered to set aside your
feelings long enough to look at the situation.
That isn't right. The behaviour of all of you in this scenario is making me
sick to my stomach. I thought you were better than this. If that's really
Phil's attitude, then there's no way he should be given power at Wikipedia.
If the rest of you share that attitude, then Wikipedia is doomed.
A.Nony.Mouse, for the purpose of this conversation.
>From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on
>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 23:11:03 -0400
>While I agree with your points with respect to admin behavior, I
>wanted to point out that Enviroknot edits from the same IP as a known
>block evading pest who keeps creating socks to support his position.
>I think everyone deserves a fair treatment, but Enviroknott has made
>that very difficult with his accusations, and is probably only barely
>deserving of a fair treatment considering that it's almost certain
>that he is a sock as claimed by others.
>On 5/30/05, A Nony Mouse <tempforcomments(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I have been watching the last week's events with dismay. I have been
> > to compose this email for two hours, but every time I get close,
> > else comes up.
> > I have decided to make this anonymous. I do not know how some of you
> > react and I do not wish to take any chance that I would be harassed for
> > this.
> > There are two cases that bother me. Jack Lynch aka Sam Spade and
> > Snord aka Enviroknot. Both of these cases scare me because of the
> > that they have set.
> > In the case of Jack, there was a question of a block war. Administrators
> > were fighting over what to do with him. This is not a good thing for
> > Wikipedia editors no matter who they are. It indicates that the user is
> > of a concern than something between the two Administrators.
> > It is the case of Cranston Snord aka Enviroknot that worries me more.
> > is the case that has made me take the drastic step of sending an email
> > the list anonymously. I had originally been trying to type up a response
> > Cranston's concerns about being blocked. I believe that SlimVirgin
> > policy by doing so. Unfortunately for me, such an email would likely now
> > a day late and a dollar short.
> > Cranston was a disruption to the list, but much of that disruption was
> > caused by other people on this list treating him with incredible
> > I was taken aback by his accusations against administrators but having
> > looked at the cases in hand I believe that he has a point.
> > There were emails on this list asking whether anyone was taking him
> > seriously. This is the height of arrogance, and it is something that
> > frightens me. Administrators should never be acting as if ordinary
> > do not matter.
> > As for his complaints about being blocked, the dismissiveness on this
> > hurt me. No matter who it is making a complaint, we have a duty to
> > investigate it. We are listed as the last resort for users who have been
> > wronged. I took the time to investigate SlimVirgin's blocking of
> > and I believe that it is not valid.
> > By the time I got to the discussion, it was a good series of emails
> > and despite the number of list members who had posted, none save
> > had bothered to address Enviroknot's concerns on the block in any way.
> > SlimVirgin herself made a bad judgement call. An edit made in good faith
> > should never be considered a reversion, even if it contains some content
> > that is included in a later reversion.
> > Instead of acknowledging this fact, the list members were universally
> > dismissive of Enviroknot from the first email. One went so far as to
> > that the term "rogue admin" not be used, without addressing the reasons
> > it had been brought up in multiple cases recently.
> > We have a problem with administrators exceeding their authority on
> > Wikipedia. We have a problem with administrators not applying policy
> > correctly. And we have a problem with arrogance on these lists, with
> > administrators believing that they are somehow better than others.
> > With the increased power of administrator access comes a responsibility
> > use it fairly and adhere to the established procedures and policies. The
> > actions of an Administrator should themselves be NPOV. We have stated
> > that when a user is found to be violating policy, if they return and do
> > break policy, their previous transgressions should not be held against
> > There are a number of administrators who are failing in that
> > and they are present on this list. One of them, rather than addressing
> > Enviroknot's concerns in a calm tone and actually going over policy,
> > to kickban Enviroknot entirely.
> > I have never until today been ashamed to be a part of Wikipedia, but
> > it is. Take it as you will.
> > A.Nony.Mouse, for the purpose of this conversation.
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Create the ultimate online companion - meet the Meegos!
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
More features, more fun, still absolutely FREE - get Messsenger 7.0!
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.
Steven L. Rubenstein
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Athens, Ohio 45701
Apparently, for following Wikipedia policy and bringing my complaints, I
have been blocked.
I am not going to swear at you, despite SlimVirgin's lies and David Gerard's
But I hope you are happy. I now know why Wikipedia isn't worth anything.
It's because Wikipedia policy isn't worth the electrons used to store it.
All Wikipedia Admins ARE Rogue Admins.
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Apparently, for the crime of disagreeing with a few Admins, I am now being
targeted for abuse and harassment, including bogus inclusion in a RFAr which
I believe was started under dubious motivation.
I have left notice on Mel Etitis' talk page that I will not stand for what
he has done, but I am informing you all on here as well. Mel Etitis is not
allowed to edit my User page, nor is he allowed to delete messages or
content from my Talk page. I want his, and the rest of his fellow admins',
harassment of me to end.
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!