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&oldid...) 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@ohiou.edu Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@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@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/