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
steven l. rubenstein (rubenste@ohiou.edu) [050531 09:28]:
Can we please stop using the phrase "rogue admin," especially in the subject space for the e-mail.
I think we need to get the [[GIMP]] out and turn up the red on all the admins on [[Wikipedia:Facebook]]. I have taken care to make the link [[Wikipedia:Rouge admin]] redirect appropriately. (Shortcut: [[WP:ROUGE]])
- d.
steven l. rubenstein (rubenste@ohiou.edu) [050531 09:28]:
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.
More seriously, I will point out that when we *have* had an administrator apparently go batshit, they get desysopped on an emergency basis in pretty short order - someone typically goes to the dev IRC channel and lets them know, someone with the relevant power takes a look, and if they look at the edits and blanch the sysop bit is switched off until we know WTF is going on. So actual "rogue admins" are dealt with on a sharp and effective basis.
- d.
All fine and good.
What she has done is still against policy, and I am still blocked.
And she HAS been persecuting me.
Making a big email about why someone should or shouldn't be called a rogue admin, when the admin's gaming of the system, harassment of editors, and behavior in violation of policy is NOT addressed is ridiculous.
I'll agree to stop calling her a rogue admin if Wikipedia policy is actually followed and I see that I've been unblocked.
-Enviroknot
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
_________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Anyone who wants to check this block is welcome to do so. The details are at [[WP:AN/3RR]] under [[User:Enviroknot]].
Sarah
On 5/30/05, Cranston Snord enviroknot@hotmail.com wrote:
All fine and good.
What she has done is still against policy, and I am still blocked.
And she HAS been persecuting me.
Making a big email about why someone should or shouldn't be called a rogue admin, when the admin's gaming of the system, harassment of editors, and behavior in violation of policy is NOT addressed is ridiculous.
I'll agree to stop calling her a rogue admin if Wikipedia policy is actually followed and I see that I've been unblocked.
-Enviroknot
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
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/30/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone who wants to check this block is welcome to do so. The details are at [[WP:AN/3RR]] under [[User:Enviroknot]].
I truly hope that the only reason he is being permitted to mail to this list is because of the amusement factor. I seriously doubt anyone, except the usual suspects, is giving his accusations any serious consideration.
-Matt (User:Morven)
Matt Brown (morven@gmail.com) [050531 10:16]:
On 5/30/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone who wants to check this block is welcome to do so. The details are at [[WP:AN/3RR]] under [[User:Enviroknot]].
I truly hope that the only reason he is being permitted to mail to this list is because of the amusement factor. I seriously doubt anyone, except the usual suspects, is giving his accusations any serious consideration.
Oh, it was useful hearing from a Roadrunner user just how often they actually change the DHCP addresses, i.e. not for months at a time.
- d.
Well, there's a vote for Wikipedia policy meaning nothing.
I bring complaints to this list because it is my only recourse under Wikipedia policy. The fact that you are talking about blocking me off indicates only that you are a Rogue Admin as well.
She broke policy. Good-faith edits are never reverts, and she knows that, but she did it anyway because she intends to persecute me.
-Enviroknot
From: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com Reply-To: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: slimvirgin@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] cool it Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 17:16:11 -0700
On 5/30/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone who wants to check this block is welcome to do so. The details are at [[WP:AN/3RR]] under [[User:Enviroknot]].
I truly hope that the only reason he is being permitted to mail to this list is because of the amusement factor. I seriously doubt anyone, except the usual suspects, is giving his accusations any serious consideration.
-Matt (User:Morven) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
The "user is blocked" message says: "If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-l mailing list." This does not mean you have the absolute right to disrupt the mailing list by spamming it with numerous demands to be unblocked.
As usual, there is a lone voice bleating away about administrators being 'rogue' and being "more interested in hiding what they do and preventing users from reporting them than they are in following policy". Of course, we could be authoritarian and point out to these users that nobody has "the right" to edit Wikipedia, except where allowed by the Wikimedia Foundation. We could point out that it is the administrators who, day in, day out, have to delete the tonnes of vandalism, block the spambots and deal with petulant wankers with too much time on their hands and decide to pass the time by disrupting Wikipedia as much as possible. But people probably wouldn't care.
Wikipedians don't take kindly to insults, against ourselves or against other decent users. Enviroknot has blown his chance to get any sympathy or recourse from the mailing list by making wild accusations and failing to address the actual reasons behind his or her actual block.
~Mark Ryan WikiEN-l administrator
On 5/31/05, Cranston Snord enviroknot@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, there's a vote for Wikipedia policy meaning nothing.
I bring complaints to this list because it is my only recourse under Wikipedia policy. The fact that you are talking about blocking me off indicates only that you are a Rogue Admin as well.
She broke policy. Good-faith edits are never reverts, and she knows that, but she did it anyway because she intends to persecute me.
-Enviroknot
From: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com Reply-To: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: slimvirgin@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] cool it Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 17:16:11 -0700
On 5/30/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone who wants to check this block is welcome to do so. The details are at [[WP:AN/3RR]] under [[User:Enviroknot]].
I truly hope that the only reason he is being permitted to mail to this list is because of the amusement factor. I seriously doubt anyone, except the usual suspects, is giving his accusations any serious consideration.
-Matt (User:Morven) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Cranston Snord" enviroknot@hotmail.com wrote in message news:BAY12-F29A002E2BAD455A01FD77BD8040@phx.gbl... [in reply to Matt Brown (User:Morven) wishing he would simply go away]
Well, there's a vote for Wikipedia policy meaning nothing. I bring complaints to this list because it is my only recourse under Wikipedia policy. The fact that you are talking about blocking me off indicates only that you are a Rogue Admin as well.
So I skip over to [[en:user:Morven]] and discover that if Matt is indeed a Wikipedia Admin, he's not exactly advertising it far and wide.
Are you an Admin at all Matt, rogue or otherwise?
"Phil Boswell" phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote in message news:d7hv3r$tsl$1@sea.gmane.org... [snip]
So I skip over to [[en:user:Morven]] and discover that if Matt is indeed a Wikipedia Admin, he's not exactly advertising it far and wide. Are you an Admin at all Matt, rogue or otherwise?
Answering my own question, once [[Special:ListAdmins]] finally decided to crawl over the threshold of our proxy server, yes, he is. He's simply not trumpeting it to the skies.
Actually most of the really good Admins are subtle...you only know they are when you catch them at it (which is obviously more fun when you're not the subject of their negative attention :-)
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/
On 5/31/05, steven l. rubenstein rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
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.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
--Mgm