On 21 Aug 2007 at 12:04:11 -0700, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Discussed on one of the admin pages on-wiki, but JzG has some things to say while on break...
He's got some points in there, but I have to disagree strenuously with the paragraph about Wikipedia not sufficiently protecting MONGO. Yes, MONGO has been trolled, but he has also continually fed the trolls, and many of his woes are self-inflicted. As for Wikipedia not protecting him, I don't know what alternate universe that is written from, but the way I see it, he's always had a powerful clique circling their wagons around him every time he's (sometimes justly) criticized, and making sure that all the slings and arrows aimed at him bounce back and injure his critics instead. After all that, he's still peeved because not everybody who has ever had a bad word to say about him has been summarily, permanently banned on just his say-so, and that, on a few occasions, a necessity to give due process to people he accuses of wrongdoing has been observed. He and his friends have often been seen organizing "a sustained, vicious, well- orchestrated and relentless attack" against those who oppose him, but nobody can call them bullies without being labeled as a "troll".
It's long past time that the rules of Wikipedia be enforced impartially on everybody, not with the double standard where the favored clique is always right and anybody opposing them is always wrong.
On 21/08/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 21 Aug 2007 at 12:04:11 -0700, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Discussed on one of the admin pages on-wiki, but JzG has some things to say while on break...
He's got some points in there, but I have to disagree strenuously with the paragraph about Wikipedia not sufficiently protecting MONGO. Yes, MONGO has been trolled, but he has also continually fed the trolls, and many of his woes are self-inflicted. As for Wikipedia not protecting him, I don't know what alternate universe that is written from, but the way I see it, he's always had a powerful clique circling their wagons around him every time he's (sometimes justly) criticized, and making sure that all the slings and arrows aimed at him bounce back and injure his critics instead. After all that, he's still peeved because not everybody who has ever had a bad word to say about him has been summarily, permanently banned on just his say-so, and that, on a few occasions, a necessity to give due process to people he accuses of wrongdoing has been observed. He and his friends have often been seen organizing "a sustained, vicious, well- orchestrated and relentless attack" against those who oppose him, but nobody can call them bullies without being labeled as a "troll".
It's long past time that the rules of Wikipedia be enforced impartially on everybody, not with the double standard where the favored clique is always right and anybody opposing them is always wrong.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Not feeding the 'trolls'? That's how I lost one of my jobs. One of the assistant managers was hitting on me, and wouldn't stop no matter how many times I politely told him I wasn't interested, or turned the other way. I should've slapped the jerk the first time he tried to grope. Instead, I tried to protect his reputation.
As it turned out, I ended up having to quit that job just to avoid being fired. My co-workers could've helped. Instead, they just got mad at me. Typical.
on 8/21/07 8:49 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
It's long past time that the rules of Wikipedia be enforced impartially on everybody, not with the double standard where the favored clique is always right and anybody opposing them is always wrong.
I agree with you, Daniel. But I need to ask this question: Enforced by whom? Who is using this double standard?
Marc Riddell
All I have to say is: about damn time someone said what you have said here Daniel. Just because users are deeply entrenched or have friends does not discount the possibility of serious misconduct. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely (not that I'm saying there's a "MONGO cabal" with absolute power).
On 8/21/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/21/07 8:49 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
It's long past time that the rules of Wikipedia be enforced impartially on everybody, not with the double standard where the favored clique is always right and anybody opposing them is always wrong.
I agree with you, Daniel. But I need to ask this question: Enforced by whom? Who is using this double standard?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Balls. All power corrupts, and absolute power is actually pretty neat.
C More schi
From: "Steven Walling" steven.walling@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Guy Chapman's commentary... Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:40:55 -0700
All I have to say is: about damn time someone said what you have said here Daniel. Just because users are deeply entrenched or have friends does not discount the possibility of serious misconduct. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely (not that I'm saying there's a "MONGO cabal" with absolute power).
On 8/21/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/21/07 8:49 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
It's long past time that the rules of Wikipedia be enforced impartially on everybody, not with the double standard where the favored clique is always right and anybody opposing them is always wrong.
I agree with you, Daniel. But I need to ask this question: Enforced by whom? Who is using this double standard?
Marc Riddell
_________________________________________________________________ The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
On 21/08/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
All I have to say is: about damn time someone said what you have said here Daniel. Just because users are deeply entrenched or have friends does not discount the possibility of serious misconduct. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely (not that I'm saying there's a "MONGO cabal" with absolute power).
Newsflash: People don't handle pain well. http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/10/1115
He that has many friends, has no friends. http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?2&TheHareWithManyFriends
On 8/21/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/21/07 8:49 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
It's long past time that the rules of Wikipedia be enforced impartially on everybody, not with the double standard where the favored clique is always right and anybody opposing them is always wrong.
I agree with you, Daniel. But I need to ask this question: Enforced by whom? Who is using this double standard?
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l