Instead of supporting this chap's RC work, he gets ranted at for coming down too hard on obvious trolls, spammers etc.
JFW
Michael Turley wrote:
It seems Weyes has left. What a disgrace. We've never had such a diligent RC patroller, and he was more right than wrong in his crusade against excessive external links. That's another one gone after RickK. Why on earth do we fail the Wikipedians who do so much to protect our project from vandals, cranks and idiots?
Jfdwolff
I'm genuinely curious: in what way do you assign his absence to a failure of ours?
Failing to admin a volatile user is not a failure. A volatile user not recognizing the reasons for a delay in granting him additional powers; that is a failure. Weyes's volatility has been proven by his abrupt departure.
Note that several users who voted "oppose" to his admin candidacies also said he'd be a good candidate in the future. There were enough that if they changed their votes, he would have been adminned both times. He also received a lot of compliments for his RC patrol work, even in some oppose votes.
Like it or not, administrators are the "official face" of Wikipedia to the general editing public. Recently, many admins, and even some arbitrators seem to have forgotten this, and have been less civil than is generally expected from someone in such a position. Since de-adminning is near impossible for simple incivility (and incivility among admins is frequently excused by other admins as "part of a tough job"), it is becoming more difficult to become an admin because at least some users want Wikipedia to have an indefatigably friendly face. For some reason, some admins think this push for higher standards is an anti-admin cabal, rather than a legitimate, good faith effort by concerned individuals to improve Wikipedia. If you have a devil in the field, you need a lot more saints surrounding him if you don't want him seen.
Want adminship to be easier to get, and closer to "no big deal"? Be sure that the admins that are in place are always on their best behavior, and *always* admonish those who aren't, even if there isn't any formal punishment. Stop excusing incivility for any reason whatsoever.
You know something?
The behaviors of admins like Weyes could easily have become - the "many admins, and even some arbitrators" (read: just about ALL of the current Arbitration Committee as well as the now-retired "Red Queen") who have forgotten about civility and more generally about paying attention to Wikipedia policy - is what I've been talking about.
But instead of seeing them dealing with the issue, I've been getting almost nothing but nasty responses from the "go away we don't want to hear about it" inner Admin clique.
How does that grab you? What does that say about the current Admin clique?
A. Nony Mouse
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com Reply-To: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:26:36 -0400
Failing to admin a volatile user is not a failure. A volatile user not recognizing the reasons for a delay in granting him additional powers; that is a failure. Weyes's volatility has been proven by his abrupt departure.
Note that several users who voted "oppose" to his admin candidacies also said he'd be a good candidate in the future. There were enough that if they changed their votes, he would have been adminned both times. He also received a lot of compliments for his RC patrol work, even in some oppose votes.
Like it or not, administrators are the "official face" of Wikipedia to the general editing public. Recently, many admins, and even some arbitrators seem to have forgotten this, and have been less civil than is generally expected from someone in such a position. Since de-adminning is near impossible for simple incivility (and incivility among admins is frequently excused by other admins as "part of a tough job"), it is becoming more difficult to become an admin because at least some users want Wikipedia to have an indefatigably friendly face. For some reason, some admins think this push for higher standards is an anti-admin cabal, rather than a legitimate, good faith effort by concerned individuals to improve Wikipedia. If you have a devil in the field, you need a lot more saints surrounding him if you don't want him seen.
Want adminship to be easier to get, and closer to "no big deal"? Be sure that the admins that are in place are always on their best behavior, and *always* admonish those who aren't, even if there isn't any formal punishment. Stop excusing incivility for any reason whatsoever.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
_________________________________________________________________ Upgrade to Messenger 7.0 - more fun features, still totally FREE! http://messenger.msn.co.uk
On 7/5/05, A. Nony Mouse temoforcomments4@hotmail.com wrote:
You know something?
The behaviors of admins like Weyes could easily have become - the "many admins, and even some arbitrators" (read: just about ALL of the current Arbitration Committee as well as the now-retired "Red Queen") who have forgotten about civility and more generally about paying attention to Wikipedia policy - is what I've been talking about.
But instead of seeing them dealing with the issue, I've been getting almost nothing but nasty responses from the "go away we don't want to hear about it" inner Admin clique.
How does that grab you? What does that say about the current Admin clique?
A. Nony Mouse
Your reply "grabs me" as considerably more critical than my own message was intended to be.
I don't see a clique, and I don't see any significant abuses of policy, but I do occasionally see excuses for harsh conduct where no excuses should be.
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com Reply-To: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:43:16 -0400
On 7/5/05, A. Nony Mouse temoforcomments4@hotmail.com wrote:
You know something?
The behaviors of admins like Weyes could easily have become - the "many admins, and even some arbitrators" (read: just about ALL of the current Arbitration Committee as well as the now-retired "Red Queen") who have forgotten about civility and more generally about paying attention to Wikipedia policy - is what I've been talking about.
But instead of seeing them dealing with the issue, I've been getting
almost
nothing but nasty responses from the "go away we don't want to hear
about
it" inner Admin clique.
How does that grab you? What does that say about the current Admin
clique?
A. Nony Mouse
Your reply "grabs me" as considerably more critical than my own message was intended to be.
I don't see a clique, and I don't see any significant abuses of policy, but I do occasionally see excuses for harsh conduct where no excuses should be.
I call it a clique because it's the same admins - time and again - who are the ones coming in and making excuses for the bad behavior of their friends. And the favor seems to be returned.
It's not just here, it's on Wikipedia in general. All we see on this list is the tip of the iceberg, the very few users who cared enough for WHATEVER reason to take the option of last resort and appeal for the righting of wrongs.
Instead of getting it, they're getting harrassment at the hands of this clique of editors who see nothing wrong with bad behavior and in many cases encourage the bad behavior of their fellows.
That's a problem. A BIG problem. Without this clique of editors, we wouldn't have been subjected to expletive-filled rants by Kurita77 and Yoder. I don't blame the newbies, I blame the clique of editors who choose to take an opportunity to blow off steam by repeatedly biting newbies until they blow up.
A. Nony Mouse
_________________________________________________________________ Start dating right now with FREE Match.com membership! http://match.msn.ie
If its such a problem, you don't have to edit. Infact, you don't even have to be on this mailing list, and the borderline, unjustifyable cases you are bringing up are making people not want you to do either.
Now, i'm not sure who you are, but you've been repeating yourself for the past couple of days and its quite clear that you aren't bringing anything to this mailing list that we haven't heard and defended ourselves against before.
The only case you seem to be bringing to us is the same old "Admins abuse power", "Admins are evil", etc. messages which aren't anything new. Its starting to bore people, to be honest, and unless you have any substantial evidence to present about all of this I really doubt that your persistence will get you anywhere. ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Nony Mouse" temoforcomments4@hotmail.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com Reply-To: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:43:16 -0400
On 7/5/05, A. Nony Mouse temoforcomments4@hotmail.com wrote:
You know something?
The behaviors of admins like Weyes could easily have become - the
"many
admins, and even some arbitrators" (read: just about ALL of the
current
Arbitration Committee as well as the now-retired "Red Queen") who have forgotten about civility and more generally about paying attention to Wikipedia policy - is what I've been talking about.
But instead of seeing them dealing with the issue, I've been getting
almost
nothing but nasty responses from the "go away we don't want to hear
about
it" inner Admin clique.
How does that grab you? What does that say about the current Admin
clique?
A. Nony Mouse
Your reply "grabs me" as considerably more critical than my own message was intended to be.
I don't see a clique, and I don't see any significant abuses of policy, but I do occasionally see excuses for harsh conduct where no excuses should be.
I call it a clique because it's the same admins - time and again - who are the ones coming in and making excuses for the bad behavior of their
friends.
And the favor seems to be returned.
It's not just here, it's on Wikipedia in general. All we see on this list
is
the tip of the iceberg, the very few users who cared enough for WHATEVER reason to take the option of last resort and appeal for the righting of wrongs.
Instead of getting it, they're getting harrassment at the hands of this clique of editors who see nothing wrong with bad behavior and in many
cases
encourage the bad behavior of their fellows.
That's a problem. A BIG problem. Without this clique of editors, we
wouldn't
have been subjected to expletive-filled rants by Kurita77 and Yoder. I
don't
blame the newbies, I blame the clique of editors who choose to take an opportunity to blow off steam by repeatedly biting newbies until they blow up.
A. Nony Mouse
Start dating right now with FREE Match.com membership! http://match.msn.ie
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am specifically NOT saying that *ALL* Admins are evil. However, there ARE a decent number of them who are regularly abusing their authority, and who (on this list and on Wikipedia in general) are not being reined in but instead are being encouraged to continue their behavior by mutual protectors who are ALSO Admins.
It's quite a racket. Get in as friends with the "right" Admins / ArbCom members, and you're functionally insulated from any penalty for breaking the rules or abusing your powers. Because no matter WHAT you do, they will come riding to your rescue and defending your actions. And all you have to do in return is treat the bigwigs as if their word had come directly from the mouth of $DIETY as divine law, and back THEM up when someone protests against THEIR abuses.
But I'm not allowed to name names. Since I don't run the list and I'm not part of the clique, that's a "personal attack."
I have presented my points in the case of Yoder and Kurita77. YOU seem to be dead-set on IGNORING it, because you want to justify the behavior of clique-member Admins.
A. Nony Mouse
From: "David 'DJ' Hedley" spyders@btinternet.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:06:54 +0100
If its such a problem, you don't have to edit. Infact, you don't even have to be on this mailing list, and the borderline, unjustifyable cases you are bringing up are making people not want you to do either.
Now, i'm not sure who you are, but you've been repeating yourself for the past couple of days and its quite clear that you aren't bringing anything to this mailing list that we haven't heard and defended ourselves against before.
The only case you seem to be bringing to us is the same old "Admins abuse power", "Admins are evil", etc. messages which aren't anything new. Its starting to bore people, to be honest, and unless you have any substantial evidence to present about all of this I really doubt that your persistence will get you anywhere. ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Nony Mouse" temoforcomments4@hotmail.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com Reply-To: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:43:16 -0400
On 7/5/05, A. Nony Mouse temoforcomments4@hotmail.com wrote:
You know something?
The behaviors of admins like Weyes could easily have become - the
"many
admins, and even some arbitrators" (read: just about ALL of the
current
Arbitration Committee as well as the now-retired "Red Queen") who
have
forgotten about civility and more generally about paying attention
to
Wikipedia policy - is what I've been talking about.
But instead of seeing them dealing with the issue, I've been getting
almost
nothing but nasty responses from the "go away we don't want to hear
about
it" inner Admin clique.
How does that grab you? What does that say about the current Admin
clique?
A. Nony Mouse
Your reply "grabs me" as considerably more critical than my own message was intended to be.
I don't see a clique, and I don't see any significant abuses of policy, but I do occasionally see excuses for harsh conduct where no excuses should be.
I call it a clique because it's the same admins - time and again - who
are
the ones coming in and making excuses for the bad behavior of their
friends.
And the favor seems to be returned.
It's not just here, it's on Wikipedia in general. All we see on this
list is
the tip of the iceberg, the very few users who cared enough for WHATEVER reason to take the option of last resort and appeal for the righting of wrongs.
Instead of getting it, they're getting harrassment at the hands of this clique of editors who see nothing wrong with bad behavior and in many
cases
encourage the bad behavior of their fellows.
That's a problem. A BIG problem. Without this clique of editors, we
wouldn't
have been subjected to expletive-filled rants by Kurita77 and Yoder. I
don't
blame the newbies, I blame the clique of editors who choose to take an opportunity to blow off steam by repeatedly biting newbies until they
blow
up.
A. Nony Mouse
Start dating right now with FREE Match.com membership!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Don't know what Meegos are? Click to find out. http://meegos.msn.ie
I haven't seen the case of Yoder, but lets just sum up the Kurita77 case:
You say that Kurita77 is not Enviroknot because:
* He sweared in his e-mails, and Enviroknot didn't. * His IP eventually didn't match (although this can easily be done by forging the IP)
We say that he is, because:
* His IP initially matched that of Enviroknot, both on the mailing list and on Wikipedia. * He instantly edited on the same topics as Enviroknot. * On these topics he edited on, he shared an opinion with Enviroknot, which was a minority opinion anyway.
I don't know about you, but are points cancel out yours ten times over. I'm out of this case now, but I think that the case is solved anyway. ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Nony Mouse" temoforcomments4@hotmail.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
I am specifically NOT saying that *ALL* Admins are evil. However, there
ARE
a decent number of them who are regularly abusing their authority, and who (on this list and on Wikipedia in general) are not being reined in but instead are being encouraged to continue their behavior by mutual
protectors
who are ALSO Admins.
It's quite a racket. Get in as friends with the "right" Admins / ArbCom members, and you're functionally insulated from any penalty for breaking
the
rules or abusing your powers. Because no matter WHAT you do, they will
come
riding to your rescue and defending your actions. And all you have to do
in
return is treat the bigwigs as if their word had come directly from the mouth of $DIETY as divine law, and back THEM up when someone protests against THEIR abuses.
But I'm not allowed to name names. Since I don't run the list and I'm not part of the clique, that's a "personal attack."
I have presented my points in the case of Yoder and Kurita77. YOU seem to
be
dead-set on IGNORING it, because you want to justify the behavior of clique-member Admins.
A. Nony Mouse
From: "David 'DJ' Hedley" spyders@btinternet.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:06:54 +0100
If its such a problem, you don't have to edit. Infact, you don't even
have
to be on this mailing list, and the borderline, unjustifyable cases you
are
bringing up are making people not want you to do either.
Now, i'm not sure who you are, but you've been repeating yourself for the past couple of days and its quite clear that you aren't bringing anything to this mailing list that we haven't heard and defended ourselves against before.
The only case you seem to be bringing to us is the same old "Admins abuse power", "Admins are evil", etc. messages which aren't anything new. Its starting to bore people, to be honest, and unless you have any
substantial
evidence to present about all of this I really doubt that your
persistence
will get you anywhere. ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Nony Mouse" temoforcomments4@hotmail.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com Reply-To: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:43:16 -0400
On 7/5/05, A. Nony Mouse temoforcomments4@hotmail.com wrote:
You know something?
The behaviors of admins like Weyes could easily have become - the
"many
admins, and even some arbitrators" (read: just about ALL of the
current
Arbitration Committee as well as the now-retired "Red Queen") who
have
forgotten about civility and more generally about paying attention
to
Wikipedia policy - is what I've been talking about.
But instead of seeing them dealing with the issue, I've been
getting
almost
nothing but nasty responses from the "go away we don't want to
hear
about
it" inner Admin clique.
How does that grab you? What does that say about the current Admin
clique?
A. Nony Mouse
Your reply "grabs me" as considerably more critical than my own message was intended to be.
I don't see a clique, and I don't see any significant abuses of policy, but I do occasionally see excuses for harsh conduct where no excuses should be.
I call it a clique because it's the same admins - time and again - who
are
the ones coming in and making excuses for the bad behavior of their
friends.
And the favor seems to be returned.
It's not just here, it's on Wikipedia in general. All we see on this
list is
the tip of the iceberg, the very few users who cared enough for
WHATEVER
reason to take the option of last resort and appeal for the righting
of
wrongs.
Instead of getting it, they're getting harrassment at the hands of
this
clique of editors who see nothing wrong with bad behavior and in many
cases
encourage the bad behavior of their fellows.
That's a problem. A BIG problem. Without this clique of editors, we
wouldn't
have been subjected to expletive-filled rants by Kurita77 and Yoder. I
don't
blame the newbies, I blame the clique of editors who choose to take an opportunity to blow off steam by repeatedly biting newbies until they
blow
up.
A. Nony Mouse
Start dating right now with FREE Match.com membership!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Don't know what Meegos are? Click to find out. http://meegos.msn.ie
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/5/05, David 'DJ' Hedley spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
We say that he is, because:
- His IP initially matched that of Enviroknot, both on the mailing list and
on Wikipedia.
- He instantly edited on the same topics as Enviroknot.
- On these topics he edited on, he shared an opinion with Enviroknot, which
was a minority opinion anyway.
You forgot "We've already seen this before". Kurita77 was not the first user who magically showed up from Enviroknot's IP, instantly interested in exactly the same articles as Enviroknot, and claiming not to be a sockpuppet. This partially explains the abrupt reaction.
-Matt
Who was the other, then?
Do tell. I'd really like to know.
A. Nony Mouse
From: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com Reply-To: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:23:39 -0700
On 7/5/05, David 'DJ' Hedley spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
We say that he is, because:
- His IP initially matched that of Enviroknot, both on the mailing list
and
on Wikipedia.
- He instantly edited on the same topics as Enviroknot.
- On these topics he edited on, he shared an opinion with Enviroknot,
which
was a minority opinion anyway.
You forgot "We've already seen this before". Kurita77 was not the first user who magically showed up from Enviroknot's IP, instantly interested in exactly the same articles as Enviroknot, and claiming not to be a sockpuppet. This partially explains the abrupt reaction.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Create the ultimate online companion - meet the Meegos! http://meegos.msn.ie
We say that he is, because:
- His IP initially matched that of Enviroknot, both on the mailing list and
on Wikipedia.
Which under DHCP can easily happen.
- He instantly edited on the same topics as Enviroknot.
No, he didn't. His list of edits matches only ONE topic that I am aware of, and in that topic he wasn't even involved in any fights.
- On these topics he edited on, he shared an opinion with Enviroknot, which
was a minority opinion anyway.
Not an opinion, a SUGGESTION - and one that was echoed as a good idea, scarily enough, by Enviroknot's opponents.
There is a big difference there.
I don't know about you, but are points cancel out yours ten times over. I'm out of this case now, but I think that the case is solved anyway.
And I think your so-called "arguments" are pure garbage.
A. Nony Mouse
_________________________________________________________________ Go where quality Irish singles meet - get FREE Match.com membership! http://match.msn.ie
No, I am not.
And I consider your unfounded accusation a personal attack.
A. Nony Mouse
From: Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:00:09 -0400
On Jul 5, 2005, at 5:19 PM, A. Nony Mouse wrote:
And I think your so-called "arguments" are pure garbage.
Of course you do - you're Enviroknot.
-Snowspinner _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Start dating right now with FREE Match.com membership! http://match.msn.ie
I back up his accusation. Infact, the entire mailing list would back up his accusation. You do realise that you are doing the hard ban on Enviroknot/Kurita77/yourself no good by all of this? ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Nony Mouse" temoforcomments4@hotmail.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 6:52 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
No, I am not.
And I consider your unfounded accusation a personal attack.
A. Nony Mouse
From: Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:00:09 -0400
On Jul 5, 2005, at 5:19 PM, A. Nony Mouse wrote:
And I think your so-called "arguments" are pure garbage.
Of course you do - you're Enviroknot.
-Snowspinner _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Start dating right now with FREE Match.com membership! http://match.msn.ie
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/6/05, David 'DJ' Hedley spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
I back up his accusation. Infact, the entire mailing list would back up his accusation. You do realise that you are doing the hard ban on Enviroknot/Kurita77/yourself no good by all of this?
David 'DJ' Hedley, please do not make accusations on my behalf.
I find your presumption of complete support improper and rash.
I am not informed enough to either support or endorse the accusation in question and do not wish to be classified as a supporter of this accusation merely by my subscription to this list.
Whether or not you choose to use the name "Enviroknot" as your own personal bugbear is irrelevant.
Your accusing me of that is like the fat assholes in Washington who shout "terrorism" every time they need to justify something and it's about as convincing.
The behavior of too many Wikipedia admins in these situations has been beyond deplorable. Your arguments about what these users should do is the equivalent of a rapist claiming that if a woman didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have work tight clothes.
And your continued nonsense and personal attacks on me are not going to stop me from standing up for the ordinary users of Wikipedia, even if I can't trust admins like you enough to reveal my OWN identity because I know you or one of your friends would block me in retaliation for speaking the truth.
A. Nony Mouse
From: "David 'DJ' Hedley" spyders@btinternet.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:48:06 +0100
I back up his accusation. Infact, the entire mailing list would back up his accusation. You do realise that you are doing the hard ban on Enviroknot/Kurita77/yourself no good by all of this? ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Nony Mouse" temoforcomments4@hotmail.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 6:52 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
No, I am not.
And I consider your unfounded accusation a personal attack.
A. Nony Mouse
From: Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:00:09 -0400
On Jul 5, 2005, at 5:19 PM, A. Nony Mouse wrote:
And I think your so-called "arguments" are pure garbage.
Of course you do - you're Enviroknot.
-Snowspinner
_________________________________________________________________ Go where quality Irish singles meet - get FREE Match.com membership! http://match.msn.ie
None of this matters. Had the IP addresses NOT matched, he would have been labeled a sockpuppeteer anyway. Once accused, there is no defense. I was actually accused of having two sockpuppets who really, really were not me. I tried many ways to clear my name. There was nothing I could do. So I gave up, and am employing a new strategy.
From: "A. Nony Mouse" temoforcomments4@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:19:41 +0100
We say that he is, because:
- His IP initially matched that of Enviroknot, both on the mailing list
and on Wikipedia.
Which under DHCP can easily happen.
- He instantly edited on the same topics as Enviroknot.
No, he didn't. His list of edits matches only ONE topic that I am aware of, and in that topic he wasn't even involved in any fights.
- On these topics he edited on, he shared an opinion with Enviroknot,
which was a minority opinion anyway.
Not an opinion, a SUGGESTION - and one that was echoed as a good idea, scarily enough, by Enviroknot's opponents.
There is a big difference there.
I don't know about you, but are points cancel out yours ten times over. I'm out of this case now, but I think that the case is solved anyway.
And I think your so-called "arguments" are pure garbage.
A. Nony Mouse
Go where quality Irish singles meet - get FREE Match.com membership! http://match.msn.ie
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/
I'm actually reading the mail backwards, and just got to this email.
But what a coincidence of opinion.
Either there's a lot of truth to this, or...we're SOCKPUPPETS! Yeah! Dismiss us a sockpuppets and you can delude yourselves into thinking you can ignore these emails.
It's so much easier that way.
From: "A. Nony Mouse" temoforcomments4@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:13:18 +0100
I am specifically NOT saying that *ALL* Admins are evil. However, there ARE a decent number of them who are regularly abusing their authority, and who (on this list and on Wikipedia in general) are not being reined in but instead are being encouraged to continue their behavior by mutual protectors who are ALSO Admins.
It's quite a racket. Get in as friends with the "right" Admins / ArbCom members, and you're functionally insulated from any penalty for breaking the rules or abusing your powers. Because no matter WHAT you do, they will come riding to your rescue and defending your actions. And all you have to do in return is treat the bigwigs as if their word had come directly from the mouth of $DIETY as divine law, and back THEM up when someone protests against THEIR abuses.
But I'm not allowed to name names. Since I don't run the list and I'm not part of the clique, that's a "personal attack."
I have presented my points in the case of Yoder and Kurita77. YOU seem to be dead-set on IGNORING it, because you want to justify the behavior of clique-member Admins.
A. Nony Mouse
From: "David 'DJ' Hedley" spyders@btinternet.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:06:54 +0100
If its such a problem, you don't have to edit. Infact, you don't even have to be on this mailing list, and the borderline, unjustifyable cases you are bringing up are making people not want you to do either.
Now, i'm not sure who you are, but you've been repeating yourself for the past couple of days and its quite clear that you aren't bringing anything to this mailing list that we haven't heard and defended ourselves against before.
The only case you seem to be bringing to us is the same old "Admins abuse power", "Admins are evil", etc. messages which aren't anything new. Its starting to bore people, to be honest, and unless you have any substantial evidence to present about all of this I really doubt that your persistence will get you anywhere. ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Nony Mouse" temoforcomments4@hotmail.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes
From: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com Reply-To: Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Weyes Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:43:16 -0400
On 7/5/05, A. Nony Mouse temoforcomments4@hotmail.com wrote:
You know something?
The behaviors of admins like Weyes could easily have become - the
"many
admins, and even some arbitrators" (read: just about ALL of the
current
Arbitration Committee as well as the now-retired "Red Queen") who
have
forgotten about civility and more generally about paying attention
to
Wikipedia policy - is what I've been talking about.
But instead of seeing them dealing with the issue, I've been
getting
almost
nothing but nasty responses from the "go away we don't want to hear
about
it" inner Admin clique.
How does that grab you? What does that say about the current Admin
clique?
A. Nony Mouse
Your reply "grabs me" as considerably more critical than my own message was intended to be.
I don't see a clique, and I don't see any significant abuses of policy, but I do occasionally see excuses for harsh conduct where no excuses should be.
I call it a clique because it's the same admins - time and again - who
are
the ones coming in and making excuses for the bad behavior of their
friends.
And the favor seems to be returned.
It's not just here, it's on Wikipedia in general. All we see on this
list is
the tip of the iceberg, the very few users who cared enough for
WHATEVER
reason to take the option of last resort and appeal for the righting of wrongs.
Instead of getting it, they're getting harrassment at the hands of this clique of editors who see nothing wrong with bad behavior and in many
cases
encourage the bad behavior of their fellows.
That's a problem. A BIG problem. Without this clique of editors, we
wouldn't
have been subjected to expletive-filled rants by Kurita77 and Yoder. I
don't
blame the newbies, I blame the clique of editors who choose to take an opportunity to blow off steam by repeatedly biting newbies until they
blow
up.
A. Nony Mouse
Start dating right now with FREE Match.com membership!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Don't know what Meegos are? Click to find out. http://meegos.msn.ie
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/