On 8 Jun 2007 at 09:05:41 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
How odd. A userid was created yesterday which nominated the Wikitruth article for deletion, based on BADSITES, and a bunch of none-too-convincing arguments. It's about the most obvious example of a straw man nomination I've seen in a while; I hope I am not accused of trying to revise history by saying that.
But, it's funny that the same "none-too-convincing arguments" and contentious behavior, when MONGO did it, was perfectly all right. When I complained about his behavior on AN/I, I was the one who got slapped for it, and threatened with blocking for "stalking" MONGO (by reverting his edits that I considered vandalism). Once again, he got off totally scot free, without so much as a slap on the wrist. Once again, it's shown that there's an "untouchable" caste here, a clique that has a free pass to do what it wishes, censor what it wishes, be uncivil to whomever it wishes, and the admins will always side with them and against whomever tries to hold them to account for their behavior. Some animals are more equal than others.
On 6/8/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 8 Jun 2007 at 09:05:41 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
How odd. A userid was created yesterday which nominated the Wikitruth article for deletion, based on BADSITES, and a bunch of none-too-convincing arguments. It's about the most obvious example of a straw man nomination I've seen in a while; I hope I am not accused of trying to revise history by saying that.
But, it's funny that the same "none-too-convincing arguments" and contentious behavior, when MONGO did it, was perfectly all right. When I complained about his behavior on AN/I, I was the one who got slapped for it, and threatened with blocking for "stalking" MONGO (by reverting his edits that I considered vandalism). Once again, he got off totally scot free, without so much as a slap on the wrist. Once again, it's shown that there's an "untouchable" caste here, a clique that has a free pass to do what it wishes, censor what it wishes, be uncivil to whomever it wishes, and the admins will always side with them and against whomever tries to hold them to account for their behavior. Some animals are more equal than others.
How can I put this, Dan; your constant railing about an "untouchable" cabal sounds, um, kinda crazy. Perhaps even more seriously, it's boring. People don't read rants.
On Friday 08 June 2007 18:28, jayjg wrote:
How can I put this, Dan; your constant railing about an "untouchable" cabal sounds, um, kinda crazy.
You're part of it.
jayjg wrote:
How can I put this, Dan; your constant railing about an "untouchable" cabal sounds, um, kinda crazy. Perhaps even more seriously, it's boring. People don't read rants.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You will note that he didn't refer to a "cabal". Only those truly ignorant of Wikipedia culture tend to believe in the existence of such a group. Wikipedia's power structure is difficult to dissect and analyze, having elements of a techno-religious cult, an anarchy, a democracy, and a monarchy, However, "cabal" is inadequate and inappropriate for describing this power structure. I'm not entirely thrilled with the fact that you brought it up in an attempt to derail Dan's point.
There does certainly appear to be a group of untouchable users on Wikipedia. Let's take MONGO, for example. If a user who had been editing for just a few months began aggressively campaigning in the way that MONGO does, he would be quickly indefblocked as a "disruptive troll". Now, I don't believe that MONGO is trolling, and he likely means well, but nonetheless he is overly aggressive, incivil, and abusive toward other editors, yet he seems to get a "free pass" for acting in just this way. To be fair, he has a good deal of experience behind him, and it's only reasonable to assume that those with seniority will be granted a bit more leniency. "Leniency", however, shouldn't translate to "being able to act in whichever way he wishes without being called on it".
On 6/8/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/8/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 8 Jun 2007 at 09:05:41 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
How odd. A userid was created yesterday which nominated the Wikitruth article for deletion, based on BADSITES, and a bunch of none-too-convincing arguments. It's about the most obvious example of a straw man nomination I've seen in a while; I hope I am not accused of trying to revise history by saying that.
But, it's funny that the same "none-too-convincing arguments" and contentious behavior, when MONGO did it, was perfectly all right. When I complained about his behavior on AN/I, I was the one who got slapped for it, and threatened with blocking for "stalking" MONGO (by reverting his edits that I considered vandalism). Once again, he got off totally scot free, without so much as a slap on the wrist. Once again, it's shown that there's an "untouchable" caste here, a clique that has a free pass to do what it wishes, censor what it wishes, be uncivil to whomever it wishes, and the admins will always side with them and against whomever tries to hold them to account for their behavior. Some animals are more equal than others.
How can I put this, Dan; your constant railing about an "untouchable" cabal sounds, um, kinda crazy. Perhaps even more seriously, it's boring. People don't read rants.
And it's hard to get much more "touchable" than "Your sysadmin bit was turned off by Arbcom".
have we any convenient way to get a list of the links removed? I don't think special:what links here provides other than the current state. DGG
"He's now going through the site in a rampage suppressing WikiTruth links from various and sundry user, talk, and archive pages, an activity that's always good for getting support for getting rid of the silly attack-site-link ban, not to mention attracting more attention to the attack sites themselves in the process.- " David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
The simplest way would be to check MONGO's contributions for the period around 0500 and 1800 on June 8th, but it appears he has reverted at least some of his edits, and other people reverted other edits. Of course, some people might consider that wikistalking.
On 6/8/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
have we any convenient way to get a list of the links removed? I don't think special:what links here provides other than the current state. DGG
"He's now going through the site in a rampage suppressing WikiTruth links from various and sundry user, talk, and archive pages, an activity that's always good for getting support for getting rid of the silly attack-site-link ban, not to mention attracting more attention to the attack sites themselves in the process.- " David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Risker wrote:
The simplest way would be to check MONGO's contributions for the period around 0500 and 1800 on June 8th, but it appears he has reverted at least some of his edits, and other people reverted other edits. Of course, some people might consider that wikistalking.
That sort of thing is what the user contributions list is _for_.