I thought that there was a confirmation email or something, so when it didn't arrive, I tried again. I didn't do anything about the other account, didn't even log into it. I think it's blocked anyways. And "the edits themselves"? I was trying to ensure that things were done fairly. Look at my contributions, I'm a good editor. Or I was, even though I'm probably not coming back after seeing this is how you administrators behave. [[user:One Elephant went out to play...]] On 3/14/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Holton, when I started out, I thought that I had to get a confirmation email for my account, because so many places do that. When I figured out how to get in, I didn't need the second one, so I let it sit. Feel free to delete the second account, I was just confused about the signup process because I had never used it. As far as the policies, I took the time to read them once I finally got in. I may have missed the WP:OFFICE policy, but it does not say which accounts are listed. The mere name of "Danny" did not mean anything to me. Nor did it get listed with anything pointing to the WP:OFFICE policy to show me if that was the case. I still really think it isn't the case. Nor did I revert Danny at all. Nor does any policy specifically give a list of editors that it is a "bad idea" to revert. I did revert user:Evrik, but that was because he was edit warring, and I made a note on the talk page that edit warring was bad and things should have been discussed first. The organization that the page covers is controversial, but that wasn't why I did what I did. I didn't even know about the page when Danny made his revert, nor when Mindspillage protected it. Apparently the protection expired, because someone named DumbBOT removed the tag later, and someone else reverted it yet again. I did what I did because policy says edit warring is bad and using admin powers to win a dispute is worse. I still don't have a preferred version, I think the truth is somewhere between the two versions, but it's obvious that there's not going to be movement when Bastique is using his powers to control the page like that. But what happened to me was ridiculous. I complained to the WP:ANI because Bastique was going nuts attacking and threatening me. Instead of help, what I got was more attacks, and Bastique apparently started going around back channels trying to "prove" I'm someone I'm not, and what am I supposed to do about that? The behavior of Bastique has shown me that there really is some group on here that if you cross them, no matter how well intentioned you are, they will destroy you just out of spite. Merzbow has asked me to return. "MiddleEastern", a user with a big problem axe to grind who's been leaving rants about "Zionists", says I should stay gone for "censoring." And what do I get from you people? I get threats from Bastique and Jersey Devil. I get attacked out of nowhere by someone called slimvirgin, and I have no idea what his/her major malfunction is, he/she seems obsessed with finding whoever it is he/she's accusing me of being everywhere from looking back on his/her conversations and all the stuff he/she provides. I've been accused of being someone I'm not for "turning up" on [[Allegations of Israeli Apartheid<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_Apartheid&…>]], the same article that is listed two spots down from my original complaint on WP:ANI, and I only commented on that because I saw the report and MiddleEastern was just being a jerk. If there isn't a cabal, if there isn't some group someone "should not cross lest one suffer the penalty", then there sure as heck is SOMETHING like that going on, because there's no way in anything resembling a fair system that someone brings a minor concern and it turns into something like this where bringing an honest complaint gets you attacked over and over again. [[user:One Elephant went out to play...]] On 3/14/07, Rich Holton &lt;richholton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 3/14/07, Gwern Branwen &lt;gwern0(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Are they really that bad? This is really scary, I didn't think Wikipedia was like that at all. It seems like I'm very correct to just quit if that is how you act!

On 14/03/07, Gwern Branwen &lt;gwern0(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yes, but Erik recovered quite well from it, I think ;-) - d.

On 14/03/07, Rich Holton &lt;richholton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yep. I suspect it's overlearning from those with a compulsion to Taylorise all possible judgement away. - d.

On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett &lt;stevagewp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Nope there are quite a few foundation bods who have a claim to this. It's when some of the committee people started to try and claim that power that it got anoying. -- geni

On 20/03/07, Steve Bennett &lt;stevagewp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Blockiptext http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Blockiptext As it was a) admin-facing internal infrastructure, b) he was opposed by several people, c) those people were (on the whole) right, and d) he was able to keep arguing with them and editing the page, I think generalising from this case to "OMG Foundation cabal has unrevertable editorial control" is a little disingenious. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 3/20/07, Matthew Brown &lt;morven(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: No. An old argument over [[MediaWiki:Blockiptext]]. It doesn't matter any more. Just wanting to clariffy it is more than Jimbo and Danny. At the present time the accepted convention appears to be: Board members Foundation employees and in certian areas developers. -- geni