Whether he is "barely" deserving of a fair treatment or otherwise, nobody here has given him a fair treatment by any stretch of the imagination.
That won't do.
I also have Phil's "circle the wagons" rant up above. He thinks expansion kills online communities. I think he's right.
Expansion kills online communities because of people like Phil who won't admit that they need to let go and they need to deal with the new people coming in fairly. People like Phil who think that "shoot them all unless they are exactly like us and make no noise whatsoever" is the way to go about dealing with newbies.
Now you know why I went anonymous. If I didn't Phil would be leading a charge to have me removed right now for saying that.
David and SlimVirgin's behaviour in this matter has been sub-par. So has the behaviour of the rest of you on this list. This doesn't just affect that one user. It affects everyone they tell about Wikipedia. It affects everyone who agreed with them on one topic or another at Wikipedia. I've only looked at the Enviroknot profile for any length of time but based on its list of contributions there was potential for a good editor. Solid edits were made and backed up on talk pages, edit summaries and wikipedia policies were properly referenced.
The only offense I can see in the Enviroknot profile is a pair of 3RR violations. The one SlimVirgin put in tonight is totally unjustified. The one earlier when people were claiming Enviroknot was also another IP address is pushing your luck.
Meanwhile, editors and administrators alike have been hounding that profile looking for any excuse to attack it. None of you bothered to set aside your feelings long enough to look at the situation.
That isn't right. The behaviour of all of you in this scenario is making me sick to my stomach. I thought you were better than this. If that's really Phil's attitude, then there's no way he should be given power at Wikipedia. If the rest of you share that attitude, then Wikipedia is doomed.
A.Nony.Mouse, for the purpose of this conversation.
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com Reply-To: Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com To: tempforcomments@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 23:11:03 -0400
While I agree with your points with respect to admin behavior, I wanted to point out that Enviroknot edits from the same IP as a known block evading pest who keeps creating socks to support his position.
I think everyone deserves a fair treatment, but Enviroknott has made that very difficult with his accusations, and is probably only barely deserving of a fair treatment considering that it's almost certain that he is a sock as claimed by others.
On 5/30/05, A Nony Mouse tempforcomments@hotmail.com wrote:
I have been watching the last week's events with dismay. I have been
trying
to compose this email for two hours, but every time I get close,
something
else comes up.
I have decided to make this anonymous. I do not know how some of you
would
react and I do not wish to take any chance that I would be harassed for this.
There are two cases that bother me. Jack Lynch aka Sam Spade and
Cranston
Snord aka Enviroknot. Both of these cases scare me because of the
precedent
that they have set.
In the case of Jack, there was a question of a block war. Administrators were fighting over what to do with him. This is not a good thing for Wikipedia editors no matter who they are. It indicates that the user is
less
of a concern than something between the two Administrators.
It is the case of Cranston Snord aka Enviroknot that worries me more.
This
is the case that has made me take the drastic step of sending an email
to
the list anonymously. I had originally been trying to type up a response
to
Cranston's concerns about being blocked. I believe that SlimVirgin
violated
policy by doing so. Unfortunately for me, such an email would likely now
be
a day late and a dollar short.
Cranston was a disruption to the list, but much of that disruption was caused by other people on this list treating him with incredible
disrespect.
I was taken aback by his accusations against administrators but having looked at the cases in hand I believe that he has a point.
There were emails on this list asking whether anyone was taking him seriously. This is the height of arrogance, and it is something that frightens me. Administrators should never be acting as if ordinary
editors
do not matter.
As for his complaints about being blocked, the dismissiveness on this
board
hurt me. No matter who it is making a complaint, we have a duty to investigate it. We are listed as the last resort for users who have been wronged. I took the time to investigate SlimVirgin's blocking of
Enviroknot,
and I believe that it is not valid.
By the time I got to the discussion, it was a good series of emails
long,
and despite the number of list members who had posted, none save
SlimVirgin
had bothered to address Enviroknot's concerns on the block in any way. SlimVirgin herself made a bad judgement call. An edit made in good faith should never be considered a reversion, even if it contains some content that is included in a later reversion.
Instead of acknowledging this fact, the list members were universally dismissive of Enviroknot from the first email. One went so far as to
demand
that the term "rogue admin" not be used, without addressing the reasons
that
it had been brought up in multiple cases recently.
We have a problem with administrators exceeding their authority on Wikipedia. We have a problem with administrators not applying policy correctly. And we have a problem with arrogance on these lists, with administrators believing that they are somehow better than others.
With the increased power of administrator access comes a responsibility
to
use it fairly and adhere to the established procedures and policies. The actions of an Administrator should themselves be NPOV. We have stated
policy
that when a user is found to be violating policy, if they return and do
not
break policy, their previous transgressions should not be held against
them.
There are a number of administrators who are failing in that
responsibility,
and they are present on this list. One of them, rather than addressing Enviroknot's concerns in a calm tone and actually going over policy,
chose
to kickban Enviroknot entirely.
I have never until today been ashamed to be a part of Wikipedia, but
there
it is. Take it as you will.
A.Nony.Mouse, for the purpose of this conversation.
Create the ultimate online companion - meet the Meegos!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ More features, more fun, still absolutely FREE - get Messsenger 7.0! http://messenger.msn.co.uk
It's very hard for someone like Enviroknot to gain any sympathy when they are obviously, blatantly lying. The odds that two unrelated people would get the same IP address and decide to edit the same Wikipedia articles one after the other are vanishingly slim. If Enviroknot is not the same person as KaintheScion/ElKabong - something I personally doubt - the two of them are very closely related. Yet Enviroknot denies even that.
Someone who dives into Wikipedia and instantly goes to a contentious article is either a sockpuppet or someone who is responding to a call to arms by someone else. Someone who instantly knows all the rules and how to skirt them is not some innocent.
-Matt (User:Morven)
Man, Everyking, if you're gonna go anonymous, change your writing style a bit.
-Snowspinner
On May 31, 2005, at 1:30 AM, A Nony Mouse wrote:
Whether he is "barely" deserving of a fair treatment or otherwise, nobody here has given him a fair treatment by any stretch of the imagination.
That won't do.
I also have Phil's "circle the wagons" rant up above. He thinks expansion kills online communities. I think he's right.
Expansion kills online communities because of people like Phil who won't admit that they need to let go and they need to deal with the new people coming in fairly. People like Phil who think that "shoot them all unless they are exactly like us and make no noise whatsoever" is the way to go about dealing with newbies.
Now you know why I went anonymous. If I didn't Phil would be leading a charge to have me removed right now for saying that.
David and SlimVirgin's behaviour in this matter has been sub-par. So has the behaviour of the rest of you on this list. This doesn't just affect that one user. It affects everyone they tell about Wikipedia. It affects everyone who agreed with them on one topic or another at Wikipedia. I've only looked at the Enviroknot profile for any length of time but based on its list of contributions there was potential for a good editor. Solid edits were made and backed up on talk pages, edit summaries and wikipedia policies were properly referenced.
The only offense I can see in the Enviroknot profile is a pair of 3RR violations. The one SlimVirgin put in tonight is totally unjustified. The one earlier when people were claiming Enviroknot was also another IP address is pushing your luck.
Meanwhile, editors and administrators alike have been hounding that profile looking for any excuse to attack it. None of you bothered to set aside your feelings long enough to look at the situation.
That isn't right. The behaviour of all of you in this scenario is making me sick to my stomach. I thought you were better than this. If that's really Phil's attitude, then there's no way he should be given power at Wikipedia. If the rest of you share that attitude, then Wikipedia is doomed.
A.Nony.Mouse, for the purpose of this conversation.
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com Reply-To: Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com To: tempforcomments@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 23:11:03 -0400
While I agree with your points with respect to admin behavior, I wanted to point out that Enviroknot edits from the same IP as a known block evading pest who keeps creating socks to support his position.
I think everyone deserves a fair treatment, but Enviroknott has made that very difficult with his accusations, and is probably only barely deserving of a fair treatment considering that it's almost certain that he is a sock as claimed by others.
On 5/30/05, A Nony Mouse tempforcomments@hotmail.com wrote:
I have been watching the last week's events with dismay. I have
been trying
to compose this email for two hours, but every time I get close,
something
else comes up.
I have decided to make this anonymous. I do not know how some of
you would
react and I do not wish to take any chance that I would be
harassed for
this.
There are two cases that bother me. Jack Lynch aka Sam Spade and
Cranston
Snord aka Enviroknot. Both of these cases scare me because of
the precedent
that they have set.
In the case of Jack, there was a question of a block war.
Administrators
were fighting over what to do with him. This is not a good thing
for
Wikipedia editors no matter who they are. It indicates that the
user is less
of a concern than something between the two Administrators.
It is the case of Cranston Snord aka Enviroknot that worries me
more. This
is the case that has made me take the drastic step of sending an
email to
the list anonymously. I had originally been trying to type up a
response to
Cranston's concerns about being blocked. I believe that
SlimVirgin violated
policy by doing so. Unfortunately for me, such an email would
likely now be
a day late and a dollar short.
Cranston was a disruption to the list, but much of that
disruption was
caused by other people on this list treating him with incredible
disrespect.
I was taken aback by his accusations against administrators but
having
looked at the cases in hand I believe that he has a point.
There were emails on this list asking whether anyone was taking him seriously. This is the height of arrogance, and it is something
that
frightens me. Administrators should never be acting as if
ordinary editors
do not matter.
As for his complaints about being blocked, the dismissiveness on
this board
hurt me. No matter who it is making a complaint, we have a duty to investigate it. We are listed as the last resort for users who
have been
wronged. I took the time to investigate SlimVirgin's blocking of
Enviroknot,
and I believe that it is not valid.
By the time I got to the discussion, it was a good series of
emails long,
and despite the number of list members who had posted, none save
SlimVirgin
had bothered to address Enviroknot's concerns on the block in
any way.
SlimVirgin herself made a bad judgement call. An edit made in
good faith
should never be considered a reversion, even if it contains some
content
that is included in a later reversion.
Instead of acknowledging this fact, the list members were
universally
dismissive of Enviroknot from the first email. One went so far
as to demand
that the term "rogue admin" not be used, without addressing the
reasons that
it had been brought up in multiple cases recently.
We have a problem with administrators exceeding their authority on Wikipedia. We have a problem with administrators not applying
policy
correctly. And we have a problem with arrogance on these lists,
with
administrators believing that they are somehow better than others.
With the increased power of administrator access comes a
responsibility to
use it fairly and adhere to the established procedures and
policies. The
actions of an Administrator should themselves be NPOV. We have
stated policy
that when a user is found to be violating policy, if they return
and do not
break policy, their previous transgressions should not be held
against them.
There are a number of administrators who are failing in that
responsibility,
and they are present on this list. One of them, rather than
addressing
Enviroknot's concerns in a calm tone and actually going over
policy, chose
to kickban Enviroknot entirely.
I have never until today been ashamed to be a part of Wikipedia,
but there
it is. Take it as you will.
A.Nony.Mouse, for the purpose of this conversation.
Create the ultimate online companion - meet the Meegos! http://
meegos.msn.ie
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
More features, more fun, still absolutely FREE - get Messsenger 7.0! http://messenger.msn.co.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: "A Nony Mouse" tempforcomments@hotmail.com
Whether he is "barely" deserving of a fair treatment or otherwise, nobody here has given him a fair treatment by any stretch of the imagination.
You must have a limited imagination.
I also have Phil's "circle the wagons" rant up above.
Rant? Phil's statement was right on.
Expansion kills online communities because of people like Phil who won't admit that they need to let go and they need to deal with the new people coming in fairly. People like Phil who think that "shoot them all unless they are exactly like us and make no noise whatsoever" is the way to go about dealing with newbies.
Strawman arguments.
Now you know why I went anonymous. If I didn't Phil would be leading a charge to have me removed right now for saying that.
LOL! What nonsense.
David and SlimVirgin's behaviour in this matter has been sub-par. So has the behaviour of the rest of you on this list.
David and Slim's behaviour has been highly commendable; yours, on the other hand, has been sub-par.
The only offense I can see in the Enviroknot profile is a pair of 3RR violations. The one SlimVirgin put in tonight is totally unjustified.
You're obviously unfamiliar with the 3RR rule.
The one earlier when people were claiming Enviroknot was also another IP address is pushing your luck.
Huh?
Meanwhile, editors and administrators alike have been hounding that profile looking for any excuse to attack it. None of you bothered to set aside your feelings long enough to look at the situation.
Look in a mirror.
That isn't right. The behaviour of all of you in this scenario is making me sick to my stomach.
Found your own Wiki then, you need to look after your health.
If the rest of you share that attitude, then Wikipedia is doomed.
If admins shared *your* attitued Wikipedia would be doomed. Fortunately most don't.
Jay.
Phil Sandifer wrote:
Expansion kills online communities. Fundamentally, eternal growth is a perpetual strain. We understand this from a technical perspective, but we don't understand it socially. We are continually wasting our breath and energy debating things that need to be slam dunks. If every Cranston Snerd gets this much debate - hell, if one Cranston Snerd out of 10 gets this much debate, it's a disaster. We're only going to get more Cranston Snerds. Just like we'll get more Lirs,
A Nony Mouse wrote:
Expansion kills online communities because of people like Phil who won't admit that they need to let go and they need to deal with the new people coming in fairly. People like Phil who think that "shoot them all unless they are exactly like us and make no noise whatsoever" is the way to go about dealing with newbies.
Here's the problem: You're both partly right. Any project that becomes popular will attract abusive users -- crackpots and kooks who want to take it over to push their Time Cube, sociopaths and power-trippers who want to dominate others, spammers who want to turn the world into one big billboard, flamers and trolls who are there to fight with others, and so on.
But it's also true that *because* there are so many abusers, long-time users and administrators can get jaded. It becomes easy to interpret any newbie behavior that looks out-of-place as abusive conduct. This isn't unique to community projects, either. The same is true in the network security world: because there is so much malicious activity, paranoids take to interpreting any out-of-place ping as a sign of imminent attack.
This doesn't mean that the jaded administrators and the paranoid network operators are evil, malicious, or "rogue". It makes them sometimes -- occasionally! -- wrong.
But here's the hell of it -- they're usually *right*.
Almost all of the behavior that looks suspicious is indeed harmful.
Most of the time, when someone portscans your system, they're not just curious -- they're malicious, or a virus. On Wikipedia, the amount of vandalism, spam, flaming, trolling, and patent nonsense is astounding. The fact that the community (and it *is* the community, not just the administrators) are able to stifle almost all of it and produce a usable encyclopedia project is equally astounding.
It is unfortunate and regrettable that newbies get bitten once in a while. It is regrettable, and we should each take steps to avoid doing it. We must assume good faith wherever possible.
But we can't ask that users (including administrators) assume good faith *against substantial evidence to the contrary*. There is a point where we have to recognize that a person isn't just a newbie but rather a troll seeking to disrupt the project; or isn't just an argumentative contributor but actually a flamer who gets off on putting other people down.
Likewise, we have to recognize that certain bits of evidence are going to show incontrovertibly that someone is an abuser. Playing at sockpuppets or coming to this list with an email address that says "wikipediaisstupid" are simply not things that anyone with legitimate intentions is going to do.
We cannot, for the sake of not biting newbies, allow demonstrated abusers to tear the project apart.