[WikiEN-l] Rogue Admin SlimVirgin

Tue May 31 01:10:12 UTC 2005

Yes, I used it again.

As I said: until such time as she starts to follow Wikipedia policy, I 
consider her a Rogue Admin.

At least one user on Wikipedia seems to have it right. It's a pity none of 
the Admins bother with paying attention to policy.

-Enviroknot

P.S. I've included the relevant part of the discussion below.

1 -- The diff 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14451571&oldid=14439874) 
on the first two edits combined with the discussion page 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Edits_Today) for the article 
paints a very different picture from what you are claiming. Good-faith edits 
to a page never count as reverts.
Your comments on the mailing list like "However, I won't be responding to 
any further e-mails from you to the mailing list" do not help: they indicate 
that you are not interested in operating in the open and in good faith.
Your comment "Partial, complex reverts count as reverts like any other. The 
problem with gaming the system, as you are doing, is that this kind of 
miscalculation is inevitable from time to time" could easily be construed as 
an insult itself. I have read the byplay and there is no "invective" but the 
quite real frustration of a persecuted user who was wrongly blocked. 
User:80.237.206.62

2 -- So-called "good-faith reverts" count just as much as "bad-faith 
reverts", except in cases of vandalism, and edits to the talk page are 
irrelevant. This user account and other sockpuppets have been 
editing-by-revert since they arrived, and I've no idea what you mean about 
reading the "byplay" and finding no invective: unless you're me or 
Enviroknot, you're unlikely to have read all his e-mails to me. SlimVirgin 
(talk) 00:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

3 -- There is no such thing as a "good-faith revert" with the exception of 
vandalism cases. There are plenty of cases of good-faith edits being 
misconstrued as reverts by admins who are persecuting users for some 
personal reason.
I have read all the emails on the mailing list, and have checked your 
history and the user's history. I've also checked the Request for 
Arbitration that you included this user in. You appear to be in the wrong 
here, and I have stated so.
Claiming that an edit made during the working out of a consensus is a 
"revert" is counter to Wikipedia policy on what constitutes a revert and 
also counter to Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. The behavior of other admins on 
the mailing list recently towards new users is frightening, as it is showing 
a marked cliquishness and hostility towards newcomers that you epitomize. 
Besides calling you a rogue admin and then pointing out Wikipedia policies 
you have violated, what has Enviroknot said to you? I would ask the same of 
him but you have rendered him incapable of putting forth any responses on 
here for me to see, and you have already stated that you will not discuss 
this in good faith and in public on the mailing list.
This block and 3RR report are in bad faith. I urge any admin who comes by to 
remove the block immediately. User:80.237.206.62

>From: "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] cool it
>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:27:03 -0400
>
>I am no one to throw stones, so let's just say that I know perfectly well 
>what it is like to lose my temper and to be unable to fight the urge to use 
>harsh, even insulting language.  Fortunately, when this happens there are 
>usually plenty of people who tell me to stop, or even to apologize.
>
>Can we please stop using the phrase "rogue admin," especially in the 
>subject space for the e-mail.
>
>This isn't about the fact that I think SlimVirgin is a dedicated editor who 
>has added much to Wikipedia.  We can discuss questions of improper action, 
>or possible reasons for it, here or more appropriately at the Admin 
>bulletin board, incident report page, whatever.  But it doesn't matter who 
>you are talking about.  This phrase "rogue admin" is inflammatory, 
>unnecessarily insulting, and has no place at Wikipedia.  If we as a 
>community or some body representing the community decides that a sysop 
>should be de-sysopped, okay, we de-sysop the person.  But until that 
>happens, they are an administrator.  Period.  If you don't like what that 
>administrator has done, fine, but focus on the action.  And certainly don't 
>go around calling someone a rogue administrator -- this insults the whole 
>community because the person using this phrase is abrogating the authority 
>to decide who is or is not a legitimate administrator.  You may not like 
>what they did, you may not like them personally, but as long as they are 
>administrators, call them that, or don't call them anything at all.
>
>And for all those who do not like the phrase "rogue admin" or who do not 
>think X deserves to be called rogue admin, please change the subject 
>heading of your e-mail.  Will it screw up the thread?  Don't worry, anyone 
>going through the archived list-serve will figure it out.
>
>Steve
>
>Steven L. Rubenstein
>Associate Professor
>Department of Sociology and Anthropology
>Bentley Annex
>Ohio University
>Athens, Ohio 45701
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at 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/