User talk:Mnyakko

A hot fudge sundae awarded to you, for "you know what"!

Ah, the retaliations--an effort to obtain private information

Before anyone starts whining about AGF, just know...I will remove those comments. Why? Because, if 2 months of "disruptive editing" accussations against me are sufficient to dismiss AGF, then 2 years of sanctions, complaints, edit-warring, article ownership, retaliation, etc are more than sufficient to dismiss AGF in relation to a long list of editors.

The members of the Global Warming article owners group are looking now to gain access to private information about me. What do they intend to do with that information? That should be a question that remains unanswered forever.

How are they trying? One of their members (helps them out with various requests, participates with them in their edit-wars, etc.) has checkuser access which enables private information to be obtained through IP matchups, etc. So, while I was away I was blocked under some the most empty, indefensible rationalizations I have seen on Wikipedia (with no surprise...retaliation is a long-standing pattern from them).

Then, the next time an anonymous user disagrees with them (in the same tone that they themselves use) one of the gang files a Request for checkuser. THAT action would officially put private information into their hands via their member who has checkuser authority.

The pattern of abuse, deception and continued efforts of destroying any that do not follow their will continues on.

Whatever. As you might know, if the Cabal wants your IP address (for what reason?), it could just have one of its members perform a checkuser on you. And "collecting factual information is permissible [...]", as you wrote. --Stephan Schulz 16:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I write on MY user talk page and you already are commenting. That is fast.

Detractors are many...which demonstrates effectiveness

When the defense of one's violations is an unrelated focus on those who mention the violation, then you know the violations are indefensible.

This will become a running list of the information found about them:

24.131.160.16 was done through an IP mask...the actual IP address is 68.87.174.65 through Comcast in Maple Grove.
66.173.127.11 this one belongs to SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY BULLETIN, 7584 80 ST S, COTTAGE GROVE, MN 55016 (NetRange: 66.173.127.8 - 66.173.127.15), RTechPhone: +1-651-730-4007.

Re. Request

Do you mean you want the revisions after 08:27, October 17, 2006 to be deleted? --Alex (Talk) 16:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Tony 16:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Remember to use UTC time, as I got a little confused where to delete up to :) Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 16:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for you quick response. --Tony 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Race to the Right information deserves its own page

Perhaps by mistake, you have created a page for Race to the Right on your User page. Please move this information to a page of its own, so that it can be properly categorized under . As it is, it is difficult to find or link to. Thanks for your contribution. Mapcat 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did previously have a page for it already. It was deleted (not notable). Just before it was deleted I moved the text to my user page. -- Tony 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being an admin is no big deal

Hi Tony! You and Zeeboid keep mentioning admins in the global warming debate, e.g. here:[1] [2]. I hope you are aware of the fact that being an admin is no big deal, and that admins have no special rights or priviledges in a content dispute. In particular, thy are bound by rules like WP:3RR, and they are not allowed to use the admin tools e.g. to block an opposing user.--Stephan Schulz 09:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot, you know everything and we know nothing about Wikipedia. Forgive me for my error, my liege. Now what I do know about the administrators on Wikipedia (that obviously is 100% wrong because it contradicts you) is that your buddy has a history of using his extra admin powers in the middle of disputes about his own edits. Anywhere else in the world and that would be considered a conflict of interest. But of course, not by you and the rest of your circle of wagons. There are so many things that should be an issue, and yet anytime someone tries to call attention to it since he was voted (by almost most of the people helping to circumvent the 3RR rules) they have been the one punished. I have seen it with other admins as well. A few get abusive with their power but unless it is really really bad or really really really really obvious (as the last few months of abuse seem to be) admins have some circle of protection. It is worse than the police Blue Code.

But, since you said "no big deal" and point to a link then of course, there is not any disagreement and everyone else is wrong. Nevermind that what you are pointing me to is the admin's typical response to downplay their position.

Follow rules, sure, but when an Admin gets other people to do their bidding then they have not broken the rule directly. They get help circumventing the rules when inconvenient to their purposes. And that is what has been happening to a growing degree with Connelley and his Crowd.

What is it that is no big deal? An obvious latitude in 'bending' decorum, extra 'benefit of the doubt' when their abuse is called to task...no big deal and difficult to overcome. Even with the dozens of pages of examples and documentation I know it will not be enough to get any relief from the abusive nature that is being carried out.

Why mention admins? They have the power to block/unblock people...and the manner it is carried out in pages that Connelley happens to be participating in is enough to push people away. I have only one more edit that I will make to that page unless all of you are eventually banned from the page (you, Connelley, Kim). But, protection requires a gargantuous amount of solid evidence to have a hope. I have a hope by quality and quantity of evidence. But only hope.

What eles is no big deal? The power to edit protected pages (downplay that if you want, but I run 3 wiki sites and know how much that actually means).

Of course, as you guys have pointed out, you are always right and everyone else is always wrong. We are not smart enough to read and understand things.

Why don't you talk down to me and insult the little intelligence I have some more. Better yet, why don't you defend yourself this Sunday on the show as I mention you guys by ID and your abuse. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. If you did not notice, I'm based in Germany and hence have no particular interest in US talk radio. I also prefer a neutral medium, like this, to one where one side can easily stack the deck. Moreover, I fail to see how such a complex topic can be adequately presented in a medium that lives of sound bites (and maybe a laugh track). --Stephan Schulz 19:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'stacked deck'--shows actually how little you know about what you speak. You should listen sometime...but then you run the risk of being wrong for the first time ever. I'm incredibly fair...especially with guests, regardless of their viewpoint. So much so that the conservatives get honked off at me for 'pulling punches'.

I'm willing to listen. If you can send me a (link to) a version of today's show that I can use on a Mac without bending over backwards (mp3, AAC, ogg are all fine) I'll do so.--Stephan Schulz 20:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"neutral medium"--Wikipedia, especially on topics of the least bit controversy, is as stacked in one direction as talk radio is the other direction. Of course you could never understand how slighted Wikipedia's admins & users are since it is tilted in your favor, of course you are unable to understand when you benefit from it. Only a truly fair-minded person can see when they benefit from an advantage. Wikipedia is for non-socialists users what Rush Limbaugh is to the socialist callers. Deny it all you want, but there is too much evidence throughout Wikipedia to deny and still be an honest person. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What could be more neutral than this? You present your arguments and sources, and I present mine. The community implicitely decides how to present the overall result. Of course, your sources primarily include paid shills like OISM, while I have e.g. the US National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, and the IPCC on my side. If you lose the debate, that can mean that there is a huge conspiracy working against you. But it can also mean that you are plain wrong and a neutral observer sees this. In our situation, the second is a much more parsimonious explanation. And what does the ownership of the means of production have to do with the natural sciences?--Stephan Schulz 20:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Only a truly fair-minded person can see when they benefit from an advantage. Neutrality does not exist in Wikipedia on controversial topics. When Motherjones and exxonsecrets are considered non-biased enough to be counted as a source, yet worldnetdaily is too biased; AP is valid (doctored pics and all) but NewsMax is not. Like I said, Only a truly fair-minded person can see when they benefit from an advantage...obviously you are not in that subset. Go back to your safe-haven, and hang out with the people afraid to leave the socialist safe zone called Wikipedia. -- Tony of Race to the Right 22:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Art Robinson, Prof of Chemestry of the Oregon Petition

Sunday 1-3pm CST on Race to the right. click here to listen online and Click Here for the Race to the Right website

Please stop signing posts with an external link

Like you did here. It is strongly discouraged per Wikipedia:Signature#External_links and is usually viewed as linkspamming. Thanks. --Isotope23 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USER

I am concerned that your user page is using wikipedia as a free webhost. Can I ask that you make your user page not an archive of your radio show, but rather a page describing your wikipedia related activities? For more information on what user pages are for, please see WP:USER. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask and I will respond with what I was told. Previously the information you are referring to was on its own article. I was told at the time to put it on my User page instead and so I did. Now, if you are making the case to me that User pages are only for "wikipedia related activities" then I hope you are putting this same concern on many, many other user pages. Thank you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You were told to put it in a user subpage with the thought that it might eventually become an article. There appears to be no momentum forward regarding turning it into an article - in fact, the page has been protected for more than three months. Userpages are only for wikipedia related activities. I have recently made nearly the exactly same statement at User:VirtualEye. Are there other usepages being used as personal webspace that you know of? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would show good faith to reduce the size of your user page, especially since all that information is one click away at your own wiki. :-) --Uncle Ed 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True...except I am not able to edit it. It was the target of vandalism and is protected. -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction...it WAS protected. It must have recently (within the past day or so) become unprotected. -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just unprotected it. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Mnyakko has "majorly" reduced its size! :-) --Uncle Ed 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That reasonably deals with my concerns. Happy editing! Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix [3]

Hi Tony. I do find your attempt at intimidation (which, btw, seriously violates Wikipedia policies and etiquette) rather laughable. However, if you persist in this, you should at least get your PHP fixed. The Warning: array_slice() [function.array-slice]: The first argument should be an array in /home/www/wiki.racetotheright.com/languages/Language.php on line 1105 splattered all over the page is rather distracting. Also, you might want to fix the header of "junk science". --Stephan Schulz 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting factual information (and getting help collecting factual information) about what certain gaggles of people do and write is NOT intimidation. Well, I suppose if someone were to know that their edits and actions actually are problematic I can see why one would feel intimidated by the collection of evidence of those facts.

Well, it's not, as it's not working. It's attempted intimidation. Your point, however, falls flat. It's the old argument about privacy: "If you do nothing wrong, why do you want to hide anything?" By that reasoning, you should be fine with a gouvernment camera in each bedroom - after all, they are just "collecting factual information". What you are doing is in the best gulag snitch tradition. --Stephan Schulz 07:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying we shouldn't be able to see your edit history? P.S. Don't you think there's some law about Soviet human right abuses showing up as discussions grow longer? Seems hypocritical, nonetheless. ~ UBeR 20:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you fail to see the difference between my complete edit history and a biased selection of out-of-context quotes rearranged in a suggestive manner, I cannot help you. Or, to quote you: "you [...] are [...] hypocritical". --Stephan Schulz 22:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the attempt so far to get help is failing. A few people e-mail info to me and I compile that as well. Though with the server issues I have encountered I have not been able to update this project. Your analogy is missing on a very major point...the "bedroom" is private and the edit histories are very public. If you believe the collection is biased, too bad. "Bias" is not intimidation. Have you or the rest of the people that I have been collecting edit histories for been filled with fear? If not then there is absolutely no intimidation. If yes then the next question is fear of what? A potential criminal may be filled with fear and thus opts to not commit a crime. Intimidation? Maybe. Wrong? No, because it is preventing something against the rules/laws.

"The bedroom is private"...so do you agree that just "collecting factual information" can be wrong? And, for the point of argument, granting your claim: Are you fine with surveillance cameras in all public places? What about building a complete gene database of all citizens? --Stephan Schulz 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting factual information is permissible depending upon various factors such as the scope of venue from which the data is pulled and the entity collecting the data. "Bedroom" is private and thus collection is not permissible. Cameras in public places by the government, not permissible. Private party putting cameras in public places generally permissible (with a few exceptions). Taking public data and collecting it...no issue with that. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My contention is all of your (3rd person plural) edits are blatantly POV. The data is difficult to present unless it is pulled out and collected. Some pages are edited over a hundred times within a couple of days. Some of the examples of ~~hypocrisy~~ double-standards exist over a spread of numerous articles. But when isolated the pattern is clear.

"Isolation" in your sense is just an alternative way of saying "taking things out of context", of course. --Stephan Schulz 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If something is taken out of context then a re-direct is obviously required. However filtering out other non-relevant items is part of everyday life. The detective does not gather interviews from every single person a suspect talked to in the course of his life. He interviews the relevant pieces. A prosecutor does not submit every single piece of data relating to a case, he instead submits what is likely relevant. And to expect 100% of the edits to be collected is simply ridiculous. If you believe the context is severely warped you are welcome to add additional information to clarify context. Keep in mind that in my direct experience with the folks at the GW pages context and justification, even when requested, are rarely provided to begin with. So I expect you to continue the whining about collecting data rather than clarifying the circumstances. It is always easier to attempt discrediting the messenger rather than the message. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is nice that the POV pushers have settled down a bit. Judging from past history once their opponents are gone the changes back to their POV will be made. That is problematic (and the very thing I hope to interview Jimmy Wales about relating to the overall Wikipedia credibility) and THAT is what I hope to help put an end to.

Frankly, Wikipedia's credibility would be better off if pages with persistant edit wars were locked down and a special board had to approve edits. Just a thought. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And about the most unwiki thought you could have issued. Indeed, what you suggest is indeed censorship in the purest sense of the word. I suggest you check out gnupedia and what became of it. Suprisingly, while all this rucus goe on, UBeR (who did the larger part of the work) and I have managed to much improve the citations and references on global warming. --Stephan Schulz 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right and upon reflection I realize the degree of harm that idea would lead to. However, the exact opposite situation is also harmful. So, while I present a problem and offer a thought for a solution I would like to point out you again go after the consequent but fail to help solve the antecedent of the equation. There is a blatant bias, a circle of protection for admins, a severe POV-push and it all exists in nearly every single controversial topic (so it is not unique to GW). That is a problem. It is a tripod of harmful contributing factors and consistently removing any one of those factors helps diminsh the impact of all of them. Something has to change, though. I have been hearing from colleagues for a few years that Wikipedia is to biased to count on. I had been defending Wikipedia all that time going so far as bringing Jimbo on to 'get it from the horse's mouth'. The more I dig into the controversial topics the more I realize my colleagues were right. How do you fix that? (That is not rhetorical, I am asking you how do you propose it gets fixed and still stays within the Wiki-thought?) Yes, I believe WMC is the focal point of the problems on all of the GW pages, but he is not atypical of admins in other topics. So, generally speaking there must be a change that can address abuse quickly, fairly (fair to users and admins), and with enforcability. You may think I'm simply trying to make a point with my edits, but I'm just trying to find a standard that holds to everyone. But think what you wish, people assume others intentions constantly and even when shown otherwise choose to remain blind. That is human nature. Trying to change your view of me or my intentions is a waste of time. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your sincere effort to help with the programming issue. It is being looked into. A change in some server settings caused a cascade of issue including that problem which you mentioned and the discussion board to crash completely. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'd send you my consulting rates, but I'm probably to expensive and certainly to busy ;-). --Stephan Schulz 07:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could send your rates. Either the show or the station might pick it up. We have it narrowed down now to a problem with converting from php4 to php5 AND the MySQL db tables got gummed up. I have to figure out how to x-fer all of the data from the old tables to the new ones (61 tables for the phpbb site and 62 tables for the mediawiki site). -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been fixed or fixed itself. If you need me in the future: My rates go from EUR 75/hour (if you are a Swedish company doing extremely interesting stuff with theorem provers and can convincingly claim that that is more than any of your CXOs make), EUR 150/hour if you want me do do something I enjoy (automated reasoning, AI, machine learning, open source UNIX/Linux programming, or nearly anything with functional programming languages), EUR 300/hour otherwise. Client pays reasonable expenses. If I have to learn something I consider generally useful, half billing for the time I took for doing so. I'm not remotely competent about Windows, and don't consider Windows skills "generally useful". --Stephan Schulz 21:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. The problems are only partially fixed. I had to revert back to MediaWiki 1.6 (from 1.9) and my phpbb crashed completely. I need someone who is familiar with php, mysql, mediawiki and c++. -- Tony of Race to the Right 02:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

St. Cloud

Are you in the St. Cloud area? I currently am in St. Cloud for a while. I was not aware the radio show is from this area. ~ UBeR 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The show is in the St Cloud area...on 1450 KNSI on Sundays from 1PM - 3PM. It is also available on the webstream live (go to either racetotheright.com or 1450knsi.com for the streaming link). -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Text William Connolley deleted from "3RR: William M. Connolley, reported by Zeeboid"

Go figure...someone provides a small case supporting some necessary actions for Connolley's actions and he deletes the text.

Go figure...Connolley gets called to the carpet for something anyone else would have been blocked for (and given WMC's history, had it been anyone else they would have been permanently banned long ago), and the wagons come out to protect him from legitimate comlaints.

Well, the text of it can be found here (unless it gets deleted again)

Also deleted were 2 responses which warrant addressing. First was Stephan Schulz comments [4]. In that edit Schulz claims I "operate[] [my] account very nearly as a single purpose account", seemingly comparing my contributions to Global Warming articles, Election articles and Politics to Wikipedia:Single_purpose_account. The statement is an attempt to denigrate me without actually making the charge. The reason for that? I cannot say, but it is worth noting that it comes after providing a solid presentation against someone who assists Schulz on edits. Also worth noting is the absolute absence of addressing the issue at hand...Connolley's edits prima facia and considering them in light of his history. Other responses that are less germane to the 3RR complaint and comments will be in more appropriate locations.

The other edit that was deleted was from Newyorkbrad [5]. He states, "The purpose of the 3RR is to prevent edit-warring. Its enforcement is not meant, as Tony is using it, to be an end in itself..." That may be the purpose, the effect continues to play out as simply a means to punish new editors and those who admins do not like, but not "an end" or even at all enforced if the questionable actions are those of an admin. And then he suggests "editors" spend time editing articles instead of "rebutting" a Protect-the-admin decision. However, there becomes less and less point in editing articles when the semblance of policy enforcement is used more to allow admins & friends carte blanche with abusive behavior while oppressively applying policies and punishments on any who disagree with the circle of power. Frankly, it is disgusing that the reaction to my rebuttal was (1) baselessly attack me instead of addressing the issues, (2) attempting to remove as much of the facts presented against the admin in questions as possible through "rv"--the very tactic the is the root of the complaint, and (3) attempting to dictate how I spend my time, which, in all honesty, is beyond the scope of his business unless I am actually violating a policy (well, violating a policy that is also enforced on admins).

A few things you may also be interested in: a notice to the administrators noticeboard discussing William Connolley's behavior on The Great Global Warming Swindle article. The film is a British documentary that argues the idea of anthropogenic global warming is a swindle. The notice arose after many POV and other policy-breaking edits were made by Connolley, despite attempts to discuss it on the talk page as well as his user talk page. I'm seriously considering in making request for comment on William's edit behavior. If you interested in helping, it would be quite useful to be able to use the edit diffs you have documented on your Web site to show similar behavior on other article. It is very clear William acted inappropriately on The Great Global Warming Swindle article, and it will only help to show William's disruptiveness if we can show he has a long and continuous history of this on other related articles.

Another thing is an attempt to label those who deny the theory of anthropogenic global warming as conspiracy theorists. The article is Global warming conspiracy theory. The article is up for deletion here. ~ UBeR 02:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their actions are indefensible so...

If you know of whom I refer then the following information will be meaningful. If you do not know the people in reference then this section will have not relevancy to you.

Their actions have been under fire for a few years. Each time they are called to task several things happen. One is to engage in ad hominem attacks of no relevance to any of the issues at hand. Another is to make thinly veiled (and often fabricated) accussations of policy violations by those reporting actual issues. In each case their claims are both more accurately applicable to the people they 'defend' and are for the sole purpose of shifting focus away from their actual transgressions.

The most common attack-for-defense is the mis-application of WP:WL.

Their selection of the WP:WL essay': "Typically, wikilawyering raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to formal legal proceedings, often using legal reasoning".
In response to: any list of their transgressions which provide detail and/or is irrefutably problematic.
What they overlook from the article of their choice: "the Three-Revert Rule is a measure of protection against edit warring. An editor who intentionally reverts the same article three times every day is not breaching the letter of this rule, but violates the spirit of the rule - and can thus be sanctioned for revert warring."

Another attack-for-defense is in the WP:SPA essay.

Their selection of the WP:SPA essay': "which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles...it...represent[s] a user pushing an agenda, so such accounts...warrant...scrutiny.".
In response to: A general attack made to any user with a concentration of edits in a broadly related range of topics.
What they overlook from the article of their choice: They overlook the parts of the above sentence replaced with elipses. The whole sentence reads as follows (emphasis added to what they overlook), "which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles. This can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda, so such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny.

Note: for a few of Them over 90% of their edits (for admins this is after removing admin-duty related edits from the count) are within the same scope of topics. Hello, Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle.

3RR report

I don't believe I've ever had so many questions for a report I didn't block anyone over! :) But always good to clarify if you're unsure. Basically, the first two edits were right in a row. All that was done could have been done in a single edit. The same is true of the next four. Some people prefer to do an edit all at once, some find that difficult to do correctly and prefer to do it in smaller chunks. Given that, if a revert consists of several edits done consecutively, with no other user's edits intervening, we count it as a single revert for purposes of 3RR. Hope that clarifies it, but if you have any more questions, please let me know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Makes sense. And before anything else I should add that I agree with your interpretation/application. What is confusing and frustrating is that there is cadre within the pages which that editor participates. The cadre seems to never be in violation of 3RR while those that disagree with the cadre are. The basic 3RR decisions come down to "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" or "common sense exception". The circumstances are usually exactly identical, yet the choice of applying "letter" vs "spirit" nearly always ends up being the one that results in blocking the non-cadre members and 'no action' for the members of the cadre. You seem to be one of the rare individuals to have an interpretive application that is applied consistently...hence you are a refreshing break from that norm.

That, however, is why there is so much interest around your decision on Kim's 3RR. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some will rejoice for a few days...

Some will rejoice for a few days because my internet usage will be severely limited for the next several days as I was unable to successfully abort an issue that I have to deal with every now and then. This seems to be a particularly nasty spell that has started and so I will just be able to do juggle a small number of the variouis projects on my plate until it is over. And for those who actually read links when they are supplied, I am not in the class of people for whom this statement is true: "some newer (solutions) have shown promise".

Have a good week, Good luck and Cheers. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username abbreviation

Hi, impressive pages here. I see that we use the same name in our signatures, viz. "Tony". Neither of us, of course, has a right to the exclusive use of any name, but I wonder whether we might work out a way of distinguishing ourselves from the other, either by formatting or name modification. Tony 22:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tony. I certainly don't mind altering my signature. However, in exchange you could teach me how to read music better by altering my eye movement. :) -- Tony 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Good call. ~ UBeR 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essay: Crossroads for Wikipedia (commentary)

Let us understand a few things first so we do not have a miscommunication. The prima facia premise of Wikipedia is that of a pure democracy. Everyone participates equally and the marketplace of ideas allow "truth" (that old philosophical brain twister) to prevail. The more open discussion that engaged the more the truth will be seen by (not forced on) a majority. As happens in all governments and bureaucracies human nature's desire for power and control eventually usurps the democracy. If this is not controlled then eventually the oligarchs arise as the overseers, the protectors of democracy for the democracy. For a while (a very brief while) that oversight holds its purpose. Quickly (and unnoticed by the power thirsty oligarchs) the actions do not match the words. The oligarchs begin restricting the people of the democracy (which, coincidentally works to the benefit of the oligarchs) at the detriment of the people all while demanding the people believe it is for the people's own good.

You should be thinking of V.I.K.I. from I, Robot now, or Senator Palpatine in Star Wars II who dissolved the Senate for the sake and benefit of the Senate...or so he claimed. We all know the truth was different than the proclamation.

At some point there is a crossroads...break the 'gravy train' of the oligarchs or lose the people's support. With the former the system can be saved, with the latter it is only a matter of time before the path's only outcome is revolution or abandonment.

The majority of the oligarchy (aka admin) perpetuate a culture of ownership of articles and inequality (that is, those who contest the admin's ownership of an article are relegated to a sub-class within WP. This abusive culture is not universal throughout WP or its admins. It is, however, nearly universal that admins are not to be punished for their wrong doing, policy violations, abusive edit-wars and personal attacks against newcomers as a short example. The Blue Wall of Silence pales in comparison to the Admin Circle of Protection. If a regular editor were to delete portions of an article's talk page they would be summarily blocked and possibly banned...especially if they repeated the deletion three times in within a few hours. Without a question they would be belittled and given a warm admin treatment fitting the highest WP crime--having the audacity to suggest an admin or edit-vet could be anything less than 100% correct.

The result short term is ownership of articles is maintained. The fraternity of edit-vets continues. No harm, no foul...and besides, only those who have been in WP since 2005 or earlier know what is best, so everyone else can go to h***.

The result long term is less obvious but is beginning to take shape. If this culture is not remedies quickly and sharply then the number of growing movements and 'balance' efforts will eventually converge like raindrops on a windshield. The more it rains the more the small drops combine with other drops creating larger drops and eventually a puddle becomes a roaring rapids in the storm ravine. The longer the hypocrisy in policy enforcement continues the more people will encounter the fallacy that Wikipedia struggles to avoid: noise over information.

I personally have witnessed it watching articles since about 2004. It was this inconsistency application of WP's policies and guidelines that convinced me to stay away creating a WP account for nearly 2 years. I watched how the rules purposes may have been seeking good article content, but the application of the ever growing volumes of rules was far different. The rules then and more so as time continues have a 2-pronged reality. They are typical bureaucratic babble even to the point of being plainly contradictory and intentionally vague while attempting to be partially and completely succint, explicit and direct...occassionally. One prong of the WP rules are to be mallable enough to provide constant protection for anything done by an admin or edit-vet (those who have 'been here a long time' and are thus the only ones with the divine knowledge of what WP's rules are REALLY about). The other prong of the WP rules is to enable constriction on the anti-vet (those who do not kneel and worship the ownership of articles by admins and friends, thus are ignorant of the truth: only edit-vets know facts, everyone else knows only myth).

Evidence of this dual functionality can be witnessed by watching any of the noticeboards for a day or so. While doing so, let me warn you so you will not be surprised to see it happen. Complaints can be registered within days of each other, adjudicated by the same person, complaints can be substantively identical (and in some cases the names simply reversed), and yet the complaints will be concluded with opposite results. Typically a block or probation for one side and an absolution for the other. Worse, the rationales will be direct contradictions with each other. The factor that a person could bet on for profit: if the case is about an admin or friend of an admin. If so, the case will be "no action", otherwise it is a safe bet that action will be taken.

A common grey area abused in a similar fashion is the "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law". I say 'abused' because you will find edit-vets using the letter of the law to condemn someone while using the spirit of the law to permit the same actions by themselves.

What does that have to do with the future?

Anecdotally I talk to more and more people who refuse to use WP because the "facts" are suspect due to the culture of the oligarchs being gatekeeper. The number of other fact collector sites I have been introduced to by long time WP editors (and Sir Galahad-like admins) leaving WP has reached 4 this month. Wikipedia expose sites and commentaries are growing as are the participants and audience. With many other noble projects the detrimental effects may take a while longer. My thought is 3 years.

What happens in 3 years?

I believe the Oligarch-culture will not be rectified (in fact, I do not believe enough within the upper ranks will recognize the culture much less its negative implications) and within 36 months Wikipedia's credibility on most topics will be a step above the honesty of any politician. (To my producer, pay up. I did discover a proper sentence that used "honesty" and "politician" in the same sentence.) When I first started watching WP I noticed that about 3 out of every 5 articles in topics I knew well were factually wrong (as a result of what is sometimes called POV-pushing). For the other 20% the accuracy was incredible. I would estimate that accuracy to be about 3 in 5 are accurate (mostly in non-controversial articles) and not worth the time to read on controversial articles because the accuracy and/or neutrality are absent in most of those articles.

The time is coming where sites like Wikipedia-watch become considered as credible if not more so. (Scary considering that site posts people's personal information.)

The way to prevent that? To overhaul the system which allows, encourages, rewards and perpetuates systemic abuse of the people (editors and newbies) by the Oligarchs (admins, admin buddies, edit-vets, etc). Killing the culture of double-standards (or in some views, hypocrisy) is crucial.

Revolution is not an option of the people in WP, if the Oligarchy Culture continues the only option will be exodus, abandonment and the loss of something that could have been repaired and re-elevated to a respectable source of information.

That choice, however, rests 100% within the ranks of the admins and above.

Post Script: The number of dissatisfied WP users does grow. It is important to acknowledge and understand them. Ignoring, dismissing and attacking them will only further the obtuse and arrogant nature of the Oligarch Culture. [6], [7], [8]...are just a few. Eventually they will merge and earn the credibility WP risks right now.

1 week block

This account has been blocked from editing for one week for violations of WP:SOCK and WP:POINT as explained here. Durova^Charge! 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working at the same place constitutes sockpuppetry? ~ UBeR 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your query:

I'm curious...what specifically warrant the block? The fact that we were honest about our association (working together)? Or that we voted within 5 minutes of each other (what policy did that violate)? Or is because we 'were guilty (using twisted rationalizations) of the same thing we accused an admin and his circle of buddies of'? I just want to understand EXACTLY what you blocked us for. It is not clear when there are different reasons given in different locations by you. One final question...You claim to have given us time to defend ourselves. How much time...where was the 'here's the charge' diff and how much time until you blocked us? I find it very interesting that I posted a request for more time to provide COI documentation because my online time was going to be severely limited until the weekend. Imagine my surprise to find I was blocked and with a claim that I was given a chance to defend myself. I have learned from this ordeal that honesty is punished, and admins (and their friend) are absolutely untouchable in any online process, admins are never wrong and are not to ever be complained about, liars are rewarded...and that when someone claims they are fair, just or objective the exact opposite is more likely. I doubt you will answer any of the questions above, claiming they were sarcastic or not sincere. The truth is that the above questions are sincere, and with honest answers you MIGHT see the arbitrary manner in which this round of retaliation occurred. Mind you, your silence in response will be more telling...and if you think that some RfC or similar online, fixed process is the goal you are mistaken. Thank you,Mnyakko

This was a private e-mail. I see you have no respect for private vs public communication. I hope everyone else who deals with you holds your disrespecting standard to your private communication. -- Tony G 15:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to appeal your user block, post an unblock request with your reasons. My reasons for blocking have already been explained and since it appears that you are attempting to exploit any minute syntactical differences to manufacture claims of malfeasance I refer you to my earlier replies. You may wish to join the mentorship program, both to gain neutral and experienced insights into standard userblock procedures and to help orient yourself toward a direction where you would be unlikely to get blocked in the future. Durova^Charge! 13:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words...you cannot explain.

I would have no issue if the blocks were rationally explained, and if the initial simple questions for such explanation were offered. Therefore, my appeals will have to be through other channels. It is obvious that your actions are reconcilable with any consistency (from you or any other admin). What is not obvious is the motivation for interpretatations of policies that are, bluntly, disingenuous.

So, instead of YOU explaining the inconsistencies in YOUR selective and questionable application of policies (obviously more aimed for a specific result than for enforcing any policy) you want someone else to rationalize for you. Typically this is done by people who know their "ends justify the means" methods are exposed.

This entire ordeal is not only unexpected (actually was predicted off-Wiki on day 1) but typical of ALL issues against disruptive admins: label the users instead, retaliate and have the assistance of other admins. The true surprise would have been honesty, openness, fairness and a single standard from you on this.

It is disgusting how often admins demand "AGF" when there is a 2+ year history of abusive behavior, and then in the same breath throw out "AGF" to enable action against the people who are not goose-stepping behind historically disruptive admins. I thank you for continuing that tradition.

And in the end, you still cannot even provide explanation for you arbitrary and baseless actions. (I noticed you do not provide diffs...perhaps because you know that will open the door for displaying your lacking of foundation for your action. You only provide links to policies, not even the specific quote of yourself. Very telling.) -- Tony G 15:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stated reason for the block (depending where you look...it differs in different places):

Because 2 co-workers disclosed the fact that they know each other outside of Wiki. That is what is done to prevent COI problems in the real world. In Wikipedia, that is discouraged. Hide, lie and obfuscate any non-Wiki connections is the obviously desired behavior.
Because the co-workers voted in a time-frame that is unacceptable. Though, NEVER has the policy been given, prohibited timeframe referenced, etc. It was created out of thin-air to serve the purposes of taking action against people with legitimate complaints against an admin. 5 minutes is too close to vote in the same issue? Is that true of edits and reverts aimed specifically to circumvent 3RR? The real tell-tale in how baseless Durova's reasoning is that in order to differentiate the votes in question from other analogous votes she had to add four levels of qualifications and specific criteria. Ever hear of laws passed specifically for one person? (Well, they are actually unconstitutional because they are so abusive.) That is EXACTLY what Durova's "5-minute" vote rationalization is...tailor made for the specific purpose of letting her block someone in her way.
Because of POINT...this was the most ludicrous reason. Why? It had no merit and no explanation EVER. So, no re-direct is possible.

One final item that I will point out online (can't show all the cards before it is time) is Durova claimed that (a) 'defense' was requested from us to prevent action against us and (b) sufficient time was given and ignored. This is a blatant lie (which again, is why I suspect she refuses to provide the direct quote of the request). I had requested more time to provide more documentation for the subject at hand (the COI against a POV-pushing admin) because I was going to have my internet access severly, if not entirely, limited for the following several days. Upon my return I found I was blocked. Durova's deception on this matter should be pointed out and held up anytime she ever claims to be 'fair' again. She took the opportunity of my absence to fabricate baseless claims of policy breech and tries to cover her tracks now by refusing to explain HER exact interpretations of what specific policies. The truth about why she wants to refer others to answer our questions is because she knows (1) the blocks were justifiable beyond a personal dislike between editors, (2) policies are vague and conflicting which renders everyone else to guessing what Durova was specifically looking at and (3) she knows that explaining her justfications (which if they were on solid foundation would be easy to do) will expose the frailty of her actions through textbook Socratic method.

Durova, I know the textbook dodge-the-responsibility responses, so unless you are going to actually answer my questions directly and succinctly, please don't waste my time. (I have added strikethrough to your dodging response.)-- Tony G 15:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]