The Nixon Diaries, or how to inflate your contributions Options

[melloden]

A proposal: the massive volume makes the emails difficult to understand unless you've the requisite knowledge of actors and background. What about having a thread maintained by one of the knowledgeable regulars in which people could suggest summaries of interesting findings for inclusion in the first post (e.g., "Storing Checkuser data privately/forever is an accepted practice", "Basketofpuppies is Bstone", etc.) ? I can't imagine casual readers sifting through the emails and drama histories to sufficiently understand some of the most important bits.

Also, can we just strip away the headers and the encrypted fields, so it just shows who the email is from? That clutter takes up a lot of room.

[Encyclopedist]

A proposal: the massive volume makes the emails difficult to understand unless you've the requisite knowledge of actors and background. What about having a thread maintained by one of the knowledgeable regulars in which people could suggest summaries of interesting findings for inclusion in the first post (e.g., "Storing Checkuser data privately/forever is an accepted practice", "Basketofpuppies is Bstone", etc.) ? I can't imagine casual readers sifting through the emails and drama histories to sufficiently understand some of the most important bits.

Also, can we just strip away the headers and the encrypted fields, so it just shows who the email is from? That clutter takes up a lot of room.

Let's be clear what we have here; it's ostensibly an opportunist hacker who has managed to obtain a password to the arbcom-en-l mailing list, from however, *or* from a past contributor to that list.

Although "Malice Forethought" is clearly clued-up on past Wikipedia drahmas, which suggests some sort of insider with an agenda, what would interest me here is an indication of the temporal limits of this leak. They seem to go back way beyond current issues, and the most recent is my own desysopping, and the legal consequences that may follow from the leaking here. Although the Arbitrary Committee has protested its vulnerability to this over the years to the WMF, the questions is that if they were aware of this, why did they not take any contentious discussions into their own IRC channel, or on to ArbWiki, which has limited access?

This is pure negligence, and nothing else. However, I remain to be convinced that the horse has been replaced in the stable after the barn door has been closed. Or has it?

Phil Nash/User:Rodhullandemu, and if it matters to anyone, I have nothing to hide, nor care about any more. I used to believe in Wikipedia, but obviously I can no longer sustain that faith I perhaps naively subscribed to almost four years ago. Now looking from outside, I know WP's failures, but then I was quick to do so, and assumed that my small efforts could make a difference. Quite clearly, they could, in a micro-sense, but that is what I could do when able.

I'm not going to take the position that everybody here, such as Greg Kohs, Kelly Martin, Moulton, and others, who have been kicked off Wikipedia, that they are necessarily wrong; I prefer to say that WP isn't for them. However, I now realise that it isn't for me.

I've had death threats and TOV on Wikipedia as an Admin, and have tried to work beyond them; in real-life, they are usually meaningless. But, it does sour the pill somewhat that you make and improve articles, and see vandalism as the most obvious and defensible threat to WP, and deal with it appropriately, and are still kicked into touch by ArbCom without appropriate discussion or appreciation. I'm aware that some here don't like me; tough: I don't like you either, perhaps. But what I would prefer is either WP:AGF or [[Due process]]. My ArbCom, and Jimbo's failure to see through the smoke and mirrors, show that neither seems to apply to me.

TBH, I don't care. The problem is that you should not expect amateurs to behave like professionals, and conversely, you should value your professionals if their professionalism (and that is not predicated upon being paid; it's a value-system, not a money thing) is overall directed to improving the project.

I'll just say this: I don't expect any respect here, because of my previous commitment to Wikipedia: but having said that, I heard about a week ago that an old friend of mine, a guitarist with whom I was in a band in the early 1970s, had died in his sleep of a heart attack. A sad loss, but to be honest, that's how I would choose to go., and if it happens to me, I won't complain; my contributions to WP and Commons remain as some sort of memorial yo my abilities.

That's all.

[mbz1]

Phil Nash/User:Rodhullandemu, and if it matters to anyone, I have nothing to hide, nor care about any more. I used to believe in Wikipedia, but obviously I can no longer sustain that faith I perhaps naively subscribed to almost four years ago. Now looking from outside, I know WP's failures, but then I was quick to do so, and assumed that my small efforts could make a difference. Quite clearly, they could, in a micro-sense, but that is what I could do when able.

I'm not going to take the position that everybody here, such as Greg Kohs, Kelly Martin, Moulton, and others, who have been kicked off Wikipedia, that they are necessarily wrong; I prefer to say that WP isn't for them. However, I now realise that it isn't for me.

I've had death threats and TOV on Wikipedia as an Admin, and have tried to work beyond them; in real-life, they are usually meaningless. But, it does sour the pill somewhat that you make and improve articles, and see vandalism as the most obvious and defensible threat to WP, and deal with it appropriately, and are still kicked into touch by ArbCom without appropriate discussion or appreciation. I'm aware that some here don't like me; tough: I don't like you either, perhaps. But what I would prefer is either WP:AGF or [[Due process]]. My ArbCom, and Jimbo's failure to see through the smoke and mirrors, show that neither seems to apply to me.

TBH, I don't care. The problem is that you should not expect amateurs to behave like professionals, and conversely, you should value your professionals if their professionalism (and that is not predicated upon being paid; it's a value-system, not a money thing) is overall directed to improving the project.

I'll just say this: I don't expect any respect here, because of my previous commitment to Wikipedia: but having said that, I heard about a week ago that an old friend of mine, a guitarist with whom I was in a band in the early 1970s, had died in his sleep of a heart attack. A sad loss, but to be honest, that's how I would choose to go., and if it happens to me, I won't complain; my contributions to WP and Commons remain as some sort of memorial yo my abilities.

That's all.

This is a sad story, but now looking back do you believe you were a fair admin?

[Encyclopedist]

Phil Nash/User:Rodhullandemu, and if it matters to anyone, I have nothing to hide, nor care about any more. I used to believe in Wikipedia, but obviously I can no longer sustain that faith I perhaps naively subscribed to almost four years ago. Now looking from outside, I know WP's failures, but then I was quick to do so, and assumed that my small efforts could make a difference. Quite clearly, they could, in a micro-sense, but that is what I could do when able.

I'm not going to take the position that everybody here, such as Greg Kohs, Kelly Martin, Moulton, and others, who have been kicked off Wikipedia, that they are necessarily wrong; I prefer to say that WP isn't for them. However, I now realise that it isn't for me.

I've had death threats and TOV on Wikipedia as an Admin, and have tried to work beyond them; in real-life, they are usually meaningless. But, it does sour the pill somewhat that you make and improve articles, and see vandalism as the most obvious and defensible threat to WP, and deal with it appropriately, and are still kicked into touch by ArbCom without appropriate discussion or appreciation. I'm aware that some here don't like me; tough: I don't like you either, perhaps. But what I would prefer is either WP:AGF or [[Due process]]. My ArbCom, and Jimbo's failure to see through the smoke and mirrors, show that neither seems to apply to me.

TBH, I don't care. The problem is that you should not expect amateurs to behave like professionals, and conversely, you should value your professionals if their professionalism (and that is not predicated upon being paid; it's a value-system, not a money thing) is overall directed to improving the project.

I'll just say this: I don't expect any respect here, because of my previous commitment to Wikipedia: but having said that, I heard about a week ago that an old friend of mine, a guitarist with whom I was in a band in the early 1970s, had died in his sleep of a heart attack. A sad loss, but to be honest, that's how I would choose to go., and if it happens to me, I won't complain; my contributions to WP and Commons remain as some sort of memorial yo my abilities.

That's all.

This is a sad story, but now looking back do you believe you were a fair admin?

Of course; I would not have gone for RFA if I thought otherwise. My background in law told me that I should only act in blocking/protecting if there was no reasonable alternative. But I'm also fully aware that legal processes are sometimes subverted from outside; as regards Wikipedia, all we have to go on is an editor's edits. On the face of it, admins have to make value judgements on those, and those alone. But it's also open to a blocked editor to set the record straight. Make no mistake, I may have issued 10,000 blocks, but of those, only a handful were appealed, and only a mite successfully- and perhaps to my credit, some by myself given the blockee's response. I went through all the warning levels in most cases unless it was patently obvious from edit 1 that the editor wasn't going to contribute effectively. I tried hard to assume good faith. However, I'd be glad to hear of anything that you have that controverts this. Message me here or at wikimail@blueyonder.co.uk. Cheers.