SlimVirgin, Zeq, and Zero, Split from 'Tactics of the Master Baiters' Options

[The Adversary]

Apparently ms Hell cannot get into her head that one reason why she is so disliked is because she for many years protected some of the worst editors/harassers on WP. After IronDukes nasty baiting of Gnetwerker, she still tries to pass him off as a "popular and respected member of the community" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

Another one WP-disaster/harasser she protected was User:Zeq; she unblocked him after he had published personal information on one of his opponents

Thank you very much. What does Zeq do next? Create articles (now both deleted) on two of his WP-adversaries; first, and second

So; here we have one nasty editor, who, with the help of ms. SV, is outing/harassing no less than 3 of his opponents on Wikipedia, but this is not enough to get him banned/blocked (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (Zeq was finally indef´d after the C.A.M.E.R.A. affair.)

[Hell Freezes Over]

Another one WP-disaster/harasser she protected was User:Zeq; she unblocked him after he had published personal information on one of his opponents

I unblocked Zeq because Zero indefblocked him, after Zeq posted on Zero's page, "Hope you enjoyed your holiday," or words to that effect. The edit was designed to show that Zeq knew who Zero was, but it did not tell anyone else who he was. Zero knew he should not have indefblocked someone for that, and especially not Zeq, given he was in constant conflict with him.

But you knew that already, didn't you, Adversary? I thought you didn't approve of admins who use their tools against opponents.

[Kelly Martin]

I unblocked Zeq because Zero indefblocked him, after Zeq posted on Zero's page, "Hope you enjoyed your holiday," or words to that effect. The edit was designed to show that Zeq knew who Zero was, but it did not tell anyone else who he was. Zero knew he should not have indefblocked someone for that, and especially not Zeq, given he was in constant conflict with him.

I believe you've answered the wrong question here, dear. What you've given us above is the pretext for your unblock; you have yet to tell us why you actually unblocked him. I'm sure there is someone here who can produce countless examples of you failing to unblock people blocked by admins who themselves were in conflict with the person they blocked.

I have never seen any Wikipedian admin unblock another user for the sole reason that the user unblocked had been blocked by an admin who was in conflict with the blocked user. There has always been an underlying ulterior motive by the unblocking admin, that being either political alliance with the blocked user or political opposition to the blocking admin.

[The Adversary]

I unblocked Zeq because Zero indefblocked him, after Zeq posted on Zero's page, "Hope you enjoyed your holiday," or words to that effect. The edit was designed to show that Zeq knew who Zero was, but it did not tell anyone else who he was.<snip>

So you claim. It was so "innocent" that Zero wiped his talk-page at once (and SV did not restore all the history). See the log.

I believe you've answered the wrong question here, dear. What you've given us above is the pretext for your unblock; you have yet to tell us why you actually unblocked him. I'm sure there is someone here who can produce countless examples of you failing to unblock people blocked by admins who themselves were in conflict with the person they blocked.<snip>

Exactly. Zeq was her one-man-mob (just like IronDuke). Zeq had been trying to out Zero, or find out who he was, at least from the end of 2005. And SV knew; look at this sweet little conversation from April 2006: "Don't try to patronize me, Zero. You have no qualifications or professional experience in this area." (Heh. Just as if SV had any "qualifications or professional experience in this area" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) )

So shall we turn this around, ms Hell, and say that you should not have unblocked the harasser of one you were in conflict with?

And, ms. Hell; don´t tell me you were not aware of the two attack-articles that Zeq started in the weeks afterwards; why was he not indef. blocked for those? How many editors haven´t you indef. blocked because they started just one attack-article? Oh, but that was when they started an article about your friend W..., then they were indef. blocked at once.

I have said so before, and I repeat: it was the outrageous double-standard back in the dark-ages of WP (2005-2006-2007) that I reacted against. Like SV indef.-blocking Gnetwerker for "making the typical sockpuppet-mistake of forgetting who he was logged in as", while at the very same time not blocking Matanmoreland even though she knew he had committed exactly the same mistake. And not once, but twice.

Having said this, I (perhaps unlike Gomi and Jon A.?) do think that things have improved lately on WP. But that does not mean that I have forgotten (or forgiven) former abuse, which drove of good contributors, and kept awful ones.
Like Zeq.
Like IronDuke.

[Hell Freezes Over]

I unblocked Zeq because Zero indefblocked him, after Zeq posted on Zero's page, "Hope you enjoyed your holiday," or words to that effect. The edit was designed to show that Zeq knew who Zero was, but it did not tell anyone else who he was. Zero knew he should not have indefblocked someone for that, and especially not Zeq, given he was in constant conflict with him.

I believe you've answered the wrong question here, dear. What you've given us above is the pretext for your unblock; you have yet to tell us why you actually unblocked him. I'm sure there is someone here who can produce countless examples of you failing to unblock people blocked by admins who themselves were in conflict with the person they blocked.

I unblocked Zeq first and foremost because he asked me to.

My feelings about it were twofold: first, I felt sorry for Zeq when he first arrived at WP. He was trying to put across an Israeli perspective, which was badly needed, and was struggling to do it with very poor English. Zero was very aggressive toward him, reverted almost all his edits, whether good or bad, and used the tools against him, blocking him twice. It went to ArbCom in the end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on/Zeq-Zero0000

Zero had a habit of using the tools in content disputes -- though in fairness to him, this was because he was "old school" and wasn't really an active admin, so he didn't quite get the need to separate the editor/admin functions.

I was in touch with Zero by email about this block, and he knew it wouldn't stand. He was just making the point that he had a right to defend himself, and I agreed with that, and said so at the time. But it's clearly absurd to indefblock someone for mentioning that you went on holiday, with no identifying details. What was I meant to say to Zeq when he requested an unblock? "No, you said the word 'holiday,' which is personal, so be off with you?" Or perhaps, "No, you're an Israeli with a politically incorrect POV, so you can bugger right off"?

This happened in May 2006. Why are you mentioning it now, almost three years later?

[The Adversary]

<snip>This happened in May 2006. Why are you mentioning it now, almost three years later?

I am not sure if this question is to Kelly -or me, since I first brought it up. And ms. Hell has not bothered with answering my questions.

My reason for bringing it up is simple: to show that IronDuke is not the only "Master Baiter" that SV protected. Note that Zeq´s provocative (and now hidden) edit was made during the above arb.com.

As to ms. Hell´s claim that Zeq "was trying to put across an Israeli perspective, which was badly needed," LOL! yeah, right: by starting attack-articles on fellow Wikipedians? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Listen, again: I do think things have improved on WP. I even think SV has done a lot of good work on WP lately (I really enjoyed reading Marshalsea)

Personally, I would gladly let bygones be bygones. But when ms. Hell comes here and defends the cesspool that was called Wikipedia in 2006, I find it extremely provocative.
Some of her "lapdogs" from that time have been put down (read: Zeq)
Some of them are still running around.

[Heat]

I unblocked Zeq first and foremost because he asked me to.

My feelings about it were twofold: first, I felt sorry for Zeq when he first arrived at WP. He was trying to put across an Israeli perspective, which was badly needed, and was struggling to do it with very poor English. Zero was very aggressive toward him, reverted almost all his edits, whether good or bad, and used the tools against him, blocking him twice. It went to ArbCom in the end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on/Zeq-Zero0000

Zero had a habit of using the tools in content disputes -- though in fairness to him, this was because he was "old school" and wasn't really an active admin, so he didn't quite get the need to separate the editor/admin functions.

I was in touch with Zero by email about this block, and he knew it wouldn't stand. He was just making the point that he had a right to defend himself, and I agreed with that, and said so at the time. But it's clearly absurd to indefblock someone for mentioning that you went on holiday, with no identifying details. What was I meant to say to Zeq when he requested an unblock? "No, you said the word 'holiday,' which is personal, so be off with you?" Or perhaps, "No, you're an Israeli with a politically incorrect POV, so you can bugger right off"?

This happened in May 2006. Why are you mentioning it now, almost three years later?

Perhaps you can explain your relationship with a more recent harasser, Proabiviouac, and why you attempted to get him unblocked after he outed Krimpet and her family?

He was trying to put across an Israeli perspective, which was badly needed

It's not as if Jayjg, Humus Sapiens, Iron Duke, 6SJ7 and about a dozen other editors weren't already, rather aggressively, putting forth such a perspective. What you say is partly true though - you protected him because of his ideological position.

This post has been edited by Heat:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And ms. Hell has not bothered with answering my questions.

Ms. Hell does not answer questions.

I have said so before, and I repeat: it was the outrageous double-standard back in the dark-ages of WP (2005-2006-2007) that I reacted against. Like SV indef.-blocking Gnetwerker for "making the typical sockpuppet-mistake of forgetting who he was logged in as", while at the very same time not blocking Matanmoreland even though she knew he had committed exactly the same mistake. And not once, but twice.

This is a good capsule description of Wikipedia's most pernicious problem.

[Kato]

My feelings about it were twofold: first, I felt sorry for XYZ when he first arrived at WP. He was trying to put across an XYZ perspective, which was badly needed, and was struggling to do it with very poor English. Admin XYZ was very aggressive toward him, reverted almost all his edits, whether good or bad, and used the tools against him, blocking him twice.

Admin XYZ had a habit of using the tools in content disputes

And thus; irony and lack of self-awareness continues unabated.

Just admit it. There's no good or bad behaviour on WP, no right or wrong behaviour, no blockable or non-blockable behaviour. It's merely about who you are, who your friends are, and which mood you are in at a given time. If you've worked yourself up to the position of Grand Wazoo with powerful friends, and are in a certain mood, you can control proceedings by fiat, with vague justifications made after the point. Rookies, the naive, or the less time laden participants don't stand a chance.

That's the whole reason why people were complaining bitterly about Jossi, LaRouche, Gnetworker, Mantanmoreland, Iron Duke and scores of other episodes.

Almost everyone here has the sense that decisions were made on an uneven, arbitrary basis, dependent on whims rather than due process.

So people like Zeq, Jossi and Iron Duke got to walk and were supported, while others were badly mistreated. Many of us believe that the roots of this dysfunction stem from Wikipedia Social Network environment. Important decisions were being made not for the benefit of "knowledge" or any kind of productive process, but were due to Social Grooming.

If you check this SlimVirgin archived talk page, one can find Zeq, Jossi and Iron Duke all involved in the grooming process. Each of them giving SlimVirgin the heads-up on the same page. And that's how those editors got to flout Wikipedia norms for so long without challenge. They got "protection" from controlling figures in exchange for their loyalty. Outsiders were thrown to the dogs.

These examples are the definition of cronyism and systemic corruption. You cannot create the "Sum of Human Knowledge" through a process of cronyism and corruption without causing massive problems. What we see now on WR are the fruits of that wholesale disruption.

[Moulton]

The Politics of Disempowerment

These examples are the definition of cronyism and systemic corruption. You cannot create the "Sum of Human Knowledge" through a process of cronyism and corruption without causing massive problems. What we see now on WR are the fruits of that wholesale disruption.

In an MMPORG, the objective is to disable and disempower the enemy. The main thing is to make sure one is attacking the correct enemy target, and not doing collateral damage to one's own team or allies.

In cultures like Wikipedia, the Politics of Disempowerment are only a little more subtle than the tactics one adopts in an MMPORG.

There are pretexts and selective enforcement of convenient rules, where the justification for invoking a sanction is less important than ensuring that the sanction sufficiently disables and disempowers the targeted enemy.

Some players become very adept at carrying out the machinations and manipulations required to win the recurring battles in the Politics of Disempowerment.

More power to them.

[Kelly Martin]

I unblocked Zeq first and foremost because he asked me to.

My feelings about it were twofold: first, I felt sorry for Zeq when he first arrived at WP. He was trying to put across an Israeli perspective, which was badly needed, and was struggling to do it with very poor English. Zero was very aggressive toward him, reverted almost all his edits, whether good or bad, and used the tools against him, blocking him twice. It went to ArbCom in the end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...on/Zeq-Zero0000

Zero had a habit of using the tools in content disputes -- though in fairness to him, this was because he was "old school" and wasn't really an active admin, so he didn't quite get the need to separate the editor/admin functions.

I was in touch with Zero by email about this block, and he knew it wouldn't stand. He was just making the point that he had a right to defend himself, and I agreed with that, and said so at the time. But it's clearly absurd to indefblock someone for mentioning that you went on holiday, with no identifying details. What was I meant to say to Zeq when he requested an unblock? "No, you said the word 'holiday,' which is personal, so be off with you?" Or perhaps, "No, you're an Israeli with a politically incorrect POV, so you can bugger right off"?

This happened in May 2006. Why are you mentioning it now, almost three years later?

While you didn't come straight out and say it, it's clear from your allocution that your intent was to aid a political ally. Everything you've said above is apologetics meant to provide an excuse why your action, which you know, or should have known, was inconsistent with the way things are supposedly done in Wikipedia, was nonetheless "permissible" under Wikipedia's "rules".

In theory, in Wikipedia, when one admin feels that another admin has "used the tools" improperly, he or she is supposed to engage that admin in a colloquial discussion on the issue, bringing in additional members of the community as necessary until the dispute has been resolved in a collegial manner. However, this is almost never done; invariably, the second admin invokes some argument similar to the one you have just put forth as to why discussing the propriety of the action is unnecessary and just reverses it.

I didn't bring this situation up; someone else did. I merely responded to you because it was obvious to me that you were lying to us, and I felt it best to give you the opportunity to "clear the record". I'm impressed and somewhat surprised that you actually made an effort to do so, although you could have been more clear in admitting that you did so because Zeq was an ally of yours, someone whose efforts to skew content toward a particular viewpoint you were actively supporting for the simple reason that you believe that his viewpoint deserves more weight than it was getting.

I think it's useful for people to see the failings of random Wikipedia admins. The sad thing, dear Sarah (or whatever your name really is), is that you're not even remotely atypical of Wikipedia admins. Virtually all of them do this (well, except for the ones who never do anything at all; they're at least mostly harmless). People need to be aware that Wikipedia's "rules" both prohibit and permit everything, and so whether or not a particular thing is permitted depends on the political power held by the person doing it more than anything else.

[CharlotteWebb]

Many of us believe that the roots of this dysfunction stem from Wikipedia Social Network environment. Important decisions were being made not for the benefit of "knowledge" or any kind of productive process, but were due to Social Grooming.

Very true, but if one had the power and determination to reverse this trend, where would they begin? That's the part I'm having difficulty wrapping my mind around. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dizzy.gif)

In theory, in Wikipedia, when one admin feels that another admin has "used the tools" improperly, he or she is supposed to engage that admin in a colloquial discussion on the issue, bringing in additional members of the community as necessary until the dispute has been resolved in a collegial manner.

Colloquial discussion my foot. Usually there's usually a bunch of template-speak and some kind of gold rush to see who can file an RFAR first without being edit-conflicted (usually whoever has had it saved in notepad for the last month or so).

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Rhindle]

Many of us believe that the roots of this dysfunction stem from Wikipedia Social Network environment. Important decisions were being made not for the benefit of "knowledge" or any kind of productive process, but were due to Social Grooming.

Very true, but if one had the power and determination to reverse this trend, where would they begin? That's the part I'm having difficulty wrapping my mind around. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dizzy.gif)

I would say a good start would be to limit terms for admins. I have always thought this and probably not the first or last to advocate this position. They could spend less time worrying about all those wiki-evil-doers and guarding their precious content and spending some time in the real world. Take a bubble bath, go swimming, climb a mountain, make love to your significant other(whatever label applies to them).

If wikipedia is that important to them they can always reapply. I bet a lot won't even bother but those that do could even have a lower threshold since being an admin will always have you piss off somebody even if you're even handed and do a good job.

[Heat]

Many of us believe that the roots of this dysfunction stem from Wikipedia Social Network environment. Important decisions were being made not for the benefit of "knowledge" or any kind of productive process, but were due to Social Grooming.

Very true, but if one had the power and determination to reverse this trend, where would they begin? That's the part I'm having difficulty wrapping my mind around. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dizzy.gif)

I would say a good start would be to limit terms for admins. I have always thought this and probably not the first or last to advocate this position. They could spend less time worrying about all those wiki-evil-doers and guarding their precious content and spending some time in the real world. Take a bubble bath, go swimming, climb a mountain, make love to your significant other(whatever label applies to them).

If wikipedia is that important to them they can always reapply. I bet a lot won't even bother but those that do could even have a lower threshold since being an admin will always have you piss off somebody even if you're even handed and do a good job.

I don't think term limits are necessary for admins. Perhaps for CheckUsers, Oversighters, ArbComm and the like (though given the difficulty of winning re-election to ArbComm I don't think there's a need for limits). Terms might be an idea for admins but I think having a recall system would solve much of the problem.

[Cedric]

The Politics of Disempowerment

These examples are the definition of cronyism and systemic corruption. You cannot create the "Sum of Human Knowledge" through a process of cronyism and corruption without causing massive problems. What we see now on WR are the fruits of that wholesale disruption.

In an MMPORG, the objective is to disable and disempower the enemy. The main thing is to make sure one is attacking the correct enemy target, and not doing collateral damage to one's own team or allies.

In cultures like Wikipedia, the Politics of Disempowerment are only a little more subtle than the tactics one adopts in an MMPORG.

There are pretexts and selective enforcement of convenient rules, where the justification for invoking a sanction is less important than ensuring that the sanction sufficiently disables and disempowers the targeted enemy.

Some players become very adept at carrying out the machinations and manipulations required to win the recurring battles in the Politics of Disempowerment.

This may well be the best Moulton post yet. A more succinct and accurate description of the true nature of The Encyclopedia Game™ is difficult to imagine.

More power to them.

Indeed, for it is they, and not we, who are destroying Wikipedia.

Hasten The Day!™

[Random832]

But it's clearly absurd to indefblock someone for mentioning that you went on holiday, with no identifying details. What was I meant to say to Zeq when he requested an unblock? "No, you said the word 'holiday,' which is personal, so be off with you?"

Not in those words, but it'd have been easy to make a case that it's a veiled threat of some sort.

But you're missing the point - the point is not necessarily that he should not have been unblocked, but that he was when others would not have been. Or you could have left it for someone else. "I shouldn't handle this myself because it might be seen as related to some conflict between me and Zero, but I've passed on your request to unblock-l"

This post has been edited by Random832:

[written by he who wrote it]

I was in touch with Zero by email about this block, and he knew it wouldn't stand. He was just making the point that he had a right to defend himself, and I agreed with that, and said so at the time. But it's clearly absurd to indefblock someone for mentioning that you went on holiday, with no identifying details. What was I meant to say to Zeq when he requested an unblock? "No, you said the word 'holiday,' which is personal, so be off with you?" Or perhaps, "No, you're an Israeli with a politically incorrect POV, so you can bugger right off"?

You're leaving something out. In the instigating edit (admins only), Zeq speaks as if he knows exactly where Zero went, and therefore knows his real-life identity.

Now, I believe that anonymity and administration of a top ten website are incompatible; this is why I rarely edit and never administrate any more. I'm aware that this view is not widespread; Wikipedia policy is to come down like a collapsing mountain on anyone who even hints at outing another editor. (Witness WordBomb.) Since you are one of the architects and enforcers of that policy, it's disingenuous to claim that Zeq was blocked simply for using the word 'holiday', especially because he did not use that word; his post, under the heading "Welcome Back", was "How was [the place that he believed Zero had been]?".

[Heat]

I was in touch with Zero by email about this block, and he knew it wouldn't stand. He was just making the point that he had a right to defend himself, and I agreed with that, and said so at the time. But it's clearly absurd to indefblock someone for mentioning that you went on holiday, with no identifying details. What was I meant to say to Zeq when he requested an unblock? "No, you said the word 'holiday,' which is personal, so be off with you?" Or perhaps, "No, you're an Israeli with a politically incorrect POV, so you can bugger right off"?

You're leaving something out. In the instigating edit (admins only), Zeq speaks as if he knows exactly where Zero went, and therefore knows his real-life identity.

Now, I believe that anonymity and administration of a top ten website are incompatible; this is why I rarely edit and never administrate any more. I'm aware that this view is not widespread; Wikipedia policy is to come down like a collapsing mountain on anyone who even hints at outing another editor. (Witness WordBomb.) Since you are one of the architects and enforcers of that policy, it's disingenuous to claim that Zeq was blocked simply for using the word 'holiday', especially because he did not use that word; his post, under the heading "Welcome Back", was "How was [the place that he believed Zero had been]?".

SV has a double standard on outing, just as she has on POV pushing, 3RR, sockpuppeteering, canvassing, meatpuppetry and most wikicrimes. If her friends like Proaby, Zeq, Jayjg, FeloniousMonk (or herself) do it then it's ok and excusable. If someone she dislikes or who is on the wrong side of a political issue does it then it's a capital crime.

This post has been edited by Heat:

[Hipocrite]

I was in touch with Zero by email about this block, and he knew it wouldn't stand. He was just making the point that he had a right to defend himself, and I agreed with that, and said so at the time. But it's clearly absurd to indefblock someone for mentioning that you went on holiday, with no identifying details. What was I meant to say to Zeq when he requested an unblock? "No, you said the word 'holiday,' which is personal, so be off with you?" Or perhaps, "No, you're an Israeli with a politically incorrect POV, so you can bugger right off"?

You're leaving something out. In the instigating edit (admins only), Zeq speaks as if he knows exactly where Zero went, and therefore knows his real-life identity.

Now, I believe that anonymity and administration of a top ten website are incompatible; this is why I rarely edit and never administrate any more. I'm aware that this view is not widespread; Wikipedia policy is to come down like a collapsing mountain on anyone who even hints at outing another editor. (Witness WordBomb.) Since you are one of the architects and enforcers of that policy, it's disingenuous to claim that Zeq was blocked simply for using the word 'holiday', especially because he did not use that word; his post, under the heading "Welcome Back", was "How was [the place that he believed Zero had been]?".

SV has a double standard on outing, just as she has on POV pushing, 3RR, sockpuppeteering, canvassing, meatpuppetry and most wikicrimes. If her friends like Proaby, Zeq, Jayjg, FeloniousMonk (or herself) do it then it's ok and excusable. If someone she dislikes or who is on the wrong side of a political issue does it then it's a capital crime.

And yet she hasn't told everyone your incredibly relevent on-wiki name, has she? Perhaps you're wrong, eh?

[Somey]

And yet she hasn't told everyone your incredibly relevent on-wiki name, has she? Perhaps you're wrong, eh?

I'm not so sure it's "incredibly relevant" - all that has to be done is to point out that Mr. Heat is someone with whom SV & Co. had a protracted dispute with, over some highly volatile and controversial articles and topics, the result of which was that Mr. Heat was accused of using multiple accounts and banned. Pretty much like everybody else who tangled with them back in the old days, eh?

Besides, for all we know, Mr. Heat actually *is* one of SV's "special friends," and the veiled threats are just her way of being coy about it.