| Revision as of 17:28, 16 October 2007 editATren (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,279 edits rant← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:22, 1 November 2010 edit undoATren (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,279 edits →And the accusations continue! | ||
| (54 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Userpage}} | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| {| style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |{{User Buffalo}} | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Whistleblower's Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | | |||
| |{{User Software Engineer}} | |||
| Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{user degree/MS subject|Computer engineering}} | |||
| This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted: | |||
| |- | |||
| The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter); | |||
| |{{user cpp-4}} | |||
| William M. Connolley | |||
| |- | |||
| Polargeo | |||
| |{{user c-4}} | |||
| Thegoodlocust | |||
| |- | |||
| Marknutley | |||
| |{{user java-3}} | |||
| ChrisO | |||
| |- | |||
| Minor4th | |||
| |{{user xml-4}} | |||
| '''''ATren''''' | |||
| |- | |||
| Hipocrite | |||
| |{{user xslt}} | |||
| Cla68 | |||
| |- | |||
| GregJackP | |||
| |{{User:UBX/Hockey}} | |||
| A Quest For Knowledge | |||
| Verbal | |||
| ZuluPapa5 | |||
| JohnWBarber | |||
| FellGleaming | |||
| |} | |} | ||
| ==I have been sanctioned by arbcom because I asked questions and challenged admins who behaved badly== | |||
| ] | |||
| ==Me and Misplaced Pages== | |||
| I am currently busy in real life, and therefore I've largly stopped editing anything substantial for the time being. The one exception is the THF arbcom case, which I got involved in 2 months ago when I ''wasn't'' busy. So a cursory check of my edit history will show only edits from that case, which has dragged on for months. One ] has used this recent edit history to accuse me of "obsessing" over this case, which is, at best, an unfair characterization. And today, an ] accused me of "carrying the torch" for THF, a remarkably irresponsible comment given that she is an active arbitrator on that case. | |||
| In any event, I invite my critics to point me to which ''policy or guideline'' says that an editor may not focus on one issue for an extended period of time. David ShankBone has relentlessly pursued THF, his ideological opponent, for nearly 4 months - and in the process has engaged in some pretty vile personal attacks - yet ''I'm'' the one who obsesses and "carries the torch". I have no ideological interest in this case, I came onto it as an uninvolved third party, yet I am attacked for seeing it through. I suspect this is more about THF than me - I am guilty by association with someone who has been run off the project not because of his edits or behaviors (which, for the most part, were in perfect compliance with Misplaced Pages policy), but ''because of his political views.'' | |||
| I am apolitical, and my personal beliefs are generally very moderate, so it repulses me when ''intellects'' from either side of the spectrum are hounded off the project. It nearly happened with ], a progressive who became the target of a certain political opponent, and now it's happened with THF, a conservative who was similarly targeted by opponents. Mr Grant was exonerated, and rightly so, but here we have THF who has been successfully chased from the project even though he did everything possible to adhere to policy. | |||
| Perhaps THF is right and Misplaced Pages has a systemic liberal bias. I never believed that before (never wanted to believe it) but it's hard not to come to that conclusion when you have Raul654, an ''arbitrator'', quoting Ralph Nader as an authoritative source on the activities of a conservative think tank - and doing so on the talk page of a case in which he is participating! | |||
| This case is dramatic evidence that Misplaced Pages has lost its way. It's one thing for political battles to occur on the talk pages of contentious topics - that's natural. But when you have the ultimate judicial authority ''endorsing'' one side of that battle in complete conflict with the evidence presented, that's a really bad sign. I came to Misplaced Pages because I thought this was a place where intellectual discourse would trump petty political battles. I can't believe I could have been so naive. | |||
| I am displaying this sanction at the top of my User page because I am proud of what I did throughout my time in the climate change topic area. I was one of the few editors with the guts to push back against one of the most destructive factions ever to edit here, and that did not sit well with some of the agenda driven power brokers who run this place. So even as they begrudgingly handed out sanctions to the real problem editors, they had to catch me and others in the net as well. It's called "shooting the whistleblower". | |||
| And now, back to our regularly scheduled user page. :-) | |||
| So I wear this sanction as a badge of honor. I had a dozen diffs in my findings, and none of them were anywhere near the level required for such a sanction. Examples: I asked one admin to "step back", I told another to "back off", and I told a third that I found his actions "highly inappropriate". Yes, really, those three actions represented fully '''''25%''''' of my evidence. Even more absurd: in all cases the warnings to these admins were well-deserved -- in one case, an admin compared an editor's intelligence to a child, in another, the admin called a whole group of good faith editors "trolls", and a third blocked someone indefinitely in an action that was raised by uninvolved editors at AN/I. None of them were sanctioned; I was. The other 9 diffs were similar in tone. At any given moment, AN/I would have ''hundreds'' of comments that were much worse than anything I ever said. | |||
| But I guess this is what happens when you oppose the house POV. Whistleblowers never come away unscathed. | |||
| A casual observer might ask, what was it that I fought in this topic area? Well, mainly it was blatant BLP violations, POV pushing, tag team tactics, and almost habitual incivility on the part of a few editors. And, lo and behold, the committee begrudgingly agreed with me on those points -- how could they not? As an example, we presented clear evidence that one of these editors was trying to make it appear that one of his ideological enemies believed in ''Martians'' in the lede of his BLP! The committee could not simply ignore such abuses, which would normally get an editor summarily banned, so there are ''findings relating to each of these things I fought!''. That's right: they actually '''''agreed with my position in many of their findings!''''' How could they not? With so much evidence (''hundreds'' of diffs) pointing out the abuses, they would never get away with simply ignoring it. But one thing they ''could'' do is make sure it doesn't happen again, by getting rid of '''''all''''' the whistleblowers along while leaving most of the POV pushing faction intact, so the same tactics will remain but the oversight is gone. Brilliant, really: they give the appearance that they've addressed the problem, even as the House POV is preserved. Problem solved. | |||
| My former username was "A Transportation Enthusiast". That name was too long and restricting -- I have other interests besides transportation. :-) | |||
| Hence, my "whistleblower's barnstar". I wear it proudly. :-) | |||
| So, my username is now ATren, which still references my old name ('''''A Tr'''''ansportation '''''En'''''thusiast) but is much less verbose and looks better in edit histories. | |||
| ] (]) 23:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==And the accusations continue!== | |||
| I am a thirty-something software engineer from Western New York State. I am married with three children. | |||
| Shell Kinney, the arb who manufactured the bogus finding against me, has ''refused'' to answer specific questions about specific diffs -- diffs which are clearly not out of bounds. So now another editor, Michael C. Price -- an editor with whom I have ''never interacted'' | |||
| other than some niceties after the case closed -- has now asked Shell to stop stonewalling on answers to me. What is Shell's response? She tells him I was lying and then when he persists (because obviously I was NOT lying), she actually accuses '''''me''''' of recruiting Price! Here it is : | |||
| :''I also find it a bit silly that ATren is sending other folks over to continue this dispute which further reinforces my opinion that he handles disputes in an extremely poor manner.'' | |||
| "Sending folks over!" Ha! How is that for conduct from an arb, eh? When confronted with serious flaws in the finding SHE wrote, she refuses to acknowledge the flaws, and when other editors chime in, she manufactures another baseless claim (that I somehow "sent MCP over") and then ''uses that manufactured claim to reinforce her opinion that I handle disputes poorly!'' Shameful behavior. But par for the course here, I'm afraid. | |||
| All of this will come up in my appeal. And of course, if Shell decides to run again for the committee, perhaps she will answer these ''legitimate'' questions on her candidate page, where such stonewalling would not be received by potential voter. I am patient, so I will let it drop now and wait for that opportunity. ] (]) 22:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Full disclosure: I have a blog (written as "A Transportation Enthusiast") called "Weiner Watch" where I analyze and debunk the claims made by ] about ]. Some have erroneously claimed I am Avidor on this blog - I strongly disagree. I attack only his ''claims'', which are provably false, and his ''tactics'', which are just plain dirty. Nothing personal. | |||
| ===...and one final accusation from Shell, just for good measure === | |||
| - now I'm "threatening" her, in ALL CAPS no less! This is the arb who was lecturing me that I should have remained calm and civil in the CC area. No shortage of hypocrites on the committee, that's for sure. ] (]) 00:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm really quite proud of being on the same side as you, Cla, AQFK, and several others. It was an interesting demonstration of bureaucracy in action though - paralyzed out of fear and then a flurry of frantic activity with all the sense and decorum of a rabid weasel. It is an unfortunate fact of psychology that those who condemn others, no matter how justly, will drag their own reputation down in the process - people do not like hearing bad things. This is why you constantly see politicians dropping names and praising as many people as possible - it makes them look good. I wonder if any of us will get interviewed a few years down the line to get a perspective on what happened here? If it goes down the way I think it will then this will certainly be a much studied area of history. ] (]) 00:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 00:22, 1 November 2010
|
The Whistleblower's Barnstar | |
|
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted: The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter); William M. Connolley Polargeo Thegoodlocust Marknutley ChrisO Minor4th ATren Hipocrite Cla68 GregJackP A Quest For Knowledge Verbal ZuluPapa5 JohnWBarber FellGleaming |
I have been sanctioned by arbcom because I asked questions and challenged admins who behaved badly
I am displaying this sanction at the top of my User page because I am proud of what I did throughout my time in the climate change topic area. I was one of the few editors with the guts to push back against one of the most destructive factions ever to edit here, and that did not sit well with some of the agenda driven power brokers who run this place. So even as they begrudgingly handed out sanctions to the real problem editors, they had to catch me and others in the net as well. It's called "shooting the whistleblower".
So I wear this sanction as a badge of honor. I had a dozen diffs in my findings, and none of them were anywhere near the level required for such a sanction. Examples: I asked one admin to "step back", I told another to "back off", and I told a third that I found his actions "highly inappropriate". Yes, really, those three actions represented fully 25% of my evidence. Even more absurd: in all cases the warnings to these admins were well-deserved -- in one case, an admin compared an editor's intelligence to a child, in another, the admin called a whole group of good faith editors "trolls", and a third blocked someone indefinitely in an action that was raised by uninvolved editors at AN/I. None of them were sanctioned; I was. The other 9 diffs were similar in tone. At any given moment, AN/I would have hundreds of comments that were much worse than anything I ever said.
But I guess this is what happens when you oppose the house POV. Whistleblowers never come away unscathed.
A casual observer might ask, what was it that I fought in this topic area? Well, mainly it was blatant BLP violations, POV pushing, tag team tactics, and almost habitual incivility on the part of a few editors. And, lo and behold, the committee begrudgingly agreed with me on those points -- how could they not? As an example, we presented clear evidence that one of these editors was trying to make it appear that one of his ideological enemies believed in Martians in the lede of his BLP! The committee could not simply ignore such abuses, which would normally get an editor summarily banned, so there are findings relating to each of these things I fought!. That's right: they actually agreed with my position in many of their findings! How could they not? With so much evidence (hundreds of diffs) pointing out the abuses, they would never get away with simply ignoring it. But one thing they could do is make sure it doesn't happen again, by getting rid of all the whistleblowers along while leaving most of the POV pushing faction intact, so the same tactics will remain but the oversight is gone. Brilliant, really: they give the appearance that they've addressed the problem, even as the House POV is preserved. Problem solved.
Hence, my "whistleblower's barnstar". I wear it proudly. :-) ATren (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
And the accusations continue!
Shell Kinney, the arb who manufactured the bogus finding against me, has refused to answer specific questions about specific diffs -- diffs which are clearly not out of bounds. So now another editor, Michael C. Price -- an editor with whom I have never interacted other than some niceties after the case closed -- has now asked Shell to stop stonewalling on answers to me. What is Shell's response? She tells him I was lying and then when he persists (because obviously I was NOT lying), she actually accuses me of recruiting Price! Here it is :
- I also find it a bit silly that ATren is sending other folks over to continue this dispute which further reinforces my opinion that he handles disputes in an extremely poor manner.
"Sending folks over!" Ha! How is that for conduct from an arb, eh? When confronted with serious flaws in the finding SHE wrote, she refuses to acknowledge the flaws, and when other editors chime in, she manufactures another baseless claim (that I somehow "sent MCP over") and then uses that manufactured claim to reinforce her opinion that I handle disputes poorly! Shameful behavior. But par for the course here, I'm afraid.
All of this will come up in my appeal. And of course, if Shell decides to run again for the committee, perhaps she will answer these legitimate questions on her candidate page, where such stonewalling would not be received by potential voter. I am patient, so I will let it drop now and wait for that opportunity. ATren (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
...and one final accusation from Shell, just for good measure
- now I'm "threatening" her, in ALL CAPS no less! This is the arb who was lecturing me that I should have remained calm and civil in the CC area. No shortage of hypocrites on the committee, that's for sure. ATren (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm really quite proud of being on the same side as you, Cla, AQFK, and several others. It was an interesting demonstration of bureaucracy in action though - paralyzed out of fear and then a flurry of frantic activity with all the sense and decorum of a rabid weasel. It is an unfortunate fact of psychology that those who condemn others, no matter how justly, will drag their own reputation down in the process - people do not like hearing bad things. This is why you constantly see politicians dropping names and praising as many people as possible - it makes them look good. I wonder if any of us will get interviewed a few years down the line to get a perspective on what happened here? If it goes down the way I think it will then this will certainly be a much studied area of history. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)