User:Volunteer Marek/Misdeeds

1. [20090806-1901]

Can you just drop a short "support" note for the proposed merger here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prussian_estates it's been up for awhile and the only person who objects is of course Matthead (who POV-forked the article in the first place).

Comment: Piotrus and SpaceCadet voted "merge" way before I sent this email to the mailing list. Tymek and Jacurek did subsequently vote "merge" also. My request was motivated mostly by the frustration that no one gave a fuck and a merge request I made had been left sitting there for 4 months with no input from outside editors. This is how Wikipedia "dispute resolution" process works. I.e. it doesn't. Note however, that despite Jacurek and Tymek's comments I never actually merged the articles. The POV fork created by Matthead Preußischer Landtag (and this is the freakin English language encyclopedia!) is still there. God-awful most terrible end of the world damage done to Wikipedia = .... big fat zero.

2. [20090621-2036]

Given the latest moving around of Piotrus' edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&curid=12936136&diff=297786750 oldid=29778636 and Jehochman's statement that "Digwuren is one of the most warned and sanctioned editors on Wikipedia. They do not need any more chances to reform. " (which is obviously false - and it betrays his prejudices here) I think it's probably time to start questioning his "uninvolvedness" as well. It'd be useful to back track it to where it originated from which I think someone already mentioned.

Comment: Uh, so what? Yes, at the time Jehochman's statements did appear to me to be very prejudicial and biased. And then I ... committed a horrible crime by expressing this sentiment in private emails. Also I believe that I explicitly stated that I was going to question his "uninvolvedness" on-wiki itself. So I made the exact same comment off wiki (in private email) and on-wiki. Nobody at the time thought that me making this comment was somehow "ban-worthy". So why is it now?

As an addendum I want to note that I've changed my mind somewhat in regards to Jehochman. I think he is trying to be helpful and constructive and his intentions are good, though I still disagree with his general approach. He's someone I disagree with but at the same time respect (yes, folks, disagreeing and respecting simultaneously are in fact, possible, amazing though it may seem)

Damage done to Wikipedia = I dunno, maybe Jehochman was annoyed, if this was ever followed up with on-Wiki action (I don't remember and Flo doesn't link to any). Other than that .... O.

3. [20090625-2220]

I've emailed Thatcher about this and yes, that's exactly how he's justifying his restriction - by pointing to some previous "warnings" about edit warring. I'm trying to keep this off wiki so as to avoid drama for now.

Comment What in the flying azure monkey thumb ear lobes bad poetry writing non fiction is wrong with this email??? I am at a complete loss as how to defend myself against this particular accusation since I can't even begin to fathom the exact charge against me here. I emailed Thatcher. Yes. And ... I have no clue here. Damage done to Wikipedia = You decide cuz I have no idea what this is supposed to show

4. [20090626-1934]

Since I am trying not to do any reverts at the moment someone else should make the rounds of cleaning up after that annoying anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wo%C5%82%C3%B3w&curid=715171&diff=298789157&oldid=294712637 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_I_the_Elbow-high&diff=prev&oldid=298805166 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jan_Muskata&diff=prev&oldid=297015263 (this is the version that probably should be the one to revert to)

Comment There's back story here (the sort that nobody bothers to check, because it's "too much work" - easier to propose bans) and not to bore the hell out of people, there's this anon, who's most likely a user that got banned by Jimbo Wales back in 2002 ... that's right in 2002 ... but who's IP address apparently cannot be blocked due to the concerns about collateral damage done to innocent users so s/he basically gets a free reign despite her/his perma ban. Reverting this anon IP's POV extremist edits has been "routine work" in this area ever since I can remember and no one ever complained. I got unfairly put under 1RR/Week restriction by User:Thatcher (for making two reverts on one article in two weeks) and was very wary of making any kind of edits since it seemed pretty obvious s/he was out to get me. Hence my email, asking people to do some of the regular vandal reversion that is normally done.

Damage done to Wikipedia = Disruptive anon might have gotten reverted. Seriously. Some real evil plotting and cabalism at work here.

5. [20090621-2114]

Sure (though, given my limited time, I was trying to fly this on under the radar) - but where exactly, since this has spread and there's talk of places only admins can comment. Also I think Piotrus should first innocently inquire about what exactly is going on here? Just act puzzled and surprised and disappointed.

Comment Hmm, I can't really remember this one, but the relevant diff seems to be this one [1], which is one admin telling another admin that "I'm more of an admin then you are" (part of the reason why I don't agree with Jehochman). And then somebody suggested that I should comment on it. And then I said I'm busy in really real life but ok. And I said that Piotrus should inquire further. And I was specific about the diplomatic way to make this inquiry.

Ummm ... I'm pretty sure admins give each other this kind of advice etc. on the admin IRC all the freakin time. But, apparently "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

Damage done to Wikipedia = oh hell, I dunno. Maybe I even said something somewhere as a result of this, I don't even remember. Which resulted in ... some admin somewhere being annoyed. Possibly.

Bottom line

Out of all these private emails presented, I can sort of maybe perhaps see #1 as being problematic - if it had actually resulted in any kind of on-wiki action. But it didn't. The article I proposed to merge is still there and hell, I'd be happy to remove the "proposal to merge" tag in the interest of avoiding COI. Let the guy have his POV-fork.

All the other diffs (ignoring the one related to a vandal anon IP) apparently have to do with the fact that I had the chutzpah to file an appeal against an abusive administrator and to consider another administrator as too involved in a particular topic area.

And that's why Flo Night is proposing a ... topic ban ... on me. For questioning admins' judgments.

Honestly, in the past 9 months, I'm sure I've done something wrong. 9 months is a really long time to go without getting into some kind of trouble, particularly if one edits in a controversial topic area. And if the proposed sanctions actually had to do with some of that that'd be one thing. But this has just sent my mind reeling and left me scratching my head. What the hell is going on?