"Terry" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Fri, 2 Jan 2009 05:10:50 -0800:
Well, Tim was partially right. Undoing blocks has always been wrong. And
in spite of what I am reading from others here, Andy was correct in stating
it is against long-standing policy. When I first became an Administrator,
in March of 2007, the practice was common and it was utter chaos. A week
later Ed Poor was promoted. Colin Reimer who came in about that time was one
of the founders of RatWiki. His constant arguments without end, along with
those of that horrid AmesG and Sid, had the place a constant battle ground.
Their tactics are little changed. The commonality with recent history is
Admins reverting blocks without consultation, and constantly, publicly,
arguing policy and ideology.
I am confident Brian and Dean will concur, we don't have the luxury of
relying only on editor "assurances" and/or merely looking at contributions.
We have had a few, like Colin, Hoji and Tmtoulouse reach this level and have
been proved later to be imposters, parodists and vandals. All three are now
RatWiki bureaucrats, and Tim's editing there has picked up considerably, and
don't be surprised if he is soon a sysop there. Many of the blocks that
others think unfair that Tim (and others) have objected to recently when
checked, are good and very valid. Those of us with Check User know how it
works, and we can see the long lists of blocked vandals and parodists
editing from the exact same IP, going back months. Sometimes there is no
activity at all for a month or two, then it is used again and fresh batches
of vandal/parodists arrive. That is when we range block. We can see what
IP's are confirmed proxy servers used and even listed on RW. And face
facts; if we blocked the entire country of Syria or Russia, have we really
lost good editors coming to us?
In looking at Bugler's blocks, randomly, I don't see any "good" editors
driven off. Many of them were most likely good socks of vandals and
parodists, possibly socks of Bugler himself, who isn't really "Bugler"
anyway, but rather most likely our old friend Sid. The point is, their goal
is to reach this place. Aside from being bombastic perhaps, their role is to
be conservative, be Christian and not obviously or often block known good
For the uninitiated here, I have downloaded to our file area: "The
Information Warrior's Handbook" that first appeared on RW in June of 2007.
It is as good a guide as any for you to learn many of the tactics employed
by RatWiki, and perhaps you will recognize some of the ploys.
2009/1/2 Bill Bagot <wbag...@san.rr.com>
Now that Bugler has admitted that he was a parodist, it brings up an
interesting point -- Tim was right. It was a position for which he received
little support, but much condemnation, when he undid unwarranted blocks that
Bugler laid down.
It also makes me question my own role that while I recognized Bugler for
what he was, I did far less to confront it than Tim did -- limiting myself
to raising questions about his nomination for sysop and a need for him to
work well with others (which of course he never did -- a parodist wouldn't
Parodists believe they have found a 'blind spot' in Andy's vision where they
can hide and he can not recognize them. It is up to each of us to help and
give clear vision when we recognize the signs. Now that they believe they
have found a formula that gets by Andy, we can expect many others to pick up
the same mantle for the detriment of our site. It is important that we are
on our guard in this area.
Bill (Learn Together)