Wikipediocracy

Someone pointed me at the Kumioko appeal thing, and while the result is not ideal, I do feel a little more optimism than I did previously.

Kumioko's treatment has clearly been the result of a series of escalations, few of which would individually be any great cause for concern, which led to a great contributor getting seriously demotivated and reacting the way a bear reacts when you keep poking him with sticks.

Regardless of the way you went about it, Kumioko, your motivation was clearly always for the greater good of the project - and it's pleasing that some key figures saw deeper than the surface and were able to recognize that.

I'd have preferred an immediate end to your ban, but a six-month "clean start" isn't a bad compromise - although I expect the "roolz" authoritarians will be looking to pounce on any minor mishap after you're back!

Anyway, Wikipedia will be better with you back in it.

Cheers,
Alan

I'm glad you chose to see the positive side of this. However, I suspect that certain of your fellow admins are preparing to get him tossed again, as we speak. It's what I would expect of that place, and it would (of course!) be performed in secret.

PS, welcome to Wikipediocracy.

Apparently, when an addict manages to give up for a time, a dealer will offer him some for free.

Sorry, what were we talking about?

He shouldn't have been banned in the first place, those people that did that were maybe a dozen bratty screaming children, and let it not be forgotten it was 28bytes stuck the knife in to officialize that.

This time there were still a lot of bratty screaming children (Binksternet amusingly calling for "ban without the possibility of parole" shouting out spittle all over his jowls) but somewhere they were able to dig up some adult supervision, at least one administrator who was not a WP:AN/ANI regular.

It made sense that if the "standard offer" were going to be the official result, then Kumioko's block should be converted to six months. That's not actually what the standard offer says, it only says "come back in six months and maybe someone will be kind enough to bring you up at WP:AN/ANI again. No guarantees after that, sorry." The essay should be changed to always do it this way.

Whoever said above that the "roolz authoritarians" will be hovering over his every edit six months from now is probably right, but he's advantaged by picking one of his less-known accounts. WP:AN/ANI's legion of administrative harassers typically watchlist their targets. A lot of them are too stupid and lazy to read the discussion, so they won't have watchlisted that Kumioko account. Therefore they won't get the notifications of his activity to go and find something to pick at him about in six months.

Welcome to WPO, Alan.

tim

EricBarbour wrote:I suspect that certain of your fellow admins are preparing to get him tossed again, as we speak.

As I am not one and will not be one again, I do not have "fellow admins" - but other than that detail, I fear you are right.

Randy from Boise wrote:Welcome to WPO, Alan.

tim

Thanks. Isn't it hard to drag yourself away from supporting justice for those who genuinely wish to make things better?

Triptych wrote:He shouldn't have been banned in the first place, those people that did that were maybe a dozen bratty screaming children, and let it not be forgotten it was 28bytes stuck the knife in to officialize that.

I've already corrected you twice on that. I chalked up the first two times to a simple misunderstanding. Now I see you're just a liar with an agenda.

Welcome to WPO from me as well, Alan.

Mason wrote:

Triptych wrote:He shouldn't have been banned in the first place, those people that did that were maybe a dozen bratty screaming children, and let it not be forgotten it was 28bytes stuck the knife in to officialize that.

I've already corrected you twice on that. I chalked up the first two times to a simple misunderstanding. Now I see you're just a liar with an agenda.

You didn't correct anything. The record is what it is. I told the truth. I don't think much of you, and I've learned not to get uptight about cowardly little boys calling me liar without evidence on the Internet.

Your "agenda" accusation is stereotypically contrived language to provoke reaction, and it only demeans you further. If I've an agenda regarding you, where's your explanation of it? Oh right, you have none and are just talking trash.

When the chips were down, it was you pushed Kumioko out in the cold, and anyone who reads those discussions will learn that.

EDIT: Here it is for anyone confused by Mason's and my dispute: "Ban enacted, little point in discussing the standard offer while Kumioko is actively vandalizing the site. 28bytes (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)." (Line item 33, https://archive.today/EE7wD.)

Mason wrote:

Triptych wrote:He shouldn't have been banned in the first place, those people that did that were maybe a dozen bratty screaming children, and let it not be forgotten it was 28bytes stuck the knife in to officialize that.

I've already corrected you twice on that. I chalked up the first two times to a simple misunderstanding. Now I see you're just a liar with an agenda.

It also seems that Dennis Brown (!!!) is the focus of evil in the modern world to hear it told, so there ya go.

RfB

Triptych wrote:

Mason wrote:

Triptych wrote:He shouldn't have been banned in the first place, those people that did that were maybe a dozen bratty screaming children, and let it not be forgotten it was 28bytes stuck the knife in to officialize that.

I've already corrected you twice on that. I chalked up the first two times to a simple misunderstanding. Now I see you're just a liar with an agenda.

You didn't correct anything. The record is what it is. I told the truth. I don't think much of you, and I've learned not to get uptight about cowardly little boys calling me liar without evidence on the Internet.

Your "agenda" accusation is stereotypically contrived language to provoke reaction, and it only demeans you further. If I've an agenda regarding you, where's your explanation of it? Oh right, you have none and are just talking trash.

No, you didn't tell the truth. You claimed I did something that I did not, repeatedly. You are a liar, and you lack honor. And cowardly? You condemn others' use of anonymity while hiding behind a pseudonym yourself, which makes you a hypocrite and a coward as well.

I don't know whether this is what Jim meant by not liking your "style", but he was far too kind to you: hypocrisy is not a "style" choice.

Triptych wrote:When the chips were down, it was you pushed Kumioko out in the cold, and anyone who reads those discussions will learn that.

EDIT: Here it is for anyone confused by Mason's and my dispute: "Ban enacted, little point in discussing the standard offer while Kumioko is actively vandalizing the site. 28bytes (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)." (Line item 33, https://archive.today/EE7wD.)

And here's the thread where you acknowledge you misread that, before later "forgetting" that you misread it.

Mason wrote: No, you didn't tell the truth. You claimed I did something that I did not, repeatedly. You are a liar, and you lack honor. And cowardly? You condemn others' use of anonymity while hiding behind a pseudonym yourself, which makes you a hypocrite and a coward as well.

I don't know whether this is what Jim meant by not liking your "style", but he was far too kind to you: hypocrisy is not a "style" choice.

You have chosen the right distance to say these things to me, Mason.

All, I stand by everything I've said, I mean at least until somebody wants to specify whatever and argue whether I'm right. Since Mason hasn't done that, I say "don't listen to this person."

Mason wrote:I don't know whether this is what Jim meant by not liking your "style", but he was far too kind to you: hypocrisy is not a "style" choice.

What can I say?
It's my loving thoughtfulness.
I have seen the future, and the future is
You know it, deep in your abusive, knife wielding heart.
Embrace the lovingthoughtfulness god, Mason. For it will surely embrace you.

snowskarlet wrote:Welcome to WPO from me as well, Alan.

Yes, welcome, Alan - you drinking beer again, yet? You said you weren't, at one point.
My offer still stands next time I go 12,000 miles to my old stamping grounds.

Notvelty wrote:Apparently, when an addict manages to give up for a time, a dealer will offer him some for free.

I haven't had any whisky for a fortnight. Can you post me a bottle?

Notvelty wrote:Sorry, what were we talking about?

checks...

Kumioko, apparently. Hi, Kumi.

Mason wrote:

Triptych wrote:When the chips were down, it was you pushed Kumioko out in the cold, and anyone who reads those discussions will learn that.

EDIT: Here it is for anyone confused by Mason's and my dispute: "Ban enacted, little point in discussing the standard offer while Kumioko is actively vandalizing the site. 28bytes (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)." (Line item 33, https://archive.today/EE7wD.)

And here's the thread where you acknowledge you misread that, before later "forgetting" that you misread it.

Mason is correct; we have all been through this fact-checking exercise before. Read the link, Triptypch. The ban had already been enacted five days earlier. Mason just closed down the discussion. And it was about time.

Neotarf wrote:

Mason wrote:

Triptych wrote:When the chips were down, it was you pushed Kumioko out in the cold, and anyone who reads those discussions will learn that.

EDIT: Here it is for anyone confused by Mason's and my dispute: "Ban enacted, little point in discussing the standard offer while Kumioko is actively vandalizing the site. 28bytes (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)." (Line item 33, https://archive.today/EE7wD.)

And here's the thread where you acknowledge you misread that, before later "forgetting" that you misread it.

Mason is correct; we have all been through this fact-checking exercise before. Read the link, Triptypch. The ban had already been enacted five days earlier. Mason just closed down the discussion. And it was about time.

The ban wasn't official or "enacted" until he closed down the discussion. If Mason wants to argue that Jehochman and whomever *share* responsibility that is fine, but the record speaks for itself and this is what I also said towards the end of that link.

If the six-month "standard offer" had been decided before Mason said "no point talking about that," then Kumioko might be free to edit today, not six months from now.

Jim wrote:

Notvelty wrote:Apparently, when an addict manages to give up for a time, a dealer will offer him some for free.

I haven't had any whisky for a fortnight. Can you post me a bottle?

Dealer, not another addict.

You can have this empty one, though.

Triptych wrote: If the six-month "standard offer" had been decided before Mason said "no point talking about that," then Kumioko might be free to edit today, not six months from now.

The standard offer essay:

*Wait six months, without sockpuppetry (if applicable).
*Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
*Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.

Too many folks hold to the 6 months item for it to be overturned as consensus

Boing! said Zebedee wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:Welcome to WPO, Alan.

tim

Thanks. Isn't it hard to drag yourself away from supporting justice for those who genuinely wish to make things better?

That's why I ran for arbcom. Twice.

Casliber wrote:

Boing! said Zebedee wrote: Thanks. Isn't it hard to drag yourself away from supporting justice for those who genuinely wish to make things better?

That's why I ran for arbcom. Twice.

You could run a hundred times, and even if you get in, there's little or nothing you can do to change the direction of the "mighty ship".

I also want to say welcome Alan and thanks for the kind words. You shoulda voted! I needed all the help I could get.

There were several folks that told me via email that they feared retribution if they commented, so I understand.

I stated so elsewhere but I'll do it again here. I think the ban review that was done on me this week is a modal that should be used for other ban discussions in the future. There were a lot of ideas for improvements to the banning/unbanning process that I think would be a big improvement and would prevent a tiny group of abusive children from manipulating policy and claiming consensus to ban someone they don't like. I also thought that the closing admins, The Land and Protonk, did an outstanding job of closing the review and had a great interpretation of the review in general. It gave me hope that there are still some in the project that want it to succeed and it provides evidence that the community would be just fine without the Arbcom.

Although I would of course have preferred to have been unbanned since the original ban was a joke, the end result was a reasonable compromise that allowed everyone involved to move on.

Kumioko wrote:I also want to say welcome Alan and thanks for the kind words. You shoulda voted! I needed all the help I could get.

There were several folks that told me via email that they feared retribution if they commented, so I understand.

Well, I'm retired from WP, indef blocked (by myself in order to help me keep away), and didn't see it until it was all over - but apart from that, I'd have been happy to support an unblock

Thanks, I know your blocked I was just teasing.

I blew by it yesterday but feel the need to respond now to that part of Mason's outburst that said I am a hypocrite on my stance of online anonymity. He said that I "condemn others' use of anonymity," but that's erroneous simplified.

A) I support anonymity for any common content editor that seeks to protect his or her online privacy. As is shown for example and symbolically by Arbcom, whose FT2 did the most malicious privacy invasion I'd ever seen detailed in the "anvil email," it is wise to protect oneself against the arbs and administrators. A further example of the arbs' heinousness is the six of seven of them that spoke publicly in support of AGK's threat to complain to Kumioko's employer, a threat by the way which was carried out.

B) Yes, I have identified some arbs in the Arbcom Accountability Project. Names, general locations, general ages. So no "doxxing" involved. The purpose of that, which I explained in detail, was to encourage better behavior from them in those they make decisions about. That their real identities are known is going to tend to make them treat people better, and take them out of World of Warcraft mode. No action other than identifying them is required.

C) I've also called for those administrators accorded access by the WMF to potentially personally-identifying information about common editors to be identified *to WMF*. If whoever wants to be a checkuser or OTRS user etc. it is so obviously wrong to accord the private information of others to those who are themselves unknown, against whom no recourse is available for poisonous communications to employers and spouses and so forth. But note again that my position here is that this group identify to WMF, not necessarily openly to the world.

So you will see that my position is not what Mason claimed at all. I have criticized anonymity for those administrators that do harm to others, and make blocking and banning decisions about others, and are granted access to the personally-identifiable information of common editors. If you're just some guy or gal wanting to edit stuff at Wikipedia, like I was for years, I support your anonymity all the way, like I support it for me, and there's nothing hypocritical in any of the positions I've taken.

As for the rest of Mason's outburst, that I "lack honor" and so forth, well I take it for the yelling as I said of a cowardly little boy on the Internet. It bothers me a bit because I liked some of the frontpage articles he wrote here at Wikipediocracy and I didn't mean to seek that kind of anger and negativity from him. But I read that ban discussion, saw his closure of it, reject any parsing of it "oh, I only did X, and other administrators really did A and B," and for him to deny responsibility for Kumioko's ban is just a laugh. If he is mad at what I said, he's mad because the truth hurts.

Kumioko wrote:Thanks, I know your blocked I was just teasing.

Perhaps it is repeated, annoying grammatical errors like the above, that turned so many in the community against Kumioko. The reader has to stop and figure out who Boing blocked, and then finally realize that the reference was to him blocking himself ("you are blocked"). Punctuation was missing after the word "blocked".

I suspect that there was more going on than just a Kumioko vs. the administrator corps tension.

I suppose that the following examples of how punctuation matters is appropriate:

1) I love to eat my friends and run!

versus

2) I love to eat, my friends, and run!

Kumi wrote:Thanks, I know your blocked I was just teasing.

eagle wrote:The reader has to stop and figure out who Boing blocked

No, they really don't.

What they really do is look at it, and go "Oh. Shit grammar, lazy or clumsy, but clear in context."

I'm a grammar/spelling Nazi with the best of them. My wife will probably do me physical harm if I point out another incorrect apostrophe.

Stuff like the example you pointed out I find jarring and often annoying - above all lazy - but it doesn't stop me understanding unless I want it to.

My English teacher long ago told me it was rude to the reader to use bad spelling or grammar. With this I agree. That example making the comment hard to understand? Not so much.

You do have a point, though, that Kumi posts like this a lot, and it would be a factor in what Wikipedians think of him. They have a policy that correcting spelling/grammar on talkpages is poor form. Feeling superior on the strength of it, I don't think is against policy, though.

Punctuation was missing after the word "blocked".

That's just pointless nitpicking, though, in an environment like this. Really.
You're not marking a punctuation test, nor was he taking one.
Here, I'm going to leave out the final full-stop just for fun, (and maybe that should have been a hyphen, or a space, just then), or it's a question mark rather than a period which I'm omitting

I will admit I do tend to be rather lazy when it comes to grammar and I probably need to make a conscious effort to do better at that. I do also think that a lot of the problem stems from a grammatical difference in American english over english in other coutries like the United Kingdom. Certainly English is english but not all English is the same grammatically. (punctuation left out intentionally BTW .)

Kumioko wrote:I will admit I do tend to be rather lazy when it comes to grammar and I probably need to make a conscious effort to do better at that. I do also think that a lot of the problem stems from a grammatical difference in American english over english in other coutries like the United Kingdom. Certainly English is english but not all English is the same grammatically. (punctuation left out intentionally BTW .)

Meh - you're not that bad, but it can be noticeable.

The secret is proofreading and preview. Every time. It's a chore, which is why I said what I did above.
My English teacher of 30+ years ago still echoes in my head (because I let him), reminding me it is rude to skip those steps.
I'd rather not be rude in that particular way. That's all.

No worries, you are right though, I do need to work on that.

Kumioko wrote:No worries, you are right though, I do need to work on that.

One thing that may help (and I give this advice to my more technical colleagues) would be to remove contractions from your written language all together. It takes but a second longer and, once you are used to it, it is amazing how easy it is to return to the use of the apostrophe - this time correctly.

EricBarbour wrote:

Casliber wrote:

Boing! said Zebedee wrote: Thanks. Isn't it hard to drag yourself away from supporting justice for those who genuinely wish to make things better?

That's why I ran for arbcom. Twice.

You could run a hundred times, and even if you get in, there's little or nothing you can do to change the direction of the "mighty ship".

Disagree.....sadly I can't elaborate how

Sinking the ship is a direction too.:-)

Triptych, I apologize for losing my cool. I'm used to being disagreed with and criticized, but being flat-out lied about took me by surprise, and I reacted in anger. From now on, when you say things that aren't true, I'll leave it to others to point that out to you. Not that you listen to them, either, but at least some of them (thank you Neotarf) are able to point out your errors more calmly than I am, so for the good of this website, and my own mood, I'll do my best not to respond to anything you write in the future.

Mason wrote:Triptych, I apologize for losing my cool. I'm used to being disagreed with and criticized, but being flat-out lied about took me by surprise, and I reacted in anger. From now on, when you say things that aren't true, I'll leave it to others to point that out to you. Not that you listen to them, either, but at least some of them (thank you Neotarf) are able to point out your errors more calmly than I am, so for the good of this website, and my own mood, I'll do my best not to respond to anything you write in the future.

Heh. I broke my own resolution to do exactly that, in this very thread. I'm sorry I did that, too - for the same reasons you apologise here. I'll do better, honest...

Jim wrote:Heh. I broke my own resolution to do exactly that, in this very thread. I'm sorry I did that, too - for the same reasons you apologise here. I'll do better, honest...

We should start a support group. (Might run afoul of WO:Wikipediocracy is not therapy though...)

Mason wrote:

Jim wrote:Heh. I broke my own resolution to do exactly that, in this very thread. I'm sorry I did that, too - for the same reasons you apologise here. I'll do better, honest...

We should start a support group. (Might run afoul of WO:Wikipediocracy is not therapy though...)

Hi, my name is Kumioko and its been over 24 hours since I last editing Wikipedia!

Mason wrote:Triptych, I apologize for losing my cool. I'm used to being disagreed with and criticized, but being flat-out lied about took me by surprise, and I reacted in anger. From now on, when you say things that aren't true, I'll leave it to others to point that out to you. Not that you listen to them, either, but at least some of them (thank you Neotarf) are able to point out your errors more calmly than I am, so for the good of this website, and my own mood, I'll do my best not to respond to anything you write in the future.

I told the truth about you, and it's also in the link you provided and Neotarf pointed to. It says in conclusion: "I think the whole affair is chaotic and rules-free and of course extremely unfair to Kumioko who editorship died at the hands of Atama, Jehochman, Nytend, and 28bytes, but also of course amidst the shrieks and catcalls of the ignorant and rampaging WP:AN/ANI mob. It's despicable but it's a despicable commonality at Wikipedia."

The only thing that stands out in there regarding you is that you were the one supposed to be his friend, Mason.

Oh, so you "apologize" for your outburst but dig in that I "flat-out lied?" You can stuff your fake apology back in your knapsack next to the blade with Kumioko's dried blood on it, you backstabber. Fake apologizing is just another sign of your tricky treachery, and do we need to recount your double-agent activities with regard to your access to secret forum of this site while communicating with Arbcom all about it?

Triptych wrote:

Mason wrote:Triptych, I apologize for losing my cool. I'm used to being disagreed with and criticized, but being flat-out lied about took me by surprise, and I reacted in anger. From now on, when you say things that aren't true, I'll leave it to others to point that out to you. Not that you listen to them, either, but at least some of them (thank you Neotarf) are able to point out your errors more calmly than I am, so for the good of this website, and my own mood, I'll do my best not to respond to anything you write in the future.

I told the truth about you, and it's also in the link you provided and Neotarf pointed to. It says in conclusion: "I think the whole affair is chaotic and rules-free and of course extremely unfair to Kumioko who editorship died at the hands of Atama, Jehochman, Nytend, and 28bytes, but also of course amidst the shrieks and catcalls of the ignorant and rampaging WP:AN/ANI mob. It's despicable but it's a despicable commonality at Wikipedia."

The only thing that stands out in there regarding you is that you were the one supposed to be his friend, Mason.

Oh, so you "apologize" for your outburst but dig in that I "flat-out lied?" You can stuff your fake apology back in your knapsack next to the blade with Kumioko's dried blood on it, you backstabber. Fake apologizing is just another sign of your tricky treachery, and do we need to recount your double-agent activities with regard to your access to secret forum of this site while communicating with Arbcom all about it?

Well played, Triptych: adding a new lie to the old one to goad me into responding.

What Secret Forum Secrets are you claiming I told ArbCom? This should be good.

Kumioko wrote:

Mason wrote:

Jim wrote:Heh. I broke my own resolution to do exactly that, in this very thread. I'm sorry I did that, too - for the same reasons you apologise here. I'll do better, honest...

We should start a support group. (Might run afoul of WO:Wikipediocracy is not therapy though...)

Hi, my name is Kumioko and its been over 24 hours since I last editing Wikipedia!

Well done - are you sweating yet?

Wikiholics Anonymous is a different Support Group, down the hall, but you'd be very welcome at our meetings too, Kumi, once we get up and running. We could do remedial apostrophe work, origami, and biscuits afterwards...

Mason wrote: What Secret Forum Secrets are you claiming I told ArbCom? This should be good.

People reading here at the time will recall it and don't need me to dig up links. Before your Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy identities were connected, members in the forum, limited to trustees and moderators and writers, were writing an expose on the COI posed by the incoming arbitrator 28bytes authoring of a Wikipedia article for his Atari 2600 game (the one with the ducks) that he was selling. The article served as advertisement. You then cravenly went to WP:AN/ANI to own up to it and seek approval from the jerkwad regulars there to innoculate yourself from the upcoming frontpage article. You were successful at that, and of course also at ruining Wikipediocracy's journalistic scoop. You used your inside access to do this.

When the jig was up, instead of making your apologies here at Wikipediocracy, you emailed the arbs to try to explain yourself, showing just where your loyalties lie. I'll reserve the right to be suspicious about what you told the arbs about what was occurring behind closed doors here, and never claimed hard information on that.

After the dust had settled I saw you at Wikipedia reassuring some of the usual asshats about the inside workings at Wikipediocracy. Specifically I read you telling them that oh, you never saw any checkuser stuff talked about there. You should have, excuse my language people, shut the hell up about what is talked about in the confidential forum. I'm not going to take the time to dig up a link to that, but I surely can if you deny it, assuming it doesn't get suppressed.

Triptych wrote:I'll reserve the right to be suspicious about what you told the arbs about what was occurring behind closed doors here, and never claimed hard information on that.

As I thought. No "hard information", just more lies, innuendo, and smear.

Triptych wrote:Specifically I read you telling them that oh, you never saw any checkuser stuff talked about there. You should have, excuse my language people, shut the hell up about what is talked about in the confidential forum. I'm not going to take the time to dig up a link to that, but I surely can if you deny it, assuming it doesn't get suppressed.

As you know, Triptych, we have Wikipedia checkusers in the campaign room. I'm not going to throw them under the bus by offering a mealy-mouthed non-answer if I know for a fact that I haven't seen them do anything unethical.

This is important because people like you try to get them to compromise their integrity by leaking private Wikipedia information here, such as who oversighted what. (Which, as far as I know, they have not done.) Wikipedians see you do things like that, and it's up to people like me to reassure them that these functionaries, unlike you, behave ethically.

As for your claim that I found out I was going to be the target of a piece, and "ruined" the "journalistic scoop" by making my "confession" on Wikipedia: you're damn right I did. When I am attacked, I will defend myself. Especially when someone attacks me unprovoked, as you have done in this thread.

Mason, I've now substantiated everything I said regarding you, including "He shouldn't have been banned in the first place, those people that did that were maybe a dozen bratty screaming children, and let it not be forgotten it was 28bytes stuck the knife in to officialize that." By calling me liar, you just discredit yourself. Cowardly little boy.

Oh and nice work moving so quickly on from your "apology," you fake flake.

All, I'm not going to continue off-topic (at least I don't plan to). My position in what he linked, where I said the Wikipedia privacy policy is intended to protect those on whom the advanced tools like checkuser and oversight are used, and not to protect the mere fact of knowing who is using the tools, is self-explanatory. If you have any question about that, ask it where he linked it.

Can we please drop this?

Jim wrote:

Kumioko wrote:

Mason wrote:

Jim wrote:Heh. I broke my own resolution to do exactly that, in this very thread. I'm sorry I did that, too - for the same reasons you apologise here. I'll do better, honest...

We should start a support group. (Might run afoul of WO:Wikipediocracy is not therapy though...)

Hi, my name is Kumioko and its been over 24 hours since I last editing Wikipedia!

Well done - are you sweating yet?

Wikiholics Anonymous is a different Support Group, down the hall, but you'd be very welcome at our meetings too, Kumi, once we get up and running. We could do remedial apostrophe work, origami, and biscuits afterwards...

I'm not sweating but I do have this odd itching sensation on my arms and a twitchy neck...is that normal Wikipediahoics withdrawal symptoms..lol

HRIP7 wrote:Can we please drop this?

Yes please, I concur, its time to move on. I want to clarify I have no problems with Mason and in fact I even suggested they be a closer on my Ban review to a couple people offline since he didn't vote or comment on it. He wasn't the one that banned me, just the one that implemented it. So although I suppose he could have just ignored it, someone would have done it, so I don't fault him for that. Better him doing it IMO than some others who would have truly enjoyed hitting the block button on me and toasted a glass of wine as they did it.

Kumioko wrote: Yes please, I concur, its time to move on. I want to clarify I have no problems with Mason and in fact I even suggested they be a closer on my Ban review to a couple people offline since he didn't vote or comment on it. He wasn't the one that banned me, just the one that implemented it. So although I suppose he could have just ignored it, someone would have done it, so I don't fault him for that. Better him doing it IMO than some others who would have truly enjoyed hitting the block button on me and toasted a glass of wine as they did it.

This is why folks like you, Kumi, and why you got so much support recently. You care, sometimes too much. You do very silly things, as do we all. But you don't go the full "red mist of hatred" route when very upset. When you say something, it's right there on your sleeve, and human. You retain the ability to see shades of grey, as well as black and white. And you're open and honest, and try not to have grudges. Even under pressure. Most of all, nobody thinks you're all about proving some binary point - it's quite clear you mean well, and are not just pushing some sort of agenda. Folks see that, easily.
You can't spell for shit, though...

The symptoms are normal. Take 2 whiskys and a sleep.

Jim wrote:

Kumioko wrote: Yes please, I concur, its time to move on. I want to clarify I have no problems with Mason and in fact I even suggested they be a closer on my Ban review to a couple people offline since he didn't vote or comment on it. He wasn't the one that banned me, just the one that implemented it. So although I suppose he could have just ignored it, someone would have done it, so I don't fault him for that. Better him doing it IMO than some others who would have truly enjoyed hitting the block button on me and toasted a glass of wine as they did it.

This is why folks like you, Kumi, and why you got so much support recently. You care, sometimes too much. You do very silly things, as do we all. But you don't go the full "red mist of hatred" route when very upset. When you say something, it's right there on your sleeve, and human. You retain the ability to see shades of grey, as well as black and white. And you're open and honest, and try not to have grudges. Even under pressure. Most of all, nobody thinks you're all about proving some binary point - it's quite clear you mean well, and are not just pushing some sort of agenda. Folks see that, easily.
You can't spell for shit, though...

The symptoms are normal. Take 2 whiskys and a sleep.

Thank you very much for the compliment.

Jim wrote:This is why folks like you, Kumi, and why you got so much support recently. You care, sometimes too much. You do very silly things, as do we all. But you don't go the full "red mist of hatred" route when very upset. When you say something, it's right there on your sleeve, and human. You retain the ability to see shades of grey, as well as black and white. And you're open and honest, and try not to have grudges. Even under pressure. Most of all, nobody thinks you're all about proving some binary point - it's quite clear you mean well, and are not just pushing some sort of agenda. Folks see that, easily.

And yet, under the "big happy tent of love and respect" that Wikipedia claims to be, there is absolutely no room for him.
(But there IS room for 15 million sockpuppet accounts, most of whom perform no edits at all.)