User talk:Mnyakko

<!--==Lessons learned from Admins== We common editors must look to the administrators, bureaucrats, etc to learn how things work in Wikipedia.
 * WP:3RR is violated if a 4th edit occurs outside of 24 hours but is "close enough" -- William M. Connolley, 31 May 2007
 * Voting within an unspecified amount of time of a co-worker makes you a Meatpuppet -- Durova, 5 April 2007
 * Being forthright about oneself (i.e. disclosing one editor knows another off-wiki) is bad -- Durova, 5 April 2007

Ah, the retaliations--an effort to obtain private information
Before anyone starts whining about AGF, just know...I will remove those comments. Why? Because, if 2 months of "disruptive editing" accussations against me are sufficient to dismiss AGF, then 2 years of sanctions, complaints, edit-warring, article ownership, retaliation, etc are more than sufficient to dismiss AGF in relation to a long list of editors.

The members of the Global Warming article owners group are looking now to gain access to private information about me. What do they intend to do with that information? That should be a question that remains unanswered forever.

How are they trying? One of their members (helps them out with various requests, participates with them in their edit-wars, etc.) has checkuser access which enables private information to be obtained through IP matchups, etc. So, while I was away I was blocked under some the most empty, indefensible rationalizations I have seen on Wikipedia (with no surprise...retaliation is a long-standing pattern from them).

Then, the next time an anonymous user disagrees with them (in the same tone that they themselves use) one of the gang files a Request for checkuser. THAT action would officially put private information into their hands via their member who has checkuser authority.

The pattern of abuse, deception and continued efforts of destroying any that do not follow their will continues on.

Essay: Crossroads for Wikipedia (commentary)
Let us understand a few things first so we do not have a miscommunication. The prima facia premise of Wikipedia is that of a pure democracy. Everyone participates equally and the marketplace of ideas allow "truth" (that old philosophical brain twister) to prevail. The more open discussion that engaged the more the truth will be seen by (not forced on) a majority. As happens in all governments and bureaucracies human nature's desire for power and control eventually usurps the democracy. If this is not controlled then eventually the oligarchs arise as the overseers, the protectors of democracy for the democracy. For a while (a very brief while) that oversight holds its purpose. Quickly (and unnoticed by the power thirsty oligarchs) the actions do not match the words. The oligarchs begin restricting the people of the democracy (which, coincidentally works to the benefit of the oligarchs) at the detriment of the people all while demanding the people believe it is for the people's own good.

You should be thinking of V.I.K.I. from I, Robot now, or Senator Palpatine in Star Wars II who dissolved the Senate for the sake and benefit of the Senate...or so he claimed. We all know the truth was different than the proclamation.

At some point there is a crossroads...break the 'gravy train' of the oligarchs or lose the people's support. With the former the system can be saved, with the latter it is only a matter of time before the path's only outcome is revolution or abandonment.

The majority of the oligarchy (aka admin) perpetuate a culture of ownership of articles and inequality (that is, those who contest the admin's ownership of an article are relegated to a sub-class within WP. This abusive culture is not universal throughout WP or its admins.  It is, however, nearly universal that admins are not to be punished for their wrong doing, policy violations, abusive edit-wars and personal attacks against newcomers as a short example.  The Blue Wall of Silence pales in comparison to the Admin Circle of Protection.  If a regular editor were to delete portions of an article's talk page they would be summarily blocked and possibly banned...especially if they repeated the deletion three times in within a few hours.  Without a question they would be belittled and given a warm admin treatment fitting the highest WP crime--having the audacity to suggest an admin or edit-vet could be anything less than 100% correct.

The result short term is ownership of articles is maintained. The fraternity of edit-vets continues. No harm, no foul...and besides, only those who have been in WP since 2005 or earlier know what is best, so everyone else can go to h***.

The result long term is less obvious but is beginning to take shape. If this culture is not remedies quickly and sharply then the number of growing movements and 'balance' efforts will eventually converge like raindrops on a windshield. The more it rains the more the small drops combine with other drops creating larger drops and eventually a puddle becomes a roaring rapids in the storm ravine. The longer the hypocrisy in policy enforcement continues the more people will encounter the fallacy that Wikipedia struggles to avoid: noise over information.

I personally have witnessed it watching articles since about 2004. It was this inconsistency application of WP's policies and guidelines that convinced me to stay away creating a WP account for nearly 2 years. I watched how the rules purposes may have been seeking good article content, but the application of the ever growing volumes of rules was far different. The rules then and more so as time continues have a 2-pronged reality. They are typical bureaucratic babble even to the point of being plainly contradictory and intentionally vague while attempting to be partially and completely succint, explicit and direct...occassionally. One prong of the WP rules are to be mallable enough to provide constant protection for anything done by an admin or edit-vet (those who have 'been here a long time' and are thus the only ones with the divine knowledge of what WP's rules are REALLY about). The other prong of the WP rules is to enable constriction on the anti-vet (those who do not kneel and worship the ownership of articles by admins and friends, thus are ignorant of the truth: only edit-vets know facts, everyone else knows only myth).

Evidence of this dual functionality can be witnessed by watching any of the noticeboards for a day or so. While doing so, let me warn you so you will not be surprised to see it happen. Complaints can be registered within days of each other, adjudicated by the same person, complaints can be substantively identical (and in some cases the names simply reversed), and yet the complaints will be concluded with opposite results. Typically a block or probation for one side and an absolution for the other. Worse, the rationales will be direct contradictions with each other. The factor that a person could bet on for profit: if the case is about an admin or friend of an admin. If so, the case will be "no action", otherwise it is a safe bet that action will be taken.

A common grey area abused in a similar fashion is the "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law". I say 'abused' because you will find edit-vets using the letter of the law to condemn someone while using the spirit of the law to permit the same actions by themselves.

What does that have to do with the future?

Anecdotally I talk to more and more people who refuse to use WP because the "facts" are suspect due to the culture of the oligarchs being gatekeeper. The number of other fact collector sites I have been introduced to by long time WP editors (and Sir Galahad-like admins) leaving WP has reached 4 this month. Wikipedia expose sites and commentaries are growing as are the participants and audience. With many other noble projects the detrimental effects may take a while longer. My thought is 3 years.

What happens in 3 years?

I believe the Oligarch-culture will not be rectified (in fact, I do not believe enough within the upper ranks will recognize the culture much less its negative implications) and within 36 months Wikipedia's credibility on most topics will be a step above the honesty of any politician. (To my producer, pay up. I did discover a proper sentence that used "honesty" and "politician" in the same sentence.)  When I first started watching WP I noticed that about 3 out of every 5 articles in topics I knew well were factually wrong (as a result of what is sometimes called POV-pushing). For the other 20% the accuracy was incredible. I would estimate that accuracy to be about 3 in 5 are accurate (mostly in non-controversial articles) and not worth the time to read on controversial articles because the accuracy and/or neutrality are absent in most of those articles.

The time is coming where sites like Wikipedia-watch become considered as credible if not more so. (Scary considering that site posts people's personal information.)

The way to prevent that? To overhaul the system which allows, encourages, rewards and perpetuates systemic abuse of the people (editors and newbies) by the Oligarchs (admins, admin buddies, edit-vets, etc). Killing the culture of double-standards (or in some views, hypocrisy) is crucial.

Revolution is not an option of the people in WP, if the Oligarchy Culture continues the only option will be exodus, abandonment and the loss of something that could have been repaired and re-elevated to a respectable source of information.

That choice, however, rests 100% within the ranks of the admins and above.

Post Script: The number of dissatisfied WP users does grow. It is important to acknowledge and understand them. Ignoring, dismissing and attacking them will only further the obtuse and arrogant nature of the Oligarch Culture. ,, ...are just a few. Eventually they will merge and earn the credibility WP risks right now.

Another was just fowarded to me:. Again, it is only a matter of time before some of these merge and grow.

Baseless and arbitrary 1 week block for voting within 5 min of co-worker
This account has been blocked from editing for one week for unspecified violations of WP:SOCK and WP:POINT as poorly explained here.  Durova Charge! 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Working at the same place constitutes sockpuppetry? ~ UBeR 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you are not an admin. -- Tony G 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note

 * Made some factual corrections...unsupported text is struck out:

There's a thread about you and User:Zeeboid several unnamed editors at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The full text of the entire section as of the time this notice was posted is as follows:

Several editors continue to pester me about two weeklong blocks I issued over violation of WP:MEAT. Neither editor posted an unblock request, several uninvolved editors have supported my decision, and both of those blocks have long since expired. I had to block one of these people from gmail chat after he ignored my repeated explanations and referrals to WP:ADOPT. I have treated this matter quite conservatively until now, but this amounts to WP:HARASS and the "clarification" they request looks like a query into what methods two people who volunteer at the same workplace could use to manipulate WP:AFD and other voting discussions without getting blocked. I hope that decisive action will prevent a need to repeat the same remedy that the community imposed here. DurovaCharge! 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC) * User_talk:Durova#Need_Clairfication * User_talk:Durova#Conflict_of_Interest_re:_User:William_M._Connolley * User_talk:Durova/Archive_25#Zeeboid_block * User_talk:Durova/Archive_25#COI_Opinion * Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_6#William_M._Connolley_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29 DurovaCharge! 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC) It's probably also worth noting that one of the editors in question, User:Mnyakko has a link to an off-wiki attack page on his user page, and now states on his user talk page that he fears real-world stalking by his on-wiki opponents. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is obviously retaliatory action for failing to obtain official permission to access private information less than 3 hours earlier. Since it is being brought by an admin, though, the result is predictable: action taken against me and Zeeboid based on ficticious interpretation using fabricated claims and not providing any substantive explanation (so they will not have to answer later for their abusive actions).

Witchhunt
Someone who is willing can search most any article with high number of edits, view at least 4 months of history and see the same thing: admins must be treated as though they were God.

The witchhunt currently being conducted by Durova at the benefit (behest?) of the Global Warming owners is yet one more example. Here Durova complains about "Several editors continue to pester me about two weeklong blocks I issued over violation of WP:MEAT." She never mentioned WHO. She provided "proof" of harassment...a claim that 'chat' in Google was harassing (again, no names) and provided 5 links to more "proof" of harassment (


 * Harassment 1 16 April, Conversation went as follows: Zeeboid-Durova-Zeeboid-UBeR
 * Harassment 2 10 April, Conversation went as follows: Childhood's End-Durova-BozMo (w/ irrelevant attack on religion)-UBeR-Durova-Skyemoor (off-topic)-Skyemoor (agrees with unexplained admin action)-Durova (stop bickering)
 * Harassment 3 9 April, Conversation went as follows: BlueTie-Durova-BlueTie-Durova-BlueTie-EdJohnston (block was good because COI was long)-EdJohnston (more irrelevant facts about length of COI, meaning blocks were more necessary)-BlueTie (questions Ed's logic: 4 day discussion is long, 6 day block is short)-UBeR-Durova-UBeR-Durova (stop asking for a reasonable standard of proof, that is POINT, I'm neutral but will do all I can to avoid addressing my double standard, continuing to point out the fact of my double standard is violating AGF)-unsigned (pointing out fact that Durova's statement displays that inquiring is violating POINT)-Akhilleus-Jehochman (asking questions that get only avoidance is bothering me; go put your energies where you can do our bidding and be out of our way; btw, in a few days i'm going to claim i'm a disinterested party).
 * Harasment 4 9 April, conversation went as follows: UBeR-Durova (my analytical skills are too superior for anyone to criticize; held the COI open 4 days which is several extra days)
 * Harassment 5 Evidence of being harassed as a result of her block is the block itself (and only to Wikipedia admins would this logic be taken seriously

What follows her complaint: Questions replied to with no answers and personal attacks and malicious, intentional lies. The gem: though there is no understanding whatsoever what harassment took place, no ability to articulate the relevance of "voting within 5 minutes of each other", nothing whatsoever that constitutes a measureable guideline to quantify future violations...quick blocks should be done if there is "a hint" of re-violation.

IOW, "Your violation is impossible to quote, it is impossible to point out if any other similar action is a violation, but if anyone thinks you violated an imaginary interpretation then you are in trouble." Now, what government system in world history does that remind you of?-->

Global Warming Skeptic category up for deletion
Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming is up for deletion. If you would like to comment on this, feel free to do so here. Oren0 20:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Understanding warm bias in the temperature record
I know you have an interest in global warming. As you may know, there are serious problems with the temperature record being biased by UHI or similar warming biases related to land use changes, etc. ClimateAudit.org is organizing an effort to photograph sites. Understanding the issue will help you be a better editor and improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on AGW. If you are interested, you could be a part of the effort. Please take a look here. RonCram 05:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up.


 * On a different note, did you see the latest abuse of power from Raul654?


 * So, Raul654 blocks Zeeboid. The crime?  Making "this luidcrious edit" [sic].  The edit was removing the word "controversial", which was placed in the article by RaymondArritt.  The edit summary was "Undid revision 136172818 by talk) RV, No Current concensus" [sic].


 * What was the blockable offense?


 * Is a "ridiculous" edit (and by what referable standard) enough for a block?


 * How about when considering the blocker, Raul654 ‎(Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Administrator) made this edit just 2 weeks earlier? That edit (to the same article) was changing a Heading from the non-POV "Points" to the weasel word "Claims".  The edit summary was "point implies that it might actually hold water. Claim is more accurate description of their propaganda".


 * Clearly an abuse of power in that noone in Wikipedia will do anything to Raul654 for such blatant hypocrisy, article ownership, and POV enforcing admin actions. I guess, this is the type of "neutrality" Wikipedia's founders want.


 * Oh, and about that word, "controversy", being in the opening of a documentary about Global Warming...Jersyko was brought in via a RfC. That person's objective determination on the matter was given on May 29, 2007 and said the following:
 * "The controversy, if discussed in the article, should be discussed in the introduction by way of "brief description" (perhaps a sentence or two; the introduction to this article actually needs to be expanded a bit on the whole). The descriptor "controversial", used in the first sentence of the intro, however, is problematic. It provides no context in favor of making the absolute (if referenced) determination that the film is, in fact, controversial. Whether the film is controversial is a matter of opinion; whether it has been described as controversial by specific sources is not."


 * None of the Global Warming article owners were blocked for removing "controversy" from the the other article, yet somehow the rules change now.


 * Pathetic display by all of the Admins involved in this one. -- Tony G 21:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your user and user talk pages
Your user and user talk pages seem to be dedicated to attacking specific editors and admins with whom you disagree. The user page policy forbids using your user page for "polemical statements", and Jimbo Wales has said that "using userpages to attack people... is a bad idea". In light of that, I'm wondering if you'd consider removing the attacks in question. MastCell Talk 05:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please be specific...what "attacks" are you referring to? I am using my user page as a journal of my Wikipedia experiences and lessons.--  Tony G 14:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A journal of your experiences is one thing. The first two sections of your user talk page, as well as your entire user page, seem devoted to attacking specific admins and editors with whom you've come into conflict. You make a number of accusations toward (among others) William Connolley, Raul654, Raymond Arritt, etc. There are mechanisms for addressing disputes on Wikipedia; rehashing them on your user and user talk pages is unlikely to be productive, though. MastCell Talk 16:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "There are mechanisms..."--yeah, sure, mechanisms I am sure have as much consistency and fairness as all of the others throughout the project. I have been following and making note of much of the "mechanisms"...how they work, rationales and justification as well as the pattern of absent explanations.  There is nothing to suggest that any mechanism offers a fair process to resolve such issues.  Especially when the issues involve admins, their friends, checkusers, etc.  So, thanks for the offer, but no thanks.  I think I will continue to chronicle my wiki-experiences on my user page where the governing "rules" are not as biased and rigged. --  Tony G 01:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I've asked for outside input as to whether this is an appropriate use of your userspace on WP:AN/I. MastCell Talk 04:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I concur that it resembles an attack page, and as such, I removed it. Which isn't to say that you're not permitted to chronicle your grievances of specific editors, only that such an account be geared to active attempt to resolve the dispute. Thanks in advance. El_C 05:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting...truth is "attack". Exactly what I'm talking about...the system is fixed.  Not surprised in the least that an admin removed unflattering truth about another admin. --  Tony G 04:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Invite


Gregbard 21:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:KNSI radio.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:KNSI radio.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Progressive Animal Welfare Society
Are you sure you meant to create a mainspace article with a userbox? If it was meant to be in userspace you might want to slap a on there. —Switchercat talkcont 16:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry...been a while since I used my Spaces. -- Tony G 16:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, yeah, just make sure to add the so it goes in the "Pages for speedy deletion" category and the admins can deal with it quick. :) —Switchercat talkcont 16:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
Welcome Tony, looking forward to seeing you rescue articles when you find time! Ikip (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to ARS!
{| style="border: 2px solid #CC3333; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: lightsteelblue; line-height: 20px; cellpading=30" align=center Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
 * colspan="2" |

Spite?
"Let's see how long before the content polizei delete this out of spite", you said.

Although that's exceptionally rude of you, there is no reason for your userpage to be deleted, and so it will be left up unless you specifically request its removal. DS (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I usually do not like to say "I told you so", but I think this will suffice: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Mnyakko/aboutme. -- Tony G 18:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how that is not your userpage, I fail to see how it has any relevance. You were referring to specifically, your userpage, as was he.  Not a sub-talk-page in your userspace.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have found that when people have to argue semantics or minutia to claim differences they are simply rationalizing a position that cannot be equitably applied. "userspace" and "sub-talk-page" within a "userspace" seem to fall within that...no offense intended.  And for the record, my "faith" in the fairness of most actions by admins applies to 'userspaces', 'talk-pages', 'sub-talk-pages', 'main pages', 'main page talk pages', and the wide assortment of "dispute resolution".  My comment refers to ALL text that does not fall in line with the POV of admins. --  Tony G 03:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 21:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Mnyakko/aboutme
User talk:Mnyakko/aboutme, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Mnyakko/aboutme and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Mnyakko/aboutme during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Content


 * News items and announcements
 * Contest


 * Featured editor: Teeninvestor
 * Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers


 * Want ads
 * Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques