Blocking for no good reason...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ncidents#Cabals

JzG blocked him for "attempting to harass other users"…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...End_the_Madness

…but there's nothing remotely like harassment in his contributions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...End_the_Madness

Hmm, I seem to recall another SPA dedicating to deleting things that didn't need to be there, what do they call it, "cruft?"

The bizarre thing is when someone points out that someone is doing something that is less than reputable, Guy goes into banhammer mode. The editor did not vandalise by deleting things, he quite rightly raised a concern in a polite fashion.

In the real world, the appropriate responses were:

1) Agree, go toAFD

2) disagree, here is why, end of story.

How on earth did this spiral into a ban? Ah, that would be AGF, which means that if someone you don't like criticises someone else then by definition that means that they did not AGF vto that other person therefore they are a troll and must be manned forthwith. AGF cannot absorb through several layers.

Add to the RFC AND his "La La La, I can't hear you" sub page.

Part of his ideology seems to be that somebody has to "pay their dues" by participating in article space for a while before they should get involved in internal controversies, or else they're either a single purpose account importing an external dispute, or a trolling sockpuppet.

..but it is not policy - indeed there is policy that says that newbies should be given leeway. Of course, he is arguing deception, but he is still not assuming good faith.It comes back to the WordBomb problem: you use a reasonable approach and because you are not attuned to the Wiked ways (I don't know what they are, but I'm agin 'em) your actions are morphed into vandalism.

It is worth reading that section again, as a classic example of positive feedback (which Guy claims is a bad thing on IRC). Were any facts relevant to the ban decision, or was it simply hysteria? That was your starter for 10.

Any newbie who is attuned is obviously an experienced user hence a sockpuppet of a banned user.

He's obviously a sockpuppet, but so what?

User:Cruftbane is a sockpuppet, but not one of a banned user. User:Cruftbane runs around deleting things he finds superfluous or otherwise inappropriate. Surely JzG can understand that.

What I see is a class of people fighting to retain for themselves the right to pseudonymity they deny to others.

According to JzG, he has the right to operate a sockpuppet, to avoid the heat, a.k.a. scrutiny, that follows his main account. Others, however, have to wear that scrutiny like a hair shirt, and he'll take it all the way to ArbCom to ensure that.

I disagree that he has learnt nothing, I think he has learnt a great deal actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...erious_question he has learnt to admit his handling of the issue might be wrong and to ask the community for their advice. I think that is a big step. I would have agreed that he had not learnt if he had not posted that question thread though.

I think you make a good observation. I also think that there are a lot of unhelpful responses along the lines of - Guy you just go on doing what you are doing.

I would offer two observations to Guy: what is the point of having a policy of assuming the best of people if you feel that you know better (and isn't it better saying that in words rather than spraying acronyms around?). In this particular case we can recognise that the approach was appropriate, even if you did not like the message.

Secondly, the appropriate response would simply be to use the argument you have used: you perceive these groups as a bit of harmless fun, therefore do not see it as appropriate to take any admin action. If as a user, you disagree, you can use the deletion discussion mechanism to try and establish a consensus.

So, no need for trolls, no need for bans, and I am extremely concerned about the number of admins who say "Well aimed block, Guy" because it was unnecessary. That is the most concerning change in attitude over the last couple of years. Note that nobody tried to discuss the problem to see whether the perceived problem was for real. That is the real problem. Again, this is more about friends of Guy giving him the wrong feedback, not Guy himself.

THere was a fw people who condemned the block quite strongly. Myself included.

In the end it comes down to power. Whoever has the most power prevails.

But being good at gaining power is a different skill than being good at crafting or editing high quality encyclopedia articles or supervising other editors.

Being good at gaining power is one of the hallmarks of politics and other power games such as MMPORGs.

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job. -Douglas Adams

Back when we were in the heyday of MUDs, our criterion for selecting people to be admins was simple. Anyone who wanted power was automatically disqualified from having it.

Yes, and you made it clear why (something along the lines of wot I rote). However, as I have said a number of times, I think Guy's Big Problem is not Guy but Friends of Guy. I agree that his little "the penny is dropping request" the right response is "Yes, you are right to question your actions". Yes, the circumstances may be that a checkuser comes back and shows that this was a sock of a well known disruptive person, (e.g. let us say it turns out it was Greg, we could understand the response), but it was inappropriate without that extra evidence.

It may be our jaded view of WP, but it is concerning that there are admins with so little insight as to the implications of their comments that they are prepared to represent the consensus of WP as supporting shoot on sight on a sensitive issue. In the end that is supporting the man, not the message, which I understood should not be the case. It is very like not worrying about collateral damage in Iraq as they are just a bunch of rag heads, not real people.

Still, this is the problem, admins are either Chosen Ones or they are just Editors with Mops (not).

I actually think it's a mark of maturity in an online community, to allow "self-nominations", so to speak. In the real world, people send in their resumes. Seeing it as "wanting power" tells you more about how the people at the top level see the role of a moderator/admin/etc (on MUDs aren't they typically called "gods"?) than it tells you about what the people applying for a position of responsibility actually intend to do with that position.