No comment because I know that the subject of the discussion posts here, but I also know that it will end up here eventually anyway: ANI block review (by Al Tally)

Moderator's Note: Moved to the Editor's forum.

Awful block, already reversed. Majorly Al Tally then responded by marking the No Personal Attacks policy for deletion here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MFD...ersonal_attacks

Yeah, I thought that was an odd thing to do.

And then he "quits" again. If there's one thing Majorly can be counted on to do, it is to behave like a little bitch when things don't go his way.

And to any Newyorkbrad-type who feels the urge to tell me my ad-hominem was out of line, stuff it. This is out of character for me but enough is enough for fuck's sake.

How old is Majorly? He's certainly stomping around like a 15-year-old who just got his Playstation taken away.

Regardless of his age, little stunts like his MFD of the NPA policy strongly suggests that he lacks the maturity to be trusted as an admin.

From what I know of Majorly, he's just a kid - I'd guess 14-16 range. Definitely acts like it. If there's a poster child for limiting the admin tools to adults, it's him. If it wasn't for his buddy Ryan Postlethwaite defending him at every turn and trying to cover for his shenanigans, he would have been canned long ago.

What is the deal with the two accounts anyway?

Given his email address has 1989 in it, I'd guess Alex/Majorly/Al Tally was (or is) 19 this year.

However, his user page picture suggests he may be much, much younger than that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Majorly.gif

Well you know very little then... I work with kids that age and younger as part of my job. Limit the admin role to adults - it won't affect me

Interesting how you mention Ryan - he disagreed completely with my actions this evening.

I use one account, Al tally. I made the block with Majorly. I would have made it with Al tally, but it doesn't have admin rights. I could very easily get the rights transferred, but I really can't be bothered. As for why I started a new account, it was in a protest of NYB's departure, among other things including not wanting the responsibility of being an admin, but not losing the tools so I could continue to be able to do things like OTRS work properly.



Yes, it makes sense to do some research before making vague guesses that are way off the real thing. My email doesn't have my year of birth in it.



You have no need to worry, I'm not leaving

Perhaps, but I'd rather assume "alex9891" and "axel9891" have a 1989 reversed in than believe you were born on August 9 1991 and are yet another underage Wiki admin.

Edit: Not that it really matters, of course, in this specific instance, but it does with the wider issue. I personally admire the fact you have built a Wiki career out of politicking and mopping rather than creating content - it's an art in its own way!

It's nice you think that. Of course, all my article edits, creations, improvements etc aren't counted in your analysis. Additionally, it would be nice to know your Wikipedia account name, if you'd care to share.

Great, another emotionally-unstable drama-addicted OTRS volunteer (along with Navou/Mercury/NonvocalScream).



Great to know that part of the project is in such mature, experienced hands.

Exactly what would be the point of editing with another account that just redirects back to the Majorly account? The power of your protest moves me.

I've never tried to be anything on Wikipedia rather than a humble servant, so my username is not really relevant.

I think it's just late and I've never really recovered from not being the person to create the Millwall brick article (that's not a dig, I do genuinely like that article since I first saw it at DYK, unless i am mistaken).

Anyway, EN.Wiki could be in a worse way. It could be the closed-shop Simple has become. My faith in that project will only be restored when a certain user gets the mop on his 24th attempt, or whatever he is up to now.

In short, EN has its problems, but the sheer number of users ensures it is possible for even the most "protected" members of the community to be brought to account, cf Mantanmoreland.

Why would you care about Wikipedia, "Bob Boy"? Do you edit it? What's your username?

Good to know it moves you. Really. I'm glad for you.

Since this thread was about your quickly overturned, personally-motivated block, I doubt there would be too many editors here willing to turn that information over to you. It seems like this situation makes quite the case for a separation in WP/WR.

EDIT:


And now, your repeated responses seem more and more like vague threats.

Really? You feel threatened by a little "kid" like me? Seriously...

Yeah, like I would tell some block-crazy kid admin with no restraint. I post here under another name for a reason. But I've actually been on Wikipedia (with a single username, I might add) longer than you have.

I never called you a kid, or made any personal assumptions about you at all.

I didn't think you were.

On a semi-related note, would you like to participate in the discussion of your case on the Wikiversity Learning Project on the Ethical Management of the English Wikipedia?

You're not obliged to participate, but you are welcome to, if you like.

Yes, but others have, rather baseless comments. I assume you're all one gang here, with your snide attacks behind pseudonyms, out to get me Maybe I'm wrong though. Hopefully.

I'm not a part of anything organized, here or anywhere else. I think for myself. That being said, I stand by my statements about the block you made and your vague threats above. It seems we've gotten involved more talking about how old you are, and not your actions as an admin.

As I said on the wiki, it was a bad idea to block on reflection.

I haven't threatened anyone above, anyhow.

To answer some questions:

Alex/Majorly writes on his blog that he's older than Paul Williams/Skenmy, the youngest WMF Board Candidate, who was 18 years old as of June 2008. Alex doesn't say he's older than anyone else, and the next youngest candidate was Craig Spurrier, who was 19. So I'd place Alex's age at 18 or 19 years old.

Based on an arbitration case page from a long time ago, The Wales Hunter is User:Whitstable. I didn't check that, so it might be wrong.

Ah I think I remember that.

I'm still new here, do we always out our own forum members anytime anyone asks?

Well people out Wikipedia editors here regularly enough, including attempts to find out my age on this very thread. I do believe The Wales Hunter stated he owned that account himself, so he outed himself...

That's completely different. No one was trying to find out who you were, they were only attempting to come up with some reason for your actions.

This would be a good place to discuss both common practices with respect to disclosures of identity (e.g. alternate screen names, e-mail names and addresses, IP addresses, IRC handles, etc) and the applicable policies as they apply to admins, checkusers, and everyone else.

Completely different as in they were speculating personal info about me, whereas with Whitstable all they were doing is connecting two accounts together, with no personal info?

Since you asked, "completely different" in terms of speculating your ill-advised block today (and subsequent attempt to delete the NPA policy in retaliation) might be caused by immaturity, which is often tied to age.

That's as opposed to revealing the wikipedia identity of someone who's criticised you here on WR and you, at least in my eyes, threatened. You'd have to think people on WR posting about a short-tempered admin blocking people for a small slight would be a bit worried about similar action happening to them.

I hardly see how it's outing your age when your age is part of your email address.

To be fair, what Alex is saying here is fair - I have mentioned my account on here before (mainly as part of the Mantanmoreland stuff), so he hasn't done anything I'm worried about.

Oh, I just realised you had a rename (was wondering why User:Whitstable didn't work). Hi! You're someone I think rather highly of (at least based on RfA interaction).

Ah. Fair enough, then. I'd tell everybody who I was, if I was anybody.

It isn't...

As someone who is possibly among the younger posters here (though beyond COPPA) I've never understood why calling someone relatively young is supposed to be an insult.

To me, personally, what matters is not how old you are, but how mature you are.

The above ignores legal considerations, which do have to be taken into account of course, but it's my personal view.

I agree with Lar. Maturity is only loosely correlated with chronological age.

Six thousand years of actual experience in the real world says your "sounds good" theory is wrong.

Six thousand years of actual experience in the real world tells me that people in the year AD 400 who were having children and managing farms at age 17 were likely forced to be more mature than a "typical" modern 1st world 17 year old, whose life may revolved around gaming, school, and texting.

Conversely, do I even need to say (like everyone) that I know 20 year olds with thrice the maturity of some 40 year olds I know?

Before anyone gets on me for being pro-NAMBLA or any crap like that, no, I'm not. I just violently dislike blanket assertations made on flimsy or pretentious 'facts'.

I've not met a teenager/someone who is under 21 in the Western world who's particularly mature, unless they are a woman with a child, then they usually have to be.

Two of my friends, growing up, were always far, far more mature than the rest of us. It was almost preternatural. One of them is now a Major in the US Army, in the Rangers, and the other went on to become a minister. It happens, but is just uncommon in this day and age. Thats why I take offense to that sort of blanket assertation. Blanket assertations are like Linus's security blanket--a defective way to see things.

Yes, who are these people? Clearly Bob Boy and jd turk have some kind of grievance with you, but, without knowing their Wikipedia identities, it's difficult to determine its source or its merit.

Just for the record, we usually do prefer that people not identify (or try to, anyway) WR accounts with WP accounts against the account-holder's wishes, assuming the account-holder hasn't done so already (and it doesn't have to be on WR itself, necessarily). We also generally respond favorably to requests to suppress such things, particularly if the attempt to do this is largely unwarranted and/or speculative.

I guess you could say it's a judgement call in which the presumption is in favor of the WR member who is putatively identified, but it's not a hard-fast rule or anything like that.

Have I mentioned within the last 72 hours that I don't have a WP account? I try to post a reminder every 3-4 days or so, just to keep people on their toes.

Clearly? Clearly, as I've stated before I don't have any kind of personal grievance with Majorly Al. The difficult-to-determine source of this discussion was a bad block, which he's admitted.

Alright. We can all agree that the block was a very bad one.

Just to poke holes in your arguments:

If it's okay for WR folks to "out" WP folks, why shouldn't it be okay for WP folks to "out" WR folks? I don't have any secret information, but theoretically, if I did, I'm not sure if I'd refrain from posting it just because the forum moderators don't want me to. (Of course I would refrain from posting it if I expected it would cause emotional distress to the person who got outed, but that's a separate issue.)

Somey, I believe you don't have a WP account, but given that WR folks have been described as liars and worse by WP folks, how do we know you're not lying and really do have a WP account after all? On that basis, you should be banned from Wikipedia! (Isn't circular logic fun?)

I understand it's a moot point, because the WR editor didn't mind. However, is it okay for WR folks to "out" WP folks on here? Just asking, again, I'm new around these parts. I would not "out" anyone on here, whether a WP editor or a WR editor.

Do you mean "outing" as in "matching a WR account with a WP account", or "outing" as in "unmasking a user's real-world identity even though he or she prefers to post anonymously"?

If you are referring to the latter, I've seen a range of opinions here ranging from (i) any Wikipedia user who's left a trail that can lead to his or her unmasking is fair game, to (ii) any "empowered" Wikipedia user (defined as administrators or whatever) can legitimately be outed, to (iii) only those Wikipedians who commit some form of abusive practice (defined subjectively or not at all) should be outed, to (iv) let's not do that. I believe the moderators have stated that Wikipedia Review, as an institution, does not have a view or policy on this issue. My own views on the question are, I believe, well known.

All good points. I oversimplified. Even connecting a WR account to WP account can have dire consequences for the user's WP reputation. However, that's not so bad as outing a real-life identity unless the WP account itself is already connected to a real-life identity.