User talk:Alienus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent Alienus (talk • contribs • block logauto • rfarbsuspected socks) from introducing vandalism to it, posting abuse and nonsense or using the {{unblock}} template after the denial of a previous request . If you have come here to issue a new warning to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here. (protection log).

I'm not doing this. I have no confidence whatsoever in Wikipedia's brand of justice and I know that the end result of arbitration will be my departure, so I'm just going to walk away right now. Wikipedia just isn't worth it. It's not fair enough to deserve my time and trouble. Please remove my account, I won't be back. You "win". Al 19:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Response to requests to Alienus to return to Wikipedia

Various emails alerted me to the fact that this page has accumulated a variety of pleas for my return, all of which I've summarily deleted. Apparently, I am far more popular in death than in life. For some reason, people are confusing me with drama queens like SlimVirgin, who leave in a huff only to slink back once their petulant little point is made.

To be quite clear, there is no use in coming back because Wikipedia is not a place that allows people to fix problems with controversial pages without themselves becoming the targets of vulgar vandals (The+Invisible+Man), chronic reverters (LaszloWalrus) and power-mad admins (Tony Sidaway). Even if I returned and survived the RfAr without being entirely castrated, it would still only be a matter of time before the weight of those spurious blocks pulls me down.

Sadly, Wikipedia is a house of cards in the wind, a sandcastle built at low tide. In the last few days alone, I've seen sigificant decay in some of the articles I used to protect, and it will only get worse. Nothing I've done will have any lasting positive effect. And even when some other Don Quixote shows up to tilt at POV, they too will eventually fall to the chronic incompetence and megalomania that afflicts so many of the admins.

The only way I could return is by apologizing for my multitude of supposed sins and promising I'd be all better, but the truth is that I regret nothing. I did what I believed to be the right thing and I would do it all over again just the same way, except even more effectively. I am quite proud of what I've done, so I have nothing to apologize for and apologize for nothing. It is you who owe me an apology, and I shall never receive it.

The only way I could even consider picking up where I left off is if I were in a position of sufficient power to be safe from such nonsense. In other words, I will return if Jimbo personally appoints me to ArbComm, just as he did with Jayjg. If ArbComm is full, this can be fixed by displacing Jayjg. Barring that unlikely event, this is my last note.

Please do not reply here. Just Protect the page or delete it or whatever. I don't really care; it's your Wikipedia now. I'm just another casualty of Wikipedia's inability to police itself. This wannaba encyclopedia is either going to change its policies radically or it will continue to alienate the editors it most needs and fall into further decline and disrepute, until some other site replaces it. The future is in your hands. Goodbye and good luck. Al 07:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to appoint Al to the arbcom? Im seriously asking. Anyone? Could Jimbo be convinced? It is possible but if is there is a serious chance I'd make it a mission to do my best to make the case that we need Al on that body, provided he returns to continue his good work. It would really shake things up here and we'd see a major rise on confidence and return of many good users should the corruption and ills be remedied by an action like this, even if only symbolic. What is the first step? Get to know Jimbo? Write letters, phone calls, big donations$$$? Wikipedia can be worth it, and its worth it to try to fix it. This would be a major step in the right direction. I relate very well to exactly how Alienus feels. I would like him to come back, and hope he does pending his appointment to arbcom. If we get hundreds of new users here who start a petition and campaign to turn Wikipedia around, get correct its weak points, and make it a much better place, Al will come back and so will many more, while the bad editors will have to mend their ways to the new vibrant Wiki culture. Am I being utopian? It starts with a vision....Giovanni33 03:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed. I think a revolution of the digusted abd disaffected is in order. How do you plan to begin??--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't support something like that unless Al were to show that he understands how Wikipedia works, which he hasn't done. Someone on ArbCom should have dispute resolution skills, and understand better ways to approach content disputes than by repeatedly reverting, which he has specifically rejected even trying. I wish Al would come back and just try to apply some of the advice he's been given, but he seems reluctant to do so. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone with his history of blocks on arbcom? LaszloWalrus 07:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, why not? We are all only human. The only difference between his record of blocks and others who have a "clean" record is just that: someone chose to make it part of his record. It does not not mean those who have a "clean" record do not have worse 3RR or other equal "violations." Lets be critical when reviewing evidence, esp. evidence of accusations only. I know admins who have violated the 3RR numerous times, called editors "edit warriors," etc--yet have a clean record without any blocks.
AL does have a good understanding of how Wikipedia works. You comment about his areas of weakness, and may be relevant or true, but I'm sure that can be fixed. To me its clear that his plus side far outweights it, even if true, in my opinion. The only reason he is reluctant to come back now is because he is being treated unfairly, number of those with power seem to be determined to get rid of him, which is a shame given his positive role in helping to balance article content for NPOV. He is needed by Wikipedia. Giovanni33 12:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo is free to appoint and remove arbitrators at his pleasure. You might want to make this suggestion on his talk page, rather than here. Nandesuka 14:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Giovanni33, I'm not sure where you're getting that he "has a good understanding of how Wikipedia works". I consider learning to stop running one's head into walls a prerequisite to a "good understanding". Alienus never picked up on some basic, basic things about Wikipedia. I'm not trying to be rude, but I could provide numerous examples of him really not "getting it". Those you say were "determined to get rid of him" - at least some of that motivation was just determination to convince him to edit harmoniously, which he kept refusing to do. I'm afraid you're not reflecting reality here, Giovanni. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree GTB: at least some of that motivation. Al could be abrasive at times and needlessly inflammatory... hmmm, perhaps he would have made good admin. 8P ^^James^^ 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
A good admin, needs to be accepted by the community, first as a good editor with empathy and respect for fellow editors, as well as an editor with good grasp of policies and how the project best works. I find this conversation about Alienus adminship or appointment to the ArbCom to be extraordinarily naïve, given the evidence gathered so far at his ArbCom case. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Or it could just be a bit of a lark... ^^James^^ 20:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


It has to be a lark. Alienus was a sort of revolutionary. (I know that may have a positive sort of tone to it but I am only stating it as my observation, and I mean it in a neutral way.) A revolutionary is not really quite the right person for resolving disputes. Indeed, they create them. I think that there are problems with wikipedia, but I do not think that Alienus had the solution because I believe he had a POV that led him in wrong directions. --Anon 64 14:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going to have to say I agree with Anon 64. I don't know Mr. Alienus, but I know how he feels, even if I have not been unfortunate enough to be the brunt of said unfairness. I have seen in just a short amount of time on Wikipedia how there's the "guidelines" and then there's the "big boys club" of admins who hold powers, and both of them contribute to "The Way Wikipedia Works". People like Alienus perhaps are somewhat blinded to the "big boys club" side of Wikipedia, and the "big boys" are blinded to the fact that people like Alienus are the priceless contributors that created their pedestal in the first place. There is nothing wrong with focusing on the "guidelines" and tossing the "big boys club" aside, as adherence to the "guidelines" is the only thing that makes this place great and fair. People say Alienus shouldn't be more than what he was, as he might cause too much "dispute". Oh darn. The people who say that ARE the problem - the ones who tote the party line and make the silly "31337 W1K1 AdMiNz kReW" out to be more mIgHtY than the guidelines that created Wikipedia. Nothing great in this world ever started out of being hum and nodding to the status quo. I feel I have a lot to contribute, but I also feel plenty of reason to not give a crap - just becasue like everywhere else on earth, on Wikipedia you climb the ladder by kissing ass, not by contributing to the whole, and that makes Wikipedia as doomed altruistically as the rest of society... Reswobslc 18:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel that way too. Then something really good happens on Wikipedia and I am all sorted out again! Don't let it get you down! I think that wikipedia has a good goal and I value it's contribution on the web. That is why I am here. Keep sight of that and realize that even though wikipedia may not be perfect, it seems to be continually lurching towards a better day. I also think it is helpful not to get emotionally attached to other editors and their plights. Sort of a "Be Friendly but also Be True to Yourself" kind of philosophy. --Anon 64 00:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What you have to say is true of life in general. Fortunately I'm emotionally stable and mentally healthy, so most things don't get me down, whether it's on here or not. My presence here is evidence that I see some value in what's here. No matter how I feel on any given day though, it really does suck to see something good start to slip down the tubes. Wikipedia isn't expected to be perfect - its creation is an absolutely fantastic, well-thought-out wonder of the world in my opinion. I guess what I'm noting as "too bad", is the complacency that causes individuals to lose sight of what made this place wonderful in the first place and grow a sense of entitlement and eliteness and start to place importance on status rather than the very things that earned them that status in the first place. As an objective outsider who has no motive or knowledge of Tony Sidaway, after reading the since-removed history of this Alienus page, this Sidaway guy seems like a complete [** rm personal attack**] who has made a career out of listing every petty violation and infraction of his apparent nemesis Alienus, as though he's got nothing better to do. I suppose we all learn somehow - Mr. Sidaway points the finger and notes how this guy has been blocked on 11 occasions, when he himself has been blocked almost a dozen times himself. Who the freak cares? But oh wait, TOny Sidaway is an admin, he has already been initiated into the club and somehow nobody gives a damn about his history. The hypocrisy is obvious. But I'm not here to condemn, as it's human nature and you find hypocrisy and corruption in every human institution. Cops deal drugs while busting street drug dealers, and life goes on. Just think of the law profession - lawyers know that many amongst themselves are corrupt scoundrels, but not a single one would EVER do a thing about it, lest they kiss their law careers goodbye. Goverments have a pretty uninspiring reputation as well. No one would ever simply donate their services to a government voluntarily, agreeing to scrub toilets and organize files for zero pay. Yet people do that for Wikipedia every day because of their faith that Wikipedia is something better than the rest of humanity. Admins who act like jerks plus the rest of the admins who idly stand by to let it happen to save face are what will ruin Wikipedia - by making editors feel like it's not worth their time to give freely of themselves to it, exactly the conclusion escaping from Mr. Alienus in his final sigh here. Reswobslc 02:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your assessment of this situation, based only on a few weeks of editing in the project may be not grounded. I also find as your tone of voice and choice of words to be somewhat innapropriate. A friendly advice, please remain WP:CIVIL in your comments. I have refactored some of your comments that are in violation of WP:NPA and placed a warning in your page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not really know very MUCH about what happened between Tony and Alienus, but I did see that Tony was not alone. There were numerous administrators who had a problem with the way Alienus was conducting business here. I have been on the receiving end of some of what Alienus would do, and it was sometimes very annoying, but I have to also say, I think he was showing increased restraint. I do not know what happened most recently, but I think this was a case where Alienus sort of set himself up by prior behaviors. When so many administrators have negative views, I think it is probably inappropriate to lay the blame on one of them and instead, look to the individual who is the focus of this attention. I am certain that if I had been in Alienus position, the results would have been different. I prefer to take responsibility for my actions and not blame others because then, (generally) I am in charge of what happens to me and not a victim. --Anon 64 13:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just been reading the Arbcom evidence. It is rather damning. I know Al could be . . . em . . . dogmatic and assume that whereever he was standing was automatically the high moral ground. I hadn't expected the evidence against him though to be so overwhelmingly critical. I'm still sorry that Al has gone, even though I did disagreed with him, but his behaviour was much worse than I realised. Unfortunately some of my experiences with him weren't once off but, going by the evidence, standard. Jtdirl 23:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I asked for arbitration to clear the air because Alienus had a number of supporters all of whom were genuinely upset by what they saw as victimization, and a growing number of detractors nearly all of whom were prominent administrators. My reasoning in asking for the case was as follows:
In the view of many administrators and users, Alienus is an inveterate edit warrior who is prone to making personal attacks and gratuitously assuming bad faith towards anyone with whom he has a dispute. In the view of Alienus and some of his supporters (he has some), he is a fearless opponent of corrupt and lax administrators. If the former is true, a personal attack parole and revert parole might do the trick. If the latter is true (and the two claims may not be mutually exclusive) then there is a greater problem caused by corrupt (or incompetent) administrators.
In the event, the arbitration committee seems to have found in favor of the former hypothesis. --Tony Sidaway 14:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Neutrality Project

Greetings. You've shown support for the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, which unfortunately became inactive since the original creator left. I've decided to take it up and currently am actually remaking it, proposing with serious changes in methods (but not the purpose). The proposals are discussed on Wikipedia talk:Neutrality Project, and I'd appreciate any input. I look forward to your participation. CP/M 00:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

fixing links

You wrote:

(moved Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality to Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and Homosexuality: As per consensus.)

Did the consensus call for capitalizing the initial "h" in the title while leaving it lower-case in the article? I changed the title to lower-case "h". I fixed the double redirects. Can you help fix the other links? Michael Hardy 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis

I recently responded to a peer review request for this article, and User:RoyBoy requested I pass the following sentiment therein along to you:

Good job walking the NPOV line, especially considering the subject matter; I kept thinking the article was starting to lean one way or the other, but then something would always bring it back again.

I get the impression it was a bit of a struggle getting there, but I think you can be proud of what you've acheived :-) --jwandersTalk 20:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for one year.

Per the outcome of your arbcom case, I have blocked you for one year. Please note that after that period expires, you will be welcomed back. However, please note that despite your claim "I won't be back," your recent use of sockpuppets to edit has been widely noticed. While there's nothing per se wrong with an editor editing anonymously under normal circumstances, doing so to evade a block, particularly an arbcom-imposed block, is universally condemned by the community. You are expected to abide by all terms of the Arbcom-imposed sanction for the duration of the block.

Regards, Nandesuka 13:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above. Per the terms of the decision, you have been banned for a period of one year.

Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of Tor

It seems that Alienus is persistenly bypassing his ban, by using Tor. Note that the use of Tor was banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/i/User_talk%7EAlienus_286a.html"