In a message dated 6/25/2004 3:17:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
travelingmirv(a)yahoo.com writes:
Without knowing the username or the anonymous IP
address under which you were editing at the time of
the block, it's hard for anyone to say with certainty.
My wild guess is this: [[User:Hephaestos vs.
Dallabnikufesin]] is probably the latest incarnation
of the peristent vandal [[user:Michael]], who has a
strange fixation with Hephaestos's user page. Michael
sometimes uses AOL; from your e-mail address, I guess
that you also use AOL. If Michael was editing from an
AOL IP address when he was blocked, and you happened
to get the same IP address when you logged in, you
would also be blocked.
. . . but that's just a wild guess. Perhaps you have
some more information that might help? The username or
IP address you were using at the time of the block
would be most helpful.
--Charles Podles ([[en:User:Mirv]])
Thanks, Charles, for the response.
It seems the block was temporary, so I'm not too concerned. It's all pretty
silly, if you ask me.
I don't recall who suggested to another new user that he stay away from
"controversial" subject matter -- that's just plain ... *searching for a polite
word here* ... silly. Some people's noses got outta joint because I dared
comment on someone's ridiculous NPOV musings on "motherfucker." If that's what
passes for controversy on wikipedia, then we're all in trouble.
Since coming to the site a week or so ago, I've come across some pretty
hair-brained stuff -- people posting misinformation about subjects they don't seem
to know much about. And to think I once thought wikipedia was actually a good
research tool! (Kinda scary.) But I can hope it'll get better with each
successive edit.
Now, if we could just lose the melodrama...
Peace.
deeceevoice
Charle Podle is making things up. I did *not* make my name
public. EntmootsOfTrolls did, shortly before he theartened
to give my identity to Islamic extremists. (Groups that at
the time and now, were infamous for murdering those that
they disagreed with.)
Mr Natural Health didn't threaten to give me up to
Islamists; he coldly told me that he himself was a Nazi,
and that he lived near me. That's the same as sending an
e-mail to a black in the south that you are a member of the
KKK. Its called an implicit threat, and the local police
departments take such threats seriously, even if certain
Wiki-En members do not.
I am not about to sit back and wait for anyone else to do
the same. In the past, it was considered wrong for
Wikipedia users to "out" people and put such private
information out for others to read. But now that it has
happened to me twice, you'd think that people would stop
such behaviour? No, instead, Charles wrote falsehoods about
me, and ignores the point. I wonder how he would react if
someone was bothering one of his friends or loved ones? Oh
wait, that's different. As long as it is someone else who
is outed and who feels threatened, that's Ok?
No. Its morally wrong when it happens to anyone. It is also
a violation of every norm of Wikipedia etiquette, which
this list seems to have suddenly forgotten about. It is
also probably illegal.
The fact that not a single person here seems to care scares
the hell out of me. If it can be done to one person, it can
be done to any of us. (Just ask some of the many
well-documented victims of the Internet Scientology wars,
who have been threatened, stalked, and whose lives have
been damaged by maniancs from the Church of Scientology.)
This isn't a theoretical issue; its real.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Charles Podles wrote:
>--- Robert <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Charle Podle is making things up.
>>
>>
>Charle*s* Podle*s*. Please. And now that you've outed
>me by using my real name, you must be banned
>immediately!!!eleven!!! :)
>
There's always the possibility that RK was deliberately misspelling your
name so as not to out you.
--Michae Sno
James Marshall wrote:
>Or should I just learn to ignore the postings of some individuals? I can
>do that easily enough and not get upset.
>
Yes, that might be a good idea. Also remember to assume good faith on
everyone's part (and try to hold that assumption for as long as you
can). Hopefully more people will remember to assume good faith on your
part as well.
--Michael Snow
Okee dokee, here are some of the violations I found in the recent
unpleasantness. Some are more important than others, and some are
stronger cases than others. But in no particular order, and in an ad hoc
format, here's what I came up with in the last couple of hours:
First, not a violation, but Timwi specifically asked about policies
encouraging additions and discouraging deletions. To clarify, I didn't
mean a hard-and-fast rule-- of course some deletions are good and some
additions are bad. But it's a theme I picked up a few times on various
newbie and policy pages. I'll see if I can find the references again.
... OK, here are some:
. the advice to "Be bold in updating pages" and the page thereof seem to
favor additions.
. "Editing Policy"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AEditing_policy)
emphasizes additions over deletions throughout the text.
The section "On editing styles" discourages deletions without
preserving what's deleted plus comments why it was deleted. It
says "whatever you do, try to preserve information".
. on "Wikiquette", it says "Avoid reverting and deleting" and "Amend,
edit, discuss."
. there is a general desire to end up with content that is the superset
of all relevant viewpoints.
---------
Now, the violations, with the requested complete quoting and explanation:
1) On "Blocking policy"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABlocking_policy), it lists
specifically when sysops are permitted to block users.
Oberiko violated this when s/he blocked me, since none of the reasons
applied.
2) On "How to revert a page to an earlier version"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AHow_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier…),
the section "Explain reverts" details just that policy. It says that one
of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is "Always explain your reverts"
(though that does not show up on the actual policy and guidelines page).
This was violated by Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang for most of the times
they reverted my addition.
3) On "Dealing with vandalism"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADealing_with_vandalism), it
defines vandalism: "Vandalism is bad-faith addition, deletion, or change
to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of
the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of
replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other
wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the
encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."
The page goes on to list examples of non-vandalism, and types of
vandalism.
Texture repeatedly called my addition vandalism, which it clearly is not
according to this page. Even after I called him on it, and pointed him to
this page, he didn't answer my charge, and persisted in calling my text
"vandalism". I don't see how he could be acting in good faith here.
Texture then used the "vandalism" charge to justify his other
policy-violating actions, such as deleting without explanation, or calling
his deletion "minor".
4) I can't remember where I originally saw this, but on "Minor edit"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMinor_edit) it says that
"Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, and
even more so if it involves the deletion of some text." (third paragraph)
Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang all marked their deletions as "minor", which
violates the quoted policy twice. I don't know why they did this; you
experienced users would know the benefit of it better than I do.
5) On "Policies and Guidelines"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APolicies_and_guidelines) under
"Key Policies":
a) "1) Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point
of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and
sympathetically."
Texture and Oberiko were not fair or sympathetic toward my view, and
enforced their own POV my removing my edit that had reduced the POV-ness
(as others besides me have pointed out).
b) "4) Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many
different countries and cultures, and have widely different views.
Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in
building an encyclopedia. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia etiquette,
Dispute resolution."
Nothing Texture or Oberiko did was respectful to me; see my user page
and the Reagan history page for examples.
6) On "Policies and Guidelines", under "Specific guidelines to consider":
a) "Please do not bite the newcomers", and the page linked to
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APlease_do_not_bite_the_newcomers).
Texture and Oberiko violated this in a few ways, some of which are
listed on the page linked to ("understand newcomers' value...", "try not
to make hostile comments...", "assume good faith", arguably others).
b) "Avoid blanket statements"
The sentence I was appending to (and which Texture and Oberiko reverted
to) is a blanket statement, if we take "United States" to mean the
citizens of the United States.
7) On "Avoiding common mistakes"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAvoiding_common_mistakes):
a) "Deleting useful content. Just because something is written poorly
doesn't mean it lacks a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph
tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away. ... [long
paragraph]"
b) "Deleting biased content. Biased content can be useful content (see
above). Remove the bias and keep the content."
c) "Deleting without justifying. Except in the most obvious cases,
deleting anything nontrivial requires some words of justification in the
edit "Summary" or on the talk page. If the justification is presented in
the Talk page, it's sufficient to write "See talk" in the edit summary
box."
-----
All of these were violated by Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang when they
deleted my addition.
8) On "Wikiquette" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiquette),
under "Principles of Wikipedia etiquette":
a) "Assume the best about people whenever possible."
Texture and Oberiko assumed I was malicious (or so they said; I think
they were just being partisan).
b) "Avoid reverting and deleting" and "Amend, edit, discuss."
Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang reverted and deleted without discussion.
c) "Be polite."
Examples of their impoliteness are on my talk page, in edit summaries,
and in the reason Oberiko gave for blocking me.
d) "Don't ignore questions."
Questions I asked in edit summaries and on Texture's talk page were
ignored by Texture, which I see s/he's done elsewhere too.
--------------------------------------------------
Phew. Hope that helps. I'm feeling pretty glazed now. I'll catch up
with you all later.
Best,
James
............................................................................
James Marshall james(a)jmarshall.com Berkeley, CA @}-'-,--
"Teach people what you know."
............................................................................
I don't get it, Timwi. Correct me if my perception is wrong, but it's
like you're against cheers and pats on the back. PLEASE correct me.
Yeah, when someone bothers to leave me a note about how they liked my
article or photo, I'm happy, but I consider myself fortunate to have
huge amounts of experience with both writing and photography; if the
plaudits I've earned by exemplary performance (no humility here) are
reflective of what the "average" writer/illustrator gets, then there's a
pathetically abyssmal level of feedback and encouragement going on. We
have lost, or so it would seem, two talented and capable writers in the
last month because it's easier to bitch and criticise than to support
and praise. Or at least to yell "patent nonsense" when we should have
just kept our bleeding gobs shut until we had bothered to determine
whether or not we were peeing on our own shoes.
As an easy example, try this: SETI Online offers online certificates for
work units completed. I am coming up on certificate four - 1000 work
units - and I'm excited. Work for SETI? Zero. Their web page (or a
counting applet attached) counts the returned work units and
automatically adds access to new certificates as I am eligible for them.
We have some crackerjack coders here who could, I'm sure, easily
implement a routine to do such a thing. Volunteer work (pick me!!) can
design 500 edits/1000 edits/2000 edits etc. certificates, and then it's
all up to the editor to download certs as they show up on his /her
userpage. (I can print as many 100 workunits as I want - it's my
printer, my ink, and my money. I could paper my walls or send one to all
my friends. What does it cost Wiki? Does zero sound like a good number
to you?)
Timwi, Wiki has to be in part about the fun of doing it, and that
=somebody= sees and appreciates the effort you're contributing. That is
one area where Wiki could do a vastly better job. E2 has a chatbox, so
community links can develop quickly and effectively (they also have a
bunch of level 3+ editors who need a good cuff on the side of the head
for the way they treat newbies, but that's another topic). Village Pump
is not exactly chat, and IRC, as wonderful as I'm sure it is, is
prodigiously threatening to the newbie user. The only contact with other
Wikipedians is what the newbie initiates herself/himself.
I don't know how best this can be done. Do we create a WikiCommittee
whose job it is to track users and drop comments on their user page? Do
we ask a codejunkie to write a script to autogenerate certificate
messages? Help me out here, allies. Whatever we do, if anything, I offer
my assistance, because the more welcome we make good writers feel, the
longer they stay, and the more welcome we make weak writers feel, the
stronger they get.
Denni
--
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. " -- Pablo
Picasso
I'd just like to thank James for his persistence and patience in dealing
with this situation. James, you've been unfailingly courteous
throughout, and have backed your concerns up with solid research. I feel
that, whatever may have happened to precipitate the incident, you have
convinced me that your actions were reasonable and that if there were
any errors on your part, you've done the besr thing which can be done
with errors - learned from them. Continue the good work. And oh, yes, I
also think Reagan's "trickle down" economics had an unmistakable odor
and a distinctly yellow hue.
Denni
--
"Computers are stupid They only know the answers." -- Pablo Picasso
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Visit my Wikipedia user page at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3ADwindrim
Do you ICQ? I do - 276534369 Magpie
Robert,
I care. And I wish the committees would take a stronger stand against
people who threaten or otherwise attempt to intimidate Wikipedians. Time
was when Daniel (mav) would refer these matters to the police. But now
there are endless wrangles, which wind up being more a debate on what
rules are proper or investigations into the character of the
rule-enforcers -- than putting a stop to abuse.
Fred, Mav, are you going to help Robert, or do I have to call Jimbo?
Ed Poor
> This could be solved by awarding users with, for
> example, most articles that
> made it to the main page. They are already
> pre-selected by humans as good
> articles.
>
I strongly dislike this idea, for two reasons. First
of all, it kind of implies ownership of articles.
I've never written a featured article, but I've done
major copyedits to some of them. This seems to imply
that my cleaning is less valuable than other work. It
implies that one author or several "own" the article,
and that I'm around as a junior partner.
That leads to my second objection. It would be hard
to build any kind of award system that didn't reward
one type of editing over another. For instance, I'm
not a huge fan of writing articles. I've not started
nearly as many as some here, and the ones I have
started are, for the most part, not as detailed. On
the other hand, I'm right up there in terms of
NPOVing, cleaning up phrasing, activity on cleanup, RC
Patrol, etc. How can we avoid bias in awards such
that one type of activity (say, activity on
[[Wikipedia:Cleanup]]) isn't rewarded more or less
heavily than another (say, writing detailed
biographies of historical figures).
IMO, any kind of award system we adopt (if any) should
be strictly informal--if we adopt one at all. Given
that our other major problem seems to be excluding new
users, maybe we shouldn't have this at all. I'm not
sure this is necessary, but if it is, it should be
strictly limited.
=====
"The difference between extra-marital sex and extra marital sex is not to be sneezed at."
--George Will, on hyphen use
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>>I don't know how best this can be done. Do we create a WikiCommittee
>>whose job it is to track users and drop comments on their user page? Do
>>we ask a codejunkie to write a script to autogenerate certificate
>>messages? Help me out here, allies. Whatever we do, if anything, I offer
>>my assistance, because the more welcome we make good writers feel, the
>>longer they stay, and the more welcome we make weak writers feel, the
>>stronger they get.
>
>What we need, quite simply, is for people to drop notes on other users
>talk pages saying "hey, that's some great work you've been doing there!"
>I've been doing some of that myself, _I_ enjoy doing it, and I'm sure that
>the recipients are happy too. So my advice: more of that. Less talking on
>mailing lists about awards and certificates, less organising of
>committees, just get out there and leave the personal message saying "well
>done!"
I'll admit, my editing tends to go in spurts: I'll spend a day or two
creating swathes of new text (creating or greatly expanding articles) --
then I'll spend another three to ten days doing "housecleaning" - typo
patrols, Cleanup pages, disambiguation, lately the Orphaned Categories
page. Why? Because I hope against hope that the major contributions I
made will be at least be noticed to the extent that someone fixes a typo or
adds an external link, and I wait, patiently checking my watchlist, for a
few days before I'm convinced (and discouraged) that a new article has
vanished into the ether. It certainly feels like the housework gets more
credit; at least, I'm more likely to get feedback when I clean up someone
else's article. (I know, I know about article ownership.) I'm not
exemplary about complimenting people either (and it's always easier to do
so via the edit summary than actually going to their user page), but I'll
make more of an effort. I just wanted to add my two cents -- I've been a
steady editor for a year and a half, and I know exactly what others are
saying about feeling like giving up sometimes because no one notices what
you do unless you're a troll, or deliberately seek out controversial areas,
or participate in every policy discussion.
the quiet one in the back,
Catherine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CatherineMunro