On 2 Dec 2007 13:26:24 -0500, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The way these inquiries are traditionally done is that one submerges
> the person being queried under water for a period of time; if they do
> not drown, then they are a witch and are burned at the stake, whereas
> if they do drown, it proves their innocence, and their souls go
> straight up to heaven. Win-win!
It seems too much of a pain... after immersing them in the water, you
end up having to take a lot of time drying them out before they'll
burn well.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 02/12/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/12/2007, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> > At 10:46 +0000 2/12/07, Gordon Joly wrote:
> > >Jimmy Wales has been invited to speak at this month's event.
> > >http://www.eu.socialtext.net/wikiwed/index.cgi?london_wikiwed_5_december_20…
> OK. Shall we can the Shakespeare's Head and just go for this?
> (Don't forget prebooking!)
I've posted the above to [[Wikipedia:Meetup/London]]. WikiWednesday it
shall be. Then pub.
- d.
Exactly how are newbies *supposed* to act? If they come in all
clueless, blundering around ineptly, they're likely to get bitten,
especially if something they say or do in the course of their random
flailing is (mis)interpreted as a personal attack or legal threat,
getting them into a spiral towards indef banning they have no easy
way of averting given their lack of knowledge of all the arcane rules
and procedures that get tossed at them.
On the other hand, if they act like they know what they're doing, and
actually get through any of the convoluted procedural stuff
correctly, that proves they're a sockpuppet. Ban them!
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
per dg...... "
>Nah. Geni and Genisock2 are openly the same person, so if you don't vote
twice or whatever you're fine. (And if you do the reasonable first
assumption would be >that it was a mistake on your part, rather than
malice.) "
The principle prohibiting interaction in wiki space with anything other than
a 'main' account has come from my arb case.
I would say therefore that it's very important to note that in my case,
being both open about the accounts' connection (thepmaccount, BigOleBarry -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigOleBarry ) and it never being asserted
by anyone that any voting twice, or any kind of appearance of multiple
voices occurred, I was found to have breached policy seriously enough to
warrant a 90 day ban.
On 02/12/2007, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Still fails. I sometimes use Genisock2 in copyright debates and the
> like simply because I got to that page while using that account and
> don't feel like switching browsers.
>Nah. Geni and Genisock2 are openly the same person, so if you don't vote
twice or whatever you're fine. (And if you do the reasonable first
assumption would be >that it was a mistake on your part, rather than
malice.)
>
>
>- d.
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l<http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
>
An attempt after 12+ hours to respond, with relevant information, and
personal comment.
Many thanks for your consideration in allowing this post to be submitted to
the list.
To Guy - but really addressing my views on the core of the current painful
split,
I feel that your responses typify the core of the problem - not just between
you and I, but between what could sadly be described as the 'two camps'.
When I sent you private information, asked you honestly and politely not to
share it - what you failed to respect was my trust in you. The rights and
wrongs and subsequent findings of fact do not alter the fact that you
behaved unethically in breaching that trust. The ends do not justify the
means.
Durova has fallen foul of this also - of course a 75 minute block hasn't
harmed anyone's actual editing, but it does enormous harm to the culture and
atmosphere of all editing to think that a 'trusted' admin is prepared to
write and distribute such material. Enourmous harm, Guy - surely you can see
that, befuddled as you may be by it?
In actual fact, you move a step beyond befuddlement, I kinda sense a
righteous indignation which again is entirely misplaced, devoid as it is of
any reflection, or true self-awareness.
I am not questioning your sanity, character, good faith or editing - I'm
questioning your approach to an issue you care deeply about - harassment of
others - because I sincerely believe that you are doing more harm than good.
You shouldn't have shared private information that was submitted to you in
trust.
Please consider the self-evident truth of that statement.
take care,
PM.
here's a copy of the email for the sake of openess;
****************************************
Hi Guy,
I would ask you to treat the following with the utmost discretion, I'd feel
it to be a violation for this to be discussed with anyone (particularly
other wiki editors) except those named below, and at the moment I really am
trying to do the right thing.
what follows is an email I sent El_C when he or she made a similar request
to find out a little more about where I'm coming from;
Just off the bat, my name is Peter - I don't think we've met before, but I
have had some interactions with Geogre and Bishonen (whom i respect
enormously) and have noticed you at their talk pages, as well as at various
places throughout the wiki. Please treat the following information
confidentially, but feel free to forward / discuss any aspects with Bishonen
or Geogre privately if you'd like (they are aware of my editing history up
to, but not including the 'Privatemusings' account, which I'm happy for you
to discuss with them)
Here's the rundown on my editing history at wiki with the reasons behind it;
First account : Petesmiles
A nickname I've used for many years, so the name I used when i signed up an
account in mid 2005. This account is fairly easily traceable to my real
name.
I became interested in the wiki political world through the essjay incident,
and was concerned enough about his behaviour to try and urge him to attend
to the matter before it exploded - because of the likely heat of the
situation, i created my second account : 'Purples' (the name of a long
standing stuffed companion of mine, if that's not too much information!).
I let Bishonen, Georgre, and Paul August know that Purples was also
Petesmiles, and asked for their discretion because of the ease of connection
between Petesmiles and my identity.
Purples was therefore a role account at that point, but I eventually decided
to retire Petesmiles all together a couple of months ago, and continue my
wiki gnomish activity as Purples (it was nice to meet FloNight, another
current Arb. whilst editing the Jonathan King article).
Purples having become my sole article account, I decided when getting more
involved in the external link issues ('badsites' etc.) to create a sock,
Privatemusings, for the reasons stated on the PM user page.
Before creating this role account, I had posted one small comment on the
arb. case here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio…
I hope you'll agree that that post doesn't represent a substantial muddying
of the waters......
So that's me in a nutshell - do feel free to get in touch for any reason,
privately if referring to any specific information, or on-wiki would be
preferred. Bishonen was kind enough to drop this note as a reference in the
past, which really helped keep the discussion on the rails - but I'm not
sure that any such step is required at the mo......
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attack…
best,
Pete.
************************************
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:45:16 +1100, "private musings"
< thepmaccount(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>The fact that you were 'right' about my misdeeds in no way alters the
>nature of your unethical behaviour.
No, my behaviour was ethical. I asked a few trusted friends for advice
before blocking one of your accounts. That is a sane and reasonable thing
to do.
>Nor does it excuse the Arb.s currently voting from failing to disclose
>any prejudicial discussion (is it really due process to expect Arb.s
>who have already 'sanity checked' your decision in advance of your
>block, to then 'review' that block, and further 'vote' in the arb case?
>- that's a real triple whammy.)
No such declaration is necessary. I asked a simple question: in your
opinion, is this valid use of an alternate account? Having ventured an
opinion once does not disqualify them form venturing the same opinion again,
especially when more evidence of even more accounts is brought to the table.
You seem to think that restricting someone who has used multiple accounts
disruptively and made careless and controversial edits to sensitive articles
in some way damages the arbitration committee's credibility. I would argue
that the opposite is true: failure to do so would damage their credibility.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
User:Andplus posted an excellent analysis of the disproportionate level
of proposed remedies in this whole affair on [[Wikipedia talk:Requests
for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision]] which I shall
quote for ya all to consider.
"The attack on !! in the email was a pretty through job, and one that
would seem to breach many of the policies and guidelines that Giano is
accused of breaching. In my opinion, it is worse than anything Giano
did, as while I can see many of his comments resulting from a rush to
comment before the discussion was sidelined, the mail was obviously
complied at leisure (and distributed to a wider audience with at least
two weeks to be considered and revised before it was made public).
Unfortunately the character assassination of !! occurred off-site, so
the Committee has no authority to issue sanctions against its author.
Giano's offence was to post his comments on-site. Had he gone to another
site, he could have viciously attacked all and sundry, and the community
could have shaken its collective head in disgust and gone back to
editing, safe in the knowledge that such horrible behaviour was outside
the Committee's jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, the case came to Arbitration in this unequal state:
Giano's actions could be dealt with because he kept his argument
"in-house", Durova's could not because she took advantage of off-site
communication.
As a result Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions. The
argument from her supporters seems to be that she was punished in having
to resign her admin bit and being made to look foolish. An admin bit is
not some shield that can be used to deflect a blow, something we can
drop in lieu of a sanction. Should we issue Giano with an admin bit so
he can be forced to give it up as punishment? As for being made to look
foolish, I dare say that has happened to all of us at some point, but it
is of our own making. That somebody points out how foolish we have been
is perhaps unkind, but had we not been foolish they would not have had
the opportunity. Aside from that, I would hope that the Committee is in
the business of remedies rather than punishments.
For Giano, on the other hand, the Committee has almost unlimited scope
to apply remedies. He has no admin bit to strip, he has no "off-site"
justification for his actions, his actions clearly fall under the remit
of the Committee. He can be banned, blocked, restricted and probably
more. This does not mean it is right to apply such sanctions in the face
of such an obvious deficiency the Committee's authority. Balance is
important here, as is the message sent to the community by the decision
(see my questions to Mackensen for the message I perceive as being sent
from the proposed decision). I do not wish Durova punished: a remedy
should not be a punishment. Instead, I would urge the Arbitrators to
vote against any remedy for Giano that applies a more rigorous sanction
to him than those applied to Durova, and I applaud those who have
already done so.
As a side note, I found this while looking at Wikipedia:Former
administrators, which seems to point to action being possible even when
posting takes place off-site [18]. On the Former administrators page it
says the action was carried out per an ArbCom decision. Perhaps one of
the Arbitrators could clarify their jurisdiction. Andplus (talk) 11:09,
30 November 2007 (UTC)"
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen at shaw.ca
Sat Dec 1 01:29:44 UTC 2007
I'm an example of someone who had no idea SlimVirgin was connected to
this until much later on and yet had his confidence shaken from the
get-go. Even now I think my reaction would be little different if none
of the names of the players involved had turned out to be familiar.
-------------------
For the record, and I hope for the last time, I am *not* involved in
this. I didn't read Durova's links about !! when she posted them to
the cyberstalking list. I saw no block proposal. I didn't comment in
the thread. I didn't tacitly or explicitly approve of a block. I
didn't know about it until after the fact. And I've never defended it.
Apart from that, it's probably all my fault.
Sarah
"Ron Ritzman" wrote
> The "newbie" might be a long time anon editor who finally took common
> advice and registered an account.
>
> The "newbie" might have experience on other wikis.
>
> The "newbie" might have started out using his real meatspace name,
> which is common on some classic wikis such as Meatball but thought
> twice about it due to net.kooks who like to make trouble for people in
> real life.
In a couple of weeks, add "they bought the book and read it".
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
... makes the news; sadly admin bites random user doesn't.
See [[WP:RFAR#Matthew_Hoffman]] for a fascinating debate (leaving aside the merits of the case).
My hope is that this is the first shot in the way against biting the newbie, a prominent topic at Wikimania 2007.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam