Re: [WikiEN-l] please appologize from kils
Mon, 2 Jun 2003 17:57:32 -0700
Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
Apology accepted. I encourage you to join us in a discussion of
how to deal with sensitive topics. It's not an easy question.
Dear Jimmy, dear wikipedians,
thank you very much for accepting.
Please allow me to suggest that you please delete our user viking and
vikings from the English, German and Danish and Norwegian and Swedish
sites. We meant it only good and work for education, we took your
inivtations to edit and try the possibilities out serious. We never
thaught seriously that the edit with the "viking fist" from an
anonymous user would survive more than a few seconds. Your system works
and it works very democratic, which I admire, and which I counted on. I
offer also that you please delete also the user kils from the same
sites. After a while I maybe log in again and offer content under a new
username for your editing.
sincerely yours and best wishes
> We revert Michael's edits, but we don't delete a page
> just because he edited it and his name'll be in the history.
> Quercusrobur should have erased Michael's discography
> when (or better, before, to keep things separated out)
> he put in his own text,
You are right, I should have done. In the event I decided to redo the
discography from scratch rather than check for Michael's accuracy or
otherwise and didn't even refer to it, so subtle are some of his 'mistakes'
and 'mis-information' (I must admit that at first I gave the Michael version
Conflict discography a quick scan through and thought, 'hmmm that looks
about right' and left it without applying the rigour I would have applied to
any alterations to the Crass discography (where I would KNOW of any errors
Graham Burnett (Quercus robur)
PS. I've been thinking about applying for sysop editing access purely in
order to be able to delete junk entries without having to put them on 'votes
for deletion' and saving some work and hassle for someone else. But I'm keen
to avoid the 'politics' of sysop-hood, I have enough of those sort of
hassles in real life!
Jimbo said: "I, too, object strongly to this practice of creating '/ban' pages as a
place to complain about people. It seems likely to escalate a
conflict rather than to resolve it."
response copied to [[meta:talk:bans and blocks]], for those who miss the "edit this
page" button. I know I do. :-)
Can we, between ourselves, find a better solution than /ban pages? Prior to my
(groundbreaking ;-) creation of the first ever /ban page, best practice seemed to edit
[[wikipedia:annoying users]], [[wikipedia:vandalism in progress]], [[user talk:USER
NAME]], [[wikipedia:village pump]], any and all talk pages for articles that the user in
question had edited, various talk pages of interested sysops ("I think it's Fred", "I
agree - it's Fred", "It's definitely Fred!", etc), and also to make long posts to the
mailing list in which one is either "shocked", "appalled", or (ideally) "shocked and
My desires were:
* Single place for discussion - if I want to know "Why was Fred banned?", I should be
able to go to *one* Wikipedia page, read it, and be enlightened.
* Avoid/discourage redundant discussions
* Ability to refactor away redundancy
* Ability to delete page when a banned user is reinstated, or when calls for banning
subside and the sweet voice of reason prevails
Alternatives I can think of immediately:
* Do it on the user talk page
* Have a different name for the page (eg /complaints, /problems, ...)
* Do it on a subpage of [[wikipedia:annoying users]] (eg [[wikipedia:annoying
-Martin "Never met a vandal he didn't like" Harper (aka MyRedDice)
For what it's worth, I support JTDirl as a sysop. I don't think that JTD
was being rude to FB on his page, I think that perhaps FB isn't looking at
it in the same light that it was intended.
On a side note, even if it WAS rude, if ever being rude was a valid reason
to deny someone sysop status, then a WHOLE bunch of sysops are in SERIOUS
trouble. lol (laughing out loud, remember? You DID go read [[leet]], didn't
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
-Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Jtdirl stated: Most academics on reading what [Fred Bauder] was writing would have binned it or given it an 'f' grade.
Jtdirl then stated: It would be nice for once Fred showed even the slightest willingness to work with me, rather than stooping to personal
abuse, slander and defamation.
This is the sort of hypocrisy that us "troll vandals from hell" are referring to when we speak of the cabal and its disinformation and blatant lying.
It is absurd beyond belief that this sort of behavior continues. What next? Will Fred be the next vandal troll from hell? Almost certainly he is next on their hit list.
Let me say: It would be nice for once if Jtdirl showed even the slightest willingness to work with me (or anyone else outside of his tight clique of Tannin, mav, zoe, 172, & co), rather than stooping to personal abuse, slander and defamation - something which he manages to do in nearly everything he writes.
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
I have temporarily revoked Kils' sysop status on en:, someone with
developer status on de: may want to do the same. Explanation:
In the last few days, a user named "Viking" has vandalized/downsized a
couple of articles he considered "indecent" (especially the [[fisting]]
article), threatened people not to question what he is doing if they
didn't have "administrator status" and then left (there was a brief
discussion of a possible ban). Kils subsequently deleted Viking's user and
talk pages and explained it was an "experiment of his children".
I asked him for details, he responded and then *deleted his talk page*
before I could read his response. I restored the talk page and there was
the following response.
Eloquence: I confirm this - I do not think any had the quality of
vandlism, otherwise I would have stepped in. We were concerned that a
"handbook type" with direct instructions to certain practises on certain
pages was endangering the reputation of wikipeia and of us as visible
contributers and cooperators. A first thing many teachers and professors
for example do, before they endorse or use a web based project in class or
with students/parents, is to search for ugly content within. And there was
some, and as we were supported by responses of colleagues with the right
background it was beyond the rules of wikipedia - young vikings are often
of very spontaneous mannors, I advised them to do things different, but
then we are also very democratic. they plan to do it different now - we
could have done everything anonymous, but we did not - from that you can
deduct that we all are interested in communication and construction - we
are all astonished how much time you spent in the wikipedia project
(Anerkennung!) you seem to need only very little sleep - best greetings
across the ocean (from the USA) from uwe kils - user Kils 18:50 31 May
It seems quite clear that Uwe Kils shares Viking's standard of "decency"
regarding Wikipedia articles and feels that material e.g. about specific
sexual practices is inappropriate. In light of his actions, I do not trust
him to be a sysop anymore.
In spite of my objections, this should normally go through discussion
first before the status is revoked, but I am worried that Kils might
delete more pages, and it seemed like an appropriate safety measure. I
also wanted to allow others to take a look at his user talk page to have a
track record, and this was not possible with him being a sysop, because
then I could not protect the page or stop him from deleting it. If anyone
feels that Kils must be a sysop again, please post.
Dear Tuf-Kat -
Thanks so much for the lovely gift. I hope you have fun on your travels
and are able to keep in touch. Sadly, however, I must allow that,
although I often feel like I look like Charlize Theron, the truth is
somewhat more strong-featured and European-looking. Oh, and I must say
that Kemp is not my maiden name. Still, you totally made my day, dude!
Take care, and I hope the others liked their presents, too!
>Why does everyone oppose advertizing? I it's descrete enough, it's not intrusive and doesn't lower our credibility.
I'll give you 10 reasons.
1: Because there is absolutely NOTHING you can do to stop a link
between advertising and influence/control over content establishing
2: Because in the post hi-tech stock market crash environment, on-line
advertising rates often don't even pay for the bandwidth the ads
3: Because the small number of advertisers remaining take advantage of
the buyers' market to demand (and get) unacceptable types of
advertising, involving one or more usually all of the folowing
obnoxious things: pop-ups, data-mining cookies, Shockwave, and Flash
4: Because users have to pay per MB bandwidth charges to look at ads
they don't want to see.
5: Because many of our best contributors will walk out in disgust
6: Because a lot of contrbutors are doing a lot of hard work to create
a non-commercial resource of real value. If someone comes along and
says, "oh no, all those countless hours you donated to a free comunity
project, well, one day I'm going to turn around and use your sweat to
make a dollar" then my contribution stops right here and right now.
Ditto for a lot of other people. And if Jimbo pulls the pin one day and
we need money to keep going, then I'll put my hand in my pocket and
help out. Better yet, I'll just provide the hardware, and let some
other people pitch in to provide the bandwidth. (I own a computer shop:
I have any amount of hardware.)
7: Because a site that carries advertising, even if i is still run on a
non-profit basis, would find it much more difficult to persuade people
to release material to it, in particular images.
8: Because the relentless urge some people have to commercialise every
last damn thing on the planet is personally offensive: to me, and to a
great many other people - especially the sort of people who love
9: Because this is an encyclopedia, not a second-rate imitation of
10: Just because