WikiEN-l June 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

77 participants
271 discussions

please appologize from kils
by uwe kils 03 Jun '03

03 Jun '03

To all who were concerned: Please accept my appologizes, I did not mean to hurt anybody. It was not meant the way many felt. I lost, nobody picked up the case. But as a good loser I will keep on cooperating and endorsing wikipedia (as on the teacher page of our server ecoscope.com). I do not want the sysop status anymore. Good luck with your project - Uwe Kils

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] re: Viking ban
by daniwo59＠aol.com 03 Jun '03

03 Jun '03

In a message dated 6/2/2003 7:09:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, jwales(a)bomis.com writes: > , 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. > I want to second that. I do not like these ban pages as a place to complain about other users. Remember, bans are only a last resort and one that is taken only after careful consideration. This also tends to make the banning process more accessible, in my mind. Danny

2 1

blocking of erased page viking
by uwe kils 03 Jun '03

03 Jun '03

Dear Mr. Moeller! I asked you to erase my talk page which you reverted even though I erased some of it as invited sysop. Instead of doing it you threat me now you will leave it up longer and even blocked it, opend the ugly content of [[user:Mbecker]] discussions and threat me that only if I voluntarily let go of the sysop status you will open the "protection". If you think you can take these liberties as a developer and act accordingly I ask you hereby to immediately erase the whole user:kils page or immediately give me back my sysop status so I can do it. I am not willing to appear in a project which hosts images like the clitoris.jpg on http://www.wikipedia.org/upload/archive/1/19/20030520015715! Clitoris.jpg , which is a clear conflict with USA pornography law, probably even copyright law. This image has been mounted by your partner Michael Becker [[user:Mbecker]] who made a motion to ban our viking project. After I read as administrator that six users on the sysop mailing list requested to ban viking I did what they asked me for as sysop. As soon as the pornographic content is gone and some other pages are edited to be within the rules again I might discuss with BOMIS CEO about a further cooperation as editor and the reason for the pause. Sincerely yours Dr. Uwe Kils [[User:Kils|Kils]] 03:28 1 Jun 2003 (UTC) ------------------------- Dr. Uwe Kils 161 South Concord Terrace 08205 Galloway New Jersey USA kils(a)comcast.net 001 609 748 9693

4 3

blanket reverts
by Daniel Ehrenberg 03 Jun '03

03 Jun '03

I don't think the blanket reverting efforts directed at Michael are good. I went through the contrabutions of 24.130.213.24x (those of you reverting know who I'm talking about) and many, if not most, of his edits were useful and even factual. I will be un-reverting all of his useful edits, but only after fact checking. --LittleDan __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com

15 26

Requesting sysop access - CGS
by Tony Wilson 03 Jun '03

03 Jun '03

CGS is one of the good guys. Seconded. He will be an asset to the team. Tony (Tannin) (By the way, what happened to the nomination for JTDirl? That one seems to have fallen through the cracks. It's been ages.)

7 13

re: Viking ban
by Karim Moussally 03 Jun '03

03 Jun '03

Just a little note. In the interest of fairness I wanted to state that it may not be strictly true that no one objects to the ban on User:Viking. I believe User:Triton may. The following is from Triton on my Talk page (now archived at User Talk:Dante Alighieri/clovis et al.): Take a look now at the new way of humiliating a user. A new file has been made called <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viking/ban>User talk:Viking/ban that will keep showing up on the Recent Changes list as many times as their attacker(s) wish. When someone not involved sees that, what is the impression of UserViking? Now, I don't know for CERTAIN that this means Triton objects to the ban, but I certainly would want to give Triton the chance to clarify himself. I wouldn't want his comments to go unheard and risk us banning Viking without giving anyone who cares to defend him a chance to do so. Let's not ban Viking until we give Triton a clear chance to voice himself. I would hate for Triton to go unheard. ----- Karim Moussally kmoussally(a)cal.berkeley.edu "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." -Albert Einstein, attributed

2 1

Beating a dead horse
by Zoe 02 Jun '03

02 Jun '03

I deleted [[Conflict (band)]] because it was created by Micheal. Admittedly, it had a lot of Quercusrober's additions, but it was a Michael creation. GrahamN put it on [[Votes for undeletion]], and Camembert undeleted it. I have redeleted it and put the information back in my name that Quercusrobur added. Will people PLEASE quit recreating Michael entries? And I don't appreciate being character assassinated by people like GrahamN. Zoe __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com

3 2

User Michael and ways to deal with him
by Tony Wilson 02 Jun '03

02 Jun '03

I just want to reiterate my full support for Zoe on this one. Zoe (and several other good Wikicitizens) have been implementing a soft ban on our misguided friend with the dynamic IP. People, we *can't* implement a hard ban. At least not without banning several good and useful contributors as well. On the whole, much as I'd like to see the back of our socially-challemged friend, I'd rather contribute to a Wikipedia that had Micheal around than a Wikipedia that managed to ban him only at the expense of banning Danny as well! If Mav's suggestion of complaining to AOL works, then great! But I won't hold my breath for that. The soft ban is the answer. Zoe and about six or eight others (incuding me) have taken to ruthlessly reverting *everything* that Michael posts. We don't bother reading it or tying to work out if it contains a shred of fact or not (with Michael's stuff, this is damn near impossible anyway - in 10 minutes he can post up enough of that devilishly twisted mixture of fact and fiction to keep two or three copy-editors busy checking on "facts" and correcting 50% of them for several hours). None of us have time for that idiocy: the only sensible way to deal with Michael is to revert on sight and without compunction. Three clicks and the 'pedia is idiocy-free once more, and *you* are back to working on something *useful* again. Best of all, because it only takes a few moments and hardly any thought at all to blanket-revert Michael edits (excuse me while I shout this bit) ... WE REVERSE THE BURDEN OF LABOUR! For the first time, it's harder for him than it is for us. Instead of *us* taking hours to clean up the mess that *he* creates in mere minutes, when we just revert Michael unread and on sight, we can undo his many minutes of creative vandalism in just a few seconds. I know he's a determined little horror, but no-one can push that sort of load uphill for too long. Hell, if I was Tsar Jimbo, I think I'd un-ban his user names in the hope that he started posting as "Michael" or "No-FX" again - 'cause that just makes it easier to spot Michael edits and revert them. Anything he can post in an hour, Zoe can rollback in three minutes flat. Or me. Or Quercus. Or *you*. Let's all pitch in, people. Think of it as an experiment in psychology. How long would *you* keep on making contributions to the 'pedia for if every single edit you ever made was reverted without coment inside of ten minutes? Tony Wilson (Tannin)

12 24

Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fred's supposed nasty comment from JTDirl
by james duffy 02 Jun '03

02 Jun '03

*sigh* this is rediculous. For the record, Fred and I disagreed strongly on the issue of [[Communist state]]. However I sought to compromise 1. by creating a special link page for the stuff he tried to to add to Communist state. Most academics on reading what he was writing would have binned it or given it an 'f' grade. I didn't. I created a special page whereby his ideas could be explored, worked on and re-written by wikipedia users, INCLUDING FRED. 2. I went further and told him, as he had a 'problem' with me, that I would not edit the page but leave it to others. My only role on that page was to reinstate it when another user kept deleting it and moving its text elsewhere. 3. When I saw that a goggle page contained a statement I thought unfair to Fred, out of professional courtesy and a desire to ensure that his professional reputation was not tarnished by the that statement (which was written by another user over THEIR experience of his behaviour) I CONTACTED HIM, told him of the page, suggested ways by which that link could be broken, etc. (And suggested that he should remove my comments from his page with my backing just in case a google search ever threw up a another link to the issue, my attempt to inform him of the original link, which was now on his talk page.) For all of this, I have enduring character assassination - I have been compared by a Holocaust denier, accused of being a communist, accused of bullying, and in the last case, accused of writing a 'nasty comment' on his page. Tannin and 172 have been similarly slandered and smeared. For the record: I have disagreed strongly with Stevertigo over a page, yet we have worked together subsequently and I welcomed him back when he reappeared lately. I disagreed with Taku over the renamining of Japanese emperors. Nevertheless, when he began a process of sorting out the situation I wished him all the best and we both effectively agree on a solution to the problem. Our current disagreement now involved subtle nuances on the solution, not fundamental points and I have supported his proposed solution. I have regularly expressed my respect for Mav yet we have disagreed on issues. Yet I continue to work with him, seek his advice, ask him to look at pages I have worked on. I did on one occasion disagree with Zoe and agree with Susan Mason. I disagreed with Mintguy over soccer, yet work well with him and he has asked me to look at particular pages, as I have asked him. And contrary to the impression Fred has, I have disagreed with 172 on a number of pages, notably [[Robert Mugabe]]. Put simply, I have not hidden my disagreement but never EVER waged a campaign against anyone, with the exception of repeatedly banned trolls. I have disagreed with people on a Monday, worked closely with them on a Tuesday, etc. (I even told Dietary Fiber that I did not care that they were Adam/Lir and I would work with them if they didn't slip back to the Adamesque standard of behaviour. But unfortunately they did!) Even after Fred made comments than in Ireland would have allowed me to sue him for defamation, I have tried and tried and tried to be constructive with him. In response all I have got is more slander, more wild accusations and more ludicrous claims. I will continue to try to work with Fred, even if establishing a working relationship with him seems like trying to climb Mount Everest backward in the nude. :-) But it would be nice if once, Fred showed the same spirit of comradeship and stopped engaging in patently absurd levels of abuse. I will work on anyone on wiki. 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. And if for one he actually apologised for something like that mentioned below that he got so patently, absurdly and obviously wrong. JD >Fred Bauder wrote: >OK, as to that point. I do admit to fear. However, for whatever reason >Tannin, 172, have more or less creased the behavior I complained of. I >doubt >they are "cured", but I think enough attention has been directed to the >matter. > >Fred > >I wrote > > > For the record: > > > > 1. I left no nasty comment on Fred's page. When checking out how wiki >list > > references show up on google, I came upon on rather nasty link that >exists > > regarded Fred Bauder. I left a message on his page telling him of the >link > > because I thought as a colleague that he should know it existed. I told >him > > that though we had disagreements I thought that particular link was >wrong > > and unfair to him. I suggested that if we blocked list pages from google > > searches, that link might disappear. It was something that I had written >on > > the list about, and I thought then and believe now that that unfair link >to > > Fred's name highlighted the dangers of direct links to the list. I made > > other suggestions as to how we could avoid anyone else being wronged in >the > > way Fred was being in that google search. Finally I suggested that, in >case > > a new link connected to that message from me on his wiki page and so >gave > > another source to the reference to 'Fred Bauder and academic >dishonesty', he > > should feel free to delete my message. How is that nasty? > > > > 2. My name is FearÉireann, which meaning in gaelic ''Man of Ireland'', >the > > gaelic version of my previous english language usernic, ÉIREman. I >thought > > it fitting to use my national language in my usernic. > > > > 3. Lol was intended to mean, as it does and is used by many wiki users, > > 'Lots of love', ie, an expression of goodwill. > > > > I fail to see where Fred's paranoia about my message came from. All I >did > > was tell a colleague that I had come across an unfair google link to >them > > and made it clear just how unfair I thought it was, as well as making a > > suggestion about how that link could be broken. I cannot understand how >an > > act of professional courtesy and concern for the reputation of a >colleague > > could be seen as a 'nasty comment'. > > > > JT _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

1 0

Fred Bauder's slanders must stop : an open letter
by Tony Wilson 02 Jun '03

02 Jun '03

Listen sport, its way past time you pulled your head in and started to act like a responsible Wikipedian. I have not "ceased doing" *any* bloody thing. Why not? Because it's a bit bloody hard to stop doing something you haven't *started* doing in the first place. But if you'll take a momemt to remind me of whatever ridiculous bloody acussation it is that you have in mind this time - your constant stream of nasty personal comments is long on innuendo and short on evidence, logic or sense - then maybe I should take a little while out to make sure that I START doing whatever ludicrous thing it is that you have taken it into your blinkerd mind to accuse me of this time.I am really fucking sick of it. No more slandering Wikipedia contributors, Fred. Got it? It is bad form. It is contrary to the goals of this community. It makes *you* look like a blathering fool. And it makes decent people extremely fucking angry. Tony Wilson (Tannin)

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l June 2003