I'm not apologizing. My protection of the page was justified. It received support beforehand and I have since noticed that it has been defended.
BTW, this comment on the mailing list by Jimmy Wales seems to support my action: "Sysops should generally not edit a page that has been protected due to
a dispute, whether or not they were involved in the edit war to start
with. I say "generally not" because of course there can be
exceptions, for example rolling back to a version before the edit war
might be useful in some cases, or attempting a one-shot temporary
compromise."
What I did followed the guidelines, according to the exceptions Mr. Wales explained above. My edits only rolled back to a version before the edit war, the version without the incoherent, poorly written essay. Before the edit war, I had not even read the page, let alone edit it.
When my sysop privileges are reinstated, I promise to continue following the protected page guidelines.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
Because he protected a page in an edit war/heated discussion in which he
was involved -- see [[Talk:Catholicism]] -- I have temporarily revoked
172's sysop privileges. I would not have done so if he had followed my
advice not to do it again, but after I unprotected the page he immediately
reprotected it, and there is no point in engaging in "protection wars" --
we should be clear about the guidelines we follow.
Note that I was not substantially involved in the relevant discussion, but
I am generally on 172's side; the edits were desperately in need of work.
However, sysops are not editors, and should not use their privileges to
enforce their own views. If the page should have been protected, it should
have been done by an independent third party. This is what our protected
page policy has said for months.
I am also concerned by the definitely non-Wikiquette tone in the above
discussion.
Unless there are any objections, I will only reinstate 172's sysop status
if he agrees to follow our protected page guidelines.
Regards,
Erik
Hi all --
Robert seems to think I've been unfair to him, and for that I am sorry.
It may even be that he is correct and that I chose a less than perfect
example. Nevertheless, I stand by the following points:
First, I saw no evidence of ad hominem attacks or harassment on Robert's
page, with the exception of Jtdirl's "Arabophobe" comment, which seemed
to me to have been written out of frustration -- although this is not an
excuse.
Second, I think that many people ( I cannot speak for others, but this
is based on much of what I have read on talk pages for a couple of years
now) are tired of the accusation of anti-Semitism being raised in almost
every (non-Gaia) RK edit war. There is a real and valid difference to
many people between anti-Semitism and questioning militant Zionism or
being pro-Israeli. Tarring all his opponents with the same brush is
unjust, blurs the questions at hand, and is often just plain insulting
-- certainly not wikilove, and certainly not an intellectual way of
defending a position.
Third, ditto as above, replacing "anti-Semitism" with "trolling, abuse,
harassment", etc.
I have noticed that most of the articles where this happens live in a
grey area. That's as it should be. In such situations (we could just
as easily be talking about The Troubles), no one is innocent and
everyone who resorts to violence has what he or she sees as a valid
motivation for doing so. The roots of the conflict are often well out
of the participants' hands -- and the real roots often the result of
someone else's meddling. Our job is not to say who is right or wrong.
It is not to pick sides. It is to produce well-rounded, neutral,
informative articles. If we continue to create articles with
non-neutral subjects (Arab violence against Israelis, Israeli violence
against Arabs), instead of trying to present a balanced article that
gives light to all sides of the story (maybe, instead, Conflicts over
Israel, Arab-Israeli conflict), we're doomed to continue to deal with
these types of edit wars and accusations. But again, over two years of
watching, I can't really recall any direct accusations of the type RK
claims to see. There may be insults. But I cannot for the life of me
see how that adds up to "people are picking on me because I am Jewish."
Especially when other Jewish wikipedians are not making the same
complaints. And especially when the "people are picking on me"
accusation comes up all-to-often when it's convenient.
Hi all.
I'd like to make a minor correction to Jtdirl's (James Duffy) recent email concerning
RK's talk page.
Jtdirl said that the following paragraph:
> "My apologises, I just thought that your naming of the link to: "Deir Yassin
Remembered; This pro-Palestinian site claims that there was little military
conflict, and that 100 Arabs were flat-out murdered." was a little...
inflammatory."
Was written by "Pizza Puzzle". In fact, this paragraph was contributed by [[user:BL]],
unsigned. RK removed it when he removed the edits of Pizza Puzzle and
EntmootsOfTrolls, presumably by accident. You can verify this in the page history of
RK's talk page. [1]
Incidentally, BL's apology was in response to this comment on hir talk page by RK:
> "Um, your "Stop being a Moron" comment was not helpful. We need to cooperate to make Wikipedia articles better. When you interject into discussions that you are a not a part of, just to insult me, it doesn't help anyone." [2]
The edit comment in question can be seen in the page history of our article on the
Deir Yassin "massacre". [3]
BL's apology is in stark contrast to RK's behaviour later that day on the talk page of
[[Terrorism against Israelis]]", where he told BL "your statements are abhorrent",
accused hir of "a deep hatred of Israeli Jews" and advised hir to "Control yourself
and get over you [sic] hatred of Israel". [4]
Apparently, this is the reward one gets for trying to be nice to RK. Personally, I have
run out of patience with RK's insults, and intend to deal with them as I see fit.
Yours sincerely,
Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
1: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:RK&action=history
2:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:BL&diff=1143767&oldid…
34
3: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Deir_Yassin_massacre&action=his…
4:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Terrorism_against_Israelis…
4845&oldid=1144639
So you admit you are just as guilty as you claim RK to be. In that case, I must make a suggestion. Chris, don't bring RK's religion into arguements, thats what we call a hit below the belt. And RK, you've had many confromtations with users. Please try to be as nice as possible, even if you are mad.
--
Michael Becker
a.k.a. Mbecker
a.k.a. MB
----- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Christopher Mahan <chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com>
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
>
>--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
>> You miss the point. No matter how "not nice" Robert is, focusing on
>> his
>> ethnicity is inapproriate. He doesn't have to be "cool" for that to
>> be
>> wrong.
>
>I don't care whether he is right or wrong, all I care about is that
>he express himself in a manner that will not be regarded as
>confrontational by a bystander.
>
>I don't care about his religious, ethnic, or national background.
>
>Others may be wrong, but just because others are wrong, does not
>excuse him from leaving the path of civility.
>
>
>
>=====
>Christopher Mahan
>chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com
>818.943.1850 cell
>http://www.christophermahan.com/
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
I received this recently in my personal email
(I have further comments below):
----- Forwarded message -----
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: _KhlER3L <_khl(a)heh.ca>
X-X-Sender: _khl(a)tornado.he.net
To: toby(a)math.ucr.edu
Subject: wiki upset
Hello toby,
I'm sorry to email this to you since it has nothing to do with you, but
finding contact information for the person I actually want to talk to
seems to be impossible.
This evening, I fell upon Wikipedia for the first time in maybe a year,
and began to make some edits I thought useful. The first of which was to
add to the [[gay]] definition a note that gay could only be used to
describe androphiles, and not pederasts. I admit this was a smarmy
entry, but it was not offensive, and it contained links to additional
information.
My next entry was http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILGA_Purges
which attempted to outline, via a chronology, the events which lead upto
the purges of minority groups from the International Gay and Lesbian
Association. Admittedly, it ended on a bitter note. However, the bulk of
the entry, some 10 or 15 paragraphs, were neutral and informative.
I then added a page on 'pederast', which said 'A man who is sexually
attracted to boys aged 12-18.'
I then edited the NAMBLA page to remove the name of an individual, as well
as make the wording more neutral. I went on to read and respond to a
'discuss this page' entry which described NAMBLA as a COINTELPRO operation
of the government in order to discredit the gay movement.
I finally went to edit a user page, _KhlER3L. When I went to save it, I
found out I was IP banned:
User is blocked
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jtdirl. The reason given
is this:
This user is almost certainly DW again. He is revisiting paedophile and
pederast links he added or edited again before his last banning and is
from the same IP as he once used before.
You may contact Jtdirl or one of the other administrators to discuss the
block.
Return to Main Page.
Well, for his/her information, I am not 'DW'
and I do not appreciate being IP banned simply for 'revisting paedophile
and pederast links' (as if it were a crime). I think that if I feel that
the Wikipedia does not offer the right balance of information on these
topics, then I should be free to add my information. Apparently Jtdirl
does not appreciate anyone espousing a believe contrary to his/her own
about NAMBLA, pederasty and pedophlia, even though he/she is in no way an
expert on such matters, having a PhD in Irish History.
Maybe in his/her
expert opinion, the NAMBLA information page should be used to attack a
particular individual by name? I didn't think so, and edited the
name out. And I also felt that encyclopedic entries should not
contain a totality of anti- views, but also attempt to be somewhat
neutral.
And the Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for pederast, but instead forwards
pederasty to pedophilia, a totally wrong attribution. My pederast entry
has been removed, probably by Jtdirl. Why is a truthful, and
to-the-point, no-bullshit entry being deleted? I think I know the answer.
As well, my ILGA Purges entry, which contained about 15 paragraphs
detailing the build up and aftermath of the ILGA Purges, was deleted
entirely. Again, I think I know the reason why.
Anyway, this ban goes against the rule of IP blocking which states:
<i>This is meant solely to discourage persistent junk edits. IP banning is
not meant to be used against unpopular opinions.</i>
My contributions were not junk edits, or attempts to disrupt the Wikipedia
service. They were attempts at rectifying what I view as biased entries
which serve mainly to attack minority groups and organizations without
giving another perspective.
I ask that my IP be unbanned at the earliest possible moment, and that
Jtdirl be reprimanded for unfairly banning a contributer based soley on
the topic of the content he was offering. Maybe Jtdirl should stop being
the pedophile-content cop and keep to topics he/she has something to
contribute to.
Thank you, Toby, for looking over this. Please get back to me on whether
or not Wikipedia will be reinstating my access.
Sincerely,
Jason Garrison
_KhlER3L(a)heh.ca
(514) 495-1421
Montreal, Quebec
http://heh.ca/
----- End forwarded message -----
Note that both <heh.ca> and <tornado.he.net> (also in Received: headers)
are in the 64.62.xxx.xxx IP range, the same range as the blocked IP.
This IP edited a few articles, some with prior POV problems;
and some of his edits introduced further POV problems.
But this is understandable if the user is new, and correctable.
Thus the question is whether Jtdirl's identification of him as DW is fair.
I'm not very familiar with DW, so I'm not a good judge of this;
I ask other users that are familiar with DW to review the case.
I sent _KhlER3L a reply briefly explaining the situation with DW,
and assuring him that Jtdirl's actions were motivated by those problems,
not by any desire to be "the pedophile-content cop".
I can post this email and _KhlER3L's further replies if you like.
-- Toby
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
>May I change the layout of the
>homepage of the English Wikipedia
>to that of the Esperanto Wikipedia?
>I think that layout looks much better.
>I would ask this on [[Talk:Main Page]],
>but not many people look there that
>often, and this would be a huge change.
IMO that is HMTL madness -- WAY too many spurious colors that mean nothing and
whose only purpose is to look "purty" in the eyes of the designer. We have
already worked out a more conservative color scheme for the Main Page but
were waiting for some earth-shattering announcement to make to go with the
upgrade (such as "The Wikimedia Foundation is open for business and is now
accepting donations!" - not that we would say that on the Main Page but we
would have a link to a press release).
See: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Temp
Which is based on: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
We really should be very conservative with making big noticeably changes to
that page because so many people visit it every day. Making a big change is
going to make people think that something is different and then they will be
more likely to see the link to the press release (we did this for our last
press release and it worked very well).
Color rational: White is for articles (thus the background for the category
links is white/unchanged), Yellow is for community (since all our user, talk,
and wikipedia pages are yellow) and Blue is for hyperlinks. I guess red for
edit links would also be neat (indicating there is always something else to
cover) but that would be too many colors and red is also a bit heavy.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
While this isn't one of the usual topics we discuss on this
mailling list -- trolls, server problems, concerns of copyright
infringements -- I'd like to share something I stumbled across while
doing research for a Wikipedia article. Because this helps explain
the real reason I keep reading & keep contributing articles when
sometimes I'm doubtful that anyone reads, let alone notices my contributions.
Theophanes was a Byzantine chronicler who compiled from earlier sources,
sometimes not entirely competently, a history of the world to his
time. Many of the events he recorded were of tyrannical emperors
determined to force their religious point of view upon a restive
populace by any means necessary -- including deportation, impoverishment,
& bloodshed. Other events were described the clumsy, violent manner
warfare is always carried out between hostile populations: on one
side Moslem troops attempting to subdue the world for Allah, on the
other the Imperial troops of the One True Roman Emperor (who happened
to speak Greek as his native language), with the chronic repetition
of various groups engaged in revolt against one or the other overlord.
Amidst the record of this continued darkness, suffering and death,
Theophanes includes the tale of the time (February, 764 to be exact)
when the frozen Black Sea broke up & sent forth icebergs thru the
Sea of Marmora. And as he describes this wondrous phenomena, Theophanes
inserts the remark that this is true because he had witnessed this, & with
about 30 playmates climbed onto one of the icebergs to explore and play.
And while he & his childhood friends are preoccupied in this, he remarks
how the adults watched how these mountains of ice, taller than the walls
of the greatest city in Europe, drifted past, occasionally banging into
the seawalls of Constantinople, returning home to fret over this unusual event.
I can't quite explain how, but in the paragraph that Theophanes' translator
describes this event (sorry, I don't read Greek, either Ancient or Medieval),
I found myself suddenly drawn back to a time over 1200 years ago in a
place I have never been, which became more real for me than any television
or movie recreation of history could ever be. All because a writer,
otherwise devoid of personality, happened to share with posterity a vibrant
childhood memory.
And so I will keep on reading, ostensively because I want to correct
mistakes & fill in omissions in Wikipedia, but in the actual hope I will
encounter another surpise like this from a time & place far away.
Geoff
Based on standard english practice, I address someone who's gender I do not know, using masculine gender. I assume others do the same. There is a page, http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiWomen, which can be utiliZed if you wish to be identified as female. It doesn't appear that most women care though.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: erik_moeller(a)gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Date: 16 Jul 2003 21:13:00 +0200
>sannse-
>> Anthere asked:
>
>>> You a woman Sannse ?
>>>
>
>> Yep. Despite the number of kind e-mails I get offering to enlarge my penis
>> ;)
>
>> I haven't bothered to correct those on Wikipedia who have presumed I'm
>> male - it hasn't bothered me and doesn't seem worth the typing. But since
>> seeing you comment on this I've realised you are right - we have a tendency
>> to presume anyone without an obviously female name is male. And I do it
>> myself all the time. I can't think of a single contributor with a
>> gender-neutral name that I picture as female (unless they have identified
>> themselves as such).
>
>Well, I've been thought to be a woman several times. Since my username is
>"Eloquence", perhaps that's a good sign. ;-)
>
>Regards,
>
>Erik
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>