>From: Dante Alighieri <dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com>
>Reply-To: Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia
>To: Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Please, please, PLEASE shut up
>Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:27:56 -0700
>Received: from mail.wikipedia.org ([220.127.116.11]) by mc9-f2.hotmail.com
>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:28:05 -0700
>Received: from pliny.wikipedia.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by
>mail.wikipedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTPid D17FDB820; Wed, 17 Sep 2003
>23:28:02 +0000 (UTC)
>Received: from hosting335.com (hosting335.com [18.104.22.168])by
>mail.wikipedia.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 229ECB81Bfor
><wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:27:59 +0000 (UTC)
>Received: (qmail 9389 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2003 23:28:29 -0000
>Received: from unknown (HELO mungo.digitalgrapefruit.com) (22.214.171.124)by
>hosting335.com with SMTP; 17 Sep 2003 23:28:29 -0000
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 126.96.36.199
>List-Id: Discussion list for English-language
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Sep 2003 23:28:08.0026 (UTC)
>At 02:44 PM 9/17/2003, you all wrote:
> >WAY TOO MUCH
>OK, please stop. I'm getting more emails about a bot to generate Israel
>articles (and it's not even a particularly descriptive subject heading
>anymore) than I am ads for Viagra. That's a bad sign. PLEASE take this to
>the 'pedia on some obscure talk page where the rest of us don't have to be
>bothered by it?
Hear hear. This stuff is tiresome, irritating and and a pain in the
posterior. Please bin this infernal issue for ever before half of wiki are
driven to jump over the nearest cliff out of frustration with it.
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
After several months of blissful peace, I've decided to rejoin the mailing list -- at least for the English Wikipedia. I had stayed off because there's just too much volume, too many words to read. I thought I could just scan the occasional talk comment at wikipedia.org -- but when I found out that Jimbo is "swamped" and cprompt recommended delegating someone to handle all banning issues, I decided to de-lurk.
I hate banning, as I think I've made clear at several times and places on the website. I prefer peer pressure and education as motivational tools. But sometimes you have to draw the line.
What is the line? I guess it's for people who refuse to "get with the program".
*Repeatedly needling other users with personal remarks (EofT vs. RK)
*Nonsense that takes endless time to undo (Lir)
*Utter lack of comprehension of NPOV policy (Helga, if anyone remembers back that far)
Honest differences of opinion on how articles should be organized, titling schemes, formats, etc. should never rise to the level of "bannable offenses" - that's dumb. Even NPOV disputes ought to be handled without recourse to "Ban this troll, his ideas are wacky".
What I propose to do - the service I offer to the WikiCommunity - is to analyze any on-going disputes and attempt to intervene in a way that defuses the conflict. If that fails, I may take action like demoting a sysop or even banning an account -- any such action to be reported to this mailing list, of course.
I don't expect my position to carry any more weight than any one else's, except to the extent that my judgment seems sensible and trustworthy. I will listen carefully to old hands like Mav, Eloquence, Martin, Anthére (just to name a few).
But I'm not just going to seek a consensus: at times I will take or press for immediate action, based on my own subjective assessment of what's best for Wikipedia.
Jimbo, as always, will have the final say.
Ed Poor, aka "Uncle Ed"
It hasn't stopped. EntmootsOfTrolls is still harassing me.
A few days ago his comments libeled me as a criminal,
explicitly charging me with "criminal behavior".
Now he is trying to "out" me, by publicly using what he
believes to be my real name. (He is almost correct...yet
wrong. That's one of the problems when you out people. You
direct atatckers to the wrong victim.)
As you all know, most of us operate anonymously on
Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. EoT's actions are a
violation of the trust that allows us to work together.
I have had enough of his attacks on me as a criminal,
enough of his one-man war against all of Wikipedia in his
quest to push leftist-anarchism, and his war against
historians and scholars of religion, and enough of his
unethical attempts to "out" anonymous people. Most of us
certainly have had enough of the way that he copies, word
for word, entire Wikipedia articles, retitles them, and
then rewrites them here and there to fit his own religious
and political views, effectively setting up his own
enyclopedia-within-Wikipedia that is not peer-reviewed. (A
gross and blatant violation of all Wikipedia protocols.)
(And I really am surprised at the way someone here has been
encouraging him of late, which is really shocking as well
EoT is still out of control, and clearly nothing people
have said to him has made any difference at all. Precisely
what level of continued harassment from his will get him
banned? Does he actually have to wreck the Wikipedia
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
If you don't think it's a good idea to give someone 24-hour notice
before they're banned, I think I agree with you to a point.
However, when it's been over two weeks of disruption, I don't think a
24-hour "call the question" is out of order.
This person just moved the Main Page to his/her talk page. You (or any
other admin) are capable of banning this account, right now. It's your
======= At 2003-09-24, 17:44:00 Daniel Ehrenberg wrote: =======
>> We really don't want links to this particular site
>> because of its agenda.
>Well, then that's just because of its POV. We link to
This is different, however. We're not adding POV links to our NPOV articles (which is OK since the opinons at those sites are not Wikipedia's), but the articles from the POV site are being dumped right into Wikipedia.
>> I see-- and what treatment are you giving to towns
>> which exist in violation of the various UN and
>> US-Israel agreements over the years?
>I've no idea whether they're in Adam's data or not, but if they >_exist_,
>they _exist_ and this fact should be noted.
>> Its only been the past couple months that Israel has
>> bent to international pressure to dismantle a
>> settlement -- how are you treating these? Are these
>> registered as non-existent? Are you adding the former
>> Arabic names of towns, recently and not-so recently
>> incorporated into Israel?
>Steve, do you *HAVE THIS DATA*?
>If you *HAVE IT*, you can add it.
I have it! I have it! It is from http://www.allthatremains.com/ and I've
added it to
But it was so much that it wasn't feasible to add it by hand so could I
also be assisted by a bot? Compare http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqrit
and http://www.allthatremains.com/Acre/Iqrit/index.html for an example.
So if that is the case do I have to program the bot myself or can I
lease one from someone?
Now that account banning is installed on en: I plan to avail of it.
User:BuddhaInside has been trolling the 'pedia for over two weeks now,
with no end in sight. His contributions list is an almost endless
series of revert wars; a record of some objections to his actions can
be found at [[Wikipedia:Problem_users/BuddhaInside]] and at the
following user talk pages which he has attempted to hide from view:
User talk page
From his/her actions, it's clear this is someone who has used the
system extensively before the account was made, either someone wanting
a "Hyde"-type personality to cause trouble for fun, or a previously
I don't take using an account ban lightly, so this is your chance to
either talk me out of it or yank my admin privileges beforehand. I
intend to ban this account after another day or so.
To access the English wikipedia through pliny (the bigger server), which
may be faster while Larousse is overloaded:
It's read/write for articles, but it's got a slightly outdated copy of
the uploaded images, and I've disabled new uploads. New TeX images may
stomp on each other too, but that can be sorted out later.
Please don't stomp on it too hard; that's the server with the database
and all the other languages, too!
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
From: Robert <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com>
> can't help but take with a grain of salt the issue
> you raise above, with the fact you listed
> [[Militant Islam]] for deletion just after RK
> it with justifications which were not convincing.
That's nonsense. The reasons stated were not only
convincing, they always have been STANDARD WIKIPEDIA
It is a clear violation of Wikipedia NPOV and naming
policy to make an exact copy of an article we already
have, retitle it, and then edit it to push your own
political and religious views. People may not create
their own private encyclopedias within Wikipedia which
bypass our normal peer review process.
If someone doesn't like the article on [[Flowers]], or
on [[History]] or on [[Islamism]], they are welcome to
work with others in editing it and improving it. But
they may not copy this article, and make their own POV
version of it, and set up their private enyclopedia
This is hardly "not convincing". This is the standard
Wikipedia policy that all of us have always followed
from the beginning. If people like EntmootsOfTrolls
find themselves unable to follow our NPOV policy, and
unable to work with others in reaching a consensus,
then they should stay away from those articles
When one is censored so much and so deliberatly, it is
not entirely surprising that they try to use other
means to have other opinions that the current trend
inserted in that encyclopedia.
As a reminder, this encyclopedia means to neutral, and
in I am correct, neutral means to welcome all points
of view on a topic. I do not necessarily mean every
little opinion, but every opinion that might be
To achieve that, it is a *good* idea that people of
various points of view collaborate on these articles,
and if necessary on talk pages.
Collaboration : collaborate means "exchanging" point
of view, trying to reach an agreement on what should
be included in the article. This usually implies
answering something else than "no" in talk page. Or
even answering at all btw. I tried to talk to you on
[[talk:islamism]], and all I got from you was "no" and
a very very very very very deep silence.
Relevant : I agreed some of the stuff inserted was
biaised. I proposed to you to rework it. The current
article is not informative enough. The proposed
insertion, though biased is informative. Hence my
desire for it to be inserted, after npoving. All I got
from you was "no" and a very very very very very deep
Points of view : moving in a difficult and dangerous
realm here. What are we talking about ? Islamism. Very
hot topic. One that would deserve a specific type of
loving care. One that we would suppose would interest
a good number of people here. All the ones that have
suffered a loss in 9/11. All the americans probably.
All the french as well (for mind you, terrorism and
violence DID NOT start 2 years ago). All muslim people
on wikipedia (not many it appears). And all those
interested by religion.
In the end, who is working on Islamism ?
Steve who was in an edit war with you previously on
Who is currently reverting these articles ?
Who is trying to give hir opinion, and is either
reverted or just not listen to
142 and I.
In the end, the only ones that have access to these
articles are you and Graft. Others are carefully left
aside. 142 will soon be permanently shut up. And you
will discourage me to try to work on this one, where
my opinion is just good at being left unanswered on
I do not support the current islamism article. It is
non-informative enough, and non neutral, and as such
is not respecting wikipedia rules. At least, it is not
respecting french point of view.
Hence, I started a [[Islam in France]], where I will
try to put the french point of view at least. Islamism
should not be written by american only, and not by
appently people of jewish culture/religion only as
well. Catholics pov, muslim pov, bouddhists pov should
be welcome as well. If you feel that it is a breach of
wikipedia protocole to do so, please remember that
France has a long history of contact with muslim
people, hate and love with Algeria story, major bounds
with this country that are not gonna be broken any
time soon, that about 10% of French population is from
Muslim extraction, that we live fondamentalism and/or
islamism on our soil, not just by tv shows, that we
are still struggling for integration of all these
people, and that already now, the mixing of muslim and
mostly catholics culture is producing great things.
Our growth pains are from a different perspective than
your fights against integrists. And they also deserve
I am quite disapointed, that no one cares about such a
topic, and accept that censorship is being so hard on
it. If only, because it would be enlightful to
understand other points of view that the one one can
read in books and newspapers. If only because american
people deserve more than what is currently proposed on
the islamism article.
I am not knowledgeable really on that topic. So, my
main proposition for Wikipedia sake is that I focus my
next week end promotion of Wikipedia in north african
countries, where a lot of the population is
french-speaking (as well as english) and muslim.
This was an interesting week RK. I am ****really****
glad that you stayed polite. I would have appreciated
that you accepted to work with me as well. Sorry that
we were not able to even work on talk page together.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software