On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:29:23 -0700, Sheldon Rampton <sheldon(a)prwatch.org> wrote:
>
> Actually, the idea of requiring financial donations shouldn't be
> dismissed out of hand. A system of micropayments could conceivably
> function as a deterrent to trolls and vandals.
>
> Let's suppose, just hypothetically, that Wikipedia had a system
> whereby people who engage in trolling or make lots of controversial
> edits could be required to pay the Wikimedia Foundation 5 cents for
> every edit they make. (Maybe there could even be a cash *incentive*
> so that people who have earned a reputation for good editing would
> *earn* small amounts of money for their edits.)
My inbox has a similar system whereby people who engage in trolling or
make lots of controversial suggestions are required to pay me 5 cents
for each character they send me. You own me seven bucks. I prefer
payment via paypal (to 2.718281828(a)gmail.com).
--
+sj+
In an opinion (which I'm having a lot of fun reading) by a three-judge
panel of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit]]
striking down the use of mass metal-detector searches at protests, Judge
Tjoflat referenced [[Homeland Security Advisory System]].
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf
From page 16:
"Although the threat level was 'elevated' at the time of the protest,
'[t]o date, the threat level has stood at yellow (elevated) for the
majority of its time in existence. It has been raised to orange (high)
six times.' Wikipedia, Homeland Security Advisory System, available at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Security_Advisory_System
(last referenced Aug. 16, 2004)."
Ed Poor writes:
> Perhaps I was less than clear. My offer to un-ban you
> was CONDITIONAL on your seeking out my advice and
> following it. My promise was (and still is):
> * No one who seeks out my help and follows my
> advice ever comes to harm.
> I have had no messages from you, either in private
e-mail,
> the Wikipedia mailing list, or the Wikipedia website.
> I can't help someone who refuses to communicate.
Just to clarify, I thought that I had communicated with
you, on various occasions, on this very list, and I thought
that I in fact did what you suggested.
As per advice, I got out of edit and revert wars. I
repeatedly took Wiki-breaks to let things cool down. I have
taken many contentious articles OFF of my Watchlist. I have
asked for and successfully used mediation .
As for a personal e-mail to you alone, I want you to know
that I did try to contact you privately, but I could not.
That is why I used the Wiki-En list.
Jimbo writes:
> Robert, I'm astounded to see you twist the facts
> in this way. 1. First, I never said that you would
> not be banned. Please refer to my actual words:
Jimbo, I never twisted any facts. I simply misunderstood
you. I'm sorry about that, but this is no reason to get
angry at me!
In any case, only four of the seven self-appointed
arbitrators voted for this ban. Worse, they did so
retroactively on long past events, which seems to be a
violation of your instructions and Wikipedia policy.
Consider the following:
1* I removed myself from most articles with revert wars or
edit wars, and let others do most of the editing in such
cases.
2* I repeatedly took week-long (or longer) Wiki-breaks to
let things cool down.
3* I have taken many contentious articles OFF of my
Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want.
4* I have asked for and successfully used mediation when
necessary.
5* I have shown that I can successfully working with a
large group of others on potentially acrimonious articles,
without revert wars, and with great progress being made on
many articles.
Jimbo, under such circumstances, when has a Wikipedia user
been given more than a week-long ban?
To the best of my knowledge, no-one has received more than
a week-long ban under such circumstances. As such, isn't
it clear that this penalty is the end-result of a grudge,
rather than a fair and impartial process?
Ambi (Rebecca) writes:
> What I am suggesting is that he does also have some
> reason to be incensed, for the reasons that
> Sj mentioned. There are many other users who have
> caused as much trouble as RK, but just haven't been
> around as long. Many of those users also lack the
> history of positive contributions, and some do not
> appear to give a damn about the project. Many of these
> are also, as he says, skilful at manipulating the rules.
> Yet, once they get to the ArbCom stage, it'll take a
> couple of months for them to be even put on probation.
Thank you for pointing this out. Over the last few months
many of us here wrote that Wikipedia adminstrators
repeatedly allow attacks and edit wars on a constant basis.
It seems clear that some people pick-and-choose based on
personal grudges who they will ban, and for how long. This
is not how Wikipedia worked under Jimbo Wale's and Larry
Sanger's leadership, or how it worked when the first admis
started a while back. In practice, banning people has
often become a matter of personal animosity and politics.
The result of any process is never valid when it is not
applied fairly and consistently. That is considered a
matter of law in the US and most liberal democracies
nations. In fact, in most liberal democracies verdicts are
routinely overturned in such situations.
Robert (RK)
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
Anthere writes:
> I perfectly agree it might be a solution, and a
> good one for RK to show his good will. And I
> definitly support this kind of solution. But this
> can only be an option endorsed by RK himself.
> Not forced on him. There is a huge difference between
> real life and Wikipedia. We chose to participate
> and be part of Wikipedia community. We can also
> choose not to. And that will be okay.
Interesting idea. Here are my thoughts:
(A) Even if it helped me or someone else out, I wouldn't
want to "force" anyone to edit certain types of articles as
community service. However, we do not and cannot force
anyone to do anything. Everything here is volunteer work,
thus my concern vanishes in practical terms.
(B) It seems counter-intutive to suggest this for a
volunteer project. However, there is a practical way to
make this work: Wikipedia has several lists of articles
that are orphaned, that are stubs, or that don't exist -
yet are requested. Few people take the time to work on
them. Thus. Wikipedia community service could this take
the form of working on orphans, stubs and requests (and/or
articles of a similar nature.
Given the above, I endorse Anthere's option.
(As someone else here mentioned, when all you have is a
hammer, you tend to see everything as a nail. If Wikipedia
had a few more tools, people wouldn't be forced to use the
same solution for every situation. If people wanted
nothing but a hammer, they will have self-limited what they
can build by their own restrictive choice.)
Robert (RK)
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
Delirium wrote:
> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>
>> In an opinion (which I'm having a lot of fun reading) by a
>> three-judge panel of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the
>> Eleventh Circuit]] striking down the use of mass metal-detector
>> searches at protests, Judge Tjoflat referenced [[Homeland Security
>> Advisory System]].
>>
>> http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf
>>
>> From page 16:
>>
>> "Although the threat level was 'elevated' at the time of the protest,
>> '[t]o date, the threat level has stood at yellow (elevated) for the
>> majority of its time in existence. It has been raised to orange
>> (high) six times.' Wikipedia, Homeland Security Advisory System,
>> available at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Security_Advisory_System
>>
>> (last referenced Aug. 16, 2004)."
>
> Wow. *That* seems pretty irresponsible on their part. We're no
> authority on the homeland security advisory system, and there's no
> guarantee that our statement there is true, and I notice our statement
> isn't sourced. They ought to have cited some primary sources if
> they're going to be basing a legal opinion on this.
Really it's not that much more irresponsible than an appellate court
engaging in fact-finding in the first place, which in the US system at
least is theoretically the job of the trial court. Anyway, I suspect the
reason they used Wikipedia is not so much because we're the definitive
source, but simply that we provide the handiest summary of the points
the court wanted to mention, and we're reliable _enough_. In other
words, just the sort of thing people turn to encyclopedias for.
--Michael Snow
Rebecca wrote
> Sometimes, Charles, I really do wonder if you read people's posts
> before replying to them.
Not a fair comment. My point is that consistency cannot under current
conditions be instantly demanded, in the form that if Y is just as bad as X
etc. It can be demanded in the longer term in the form of precedents; which
indeed is something to ask about.
Charles
To whom it may concern (and it should concern everyone!):
I have reason(s) to believe that one or more of the administrator(s)
of the Wikipaedia Online Encyclopaedia, owned and/or operated by (the)
Wikemaedia Foundation, Inc./Org./Co., has violated one (1) or more
(>1) of Wikipaedia's or/and (the) Wikimaedia Foundation,
Inc./Co./Org.'s rules &/| regulations. I was prompted to believe this
by the following message, which appeared when I attempted to make a
delightful, beneficial, truthful, and good (though not necessarily in
that order) addition to an article about that most lovable and eminent
among preemnient German philosophers, Friedrick Nietzsche the First
(1st):
...
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by RickK.
The reason given is this:
all of user\'s edits are vandalism -- was blocked, came back, and
immediately began vandalizing again
...
Everyone who reads this message is someone who cares about Wikipedia.
We all enjoy contributing to it, and do so in the best of faith, and
are determined to make it grow and succeed. Imagine the shock-horror
any one (1) of us would feel upon being excluded from doing so by an
apparently malicious stranger.
I knew that none of my\ edits were vandalism. All were made in good
faith and with the foremost intention of improving the Wikipaedia. I
therefore figured that it was a mistake; perhaps, as another part of
the message suggested, "...[a user] with a [dynamic IP had been]
blocked accidentally, due to that fact that [his] present IP [had
been] previously used by a blocked user." To verify whether or not
this was the case, I went to the block list to check. It was then I
learned the ban wasn't an accident. Someone going by the name of Erl,
RickK had banned me indefinitely and purposely:
22:06, 9 Oct 2004, RickK blocked Ute Oronto (expires indefinite)
(contribs) (all of user\'s edits are vandalism -- was blocked, came
back, and immediately began vandalizing again)
Who was this RickK? Who would ban a user who had made countless
useful good faith edits, and call these malicious acts of vandalism?
Who could be so kerlish?
It was then I remembered: The day or so previous, I had reverted some
vandalism inflicted upon the Neva article. Someone had removed the
Geo-stub template. I replaced it, and checked to see who the errant
user could be. Noting that it was a long time user, who should know
better, I added him to the vandalism and progress list and went on
with my day.
Could this have been the same person as the one who banned me? I
checked. It was him, apparently seeking to quiet me and to enact
vengence upon me.
However, I (capital i, not number one) refuse to be quiet about this
issue. I'm E-mailing all of you this so that we'll no longer have
administrators who feel free to vandalize Wikipaedia and then silence
users who object by banning them indefinitely for supposedly commiting
the very same Wikicraeme.
Lovingly yours,
Ute Oronto.
The following is essentially (with minor adjustments
and additions) what I just posted to the talk page on
the proposed decision in RK's arbitration case:
This situation is entirely my fault, based in large
part on my inexperience as an arbitrator. I asked on
the proposed decision page what should be done about
the ban. An admin (not an arbitrator) left me a note
saying I could impose the block myself -- I should
have taken the advice I have often given others, and
waited for the input of an experienced arbitrator. I
had been editing a bit too long, and I think I was
trying to tie up too many loose ends as an arbitrator
all in one night.
As a result, I did not give RK the notification or the
time to put affairs in order that now seem like such
an obvious thing to me. I apologize deeply and
sincerely to RK for this -- I am more than willing to
unblock RK and allow him the time to set his user and
user talk pages in the state he prefers. This was not
intended by me as a slight to RK in any way: as I
said, it's purely a combination of my inexperience as
an arbitrator and my appalling failure to consider the
matter with more care and prudence. I will copy this
to the mailing list so that RK sees my response: if he
wishes, he is more than welcome to let me know he
would like to be unblocked for a day to set things in
order.
I apologize once again to him, and to the Wikipedia
community, for not displaying more fully the kind of
careful and well-thought-out action that I believe led
the community to entrust me with this position, and I
promise to remedy that in the future.
James Rosenzweig
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
RK,
Perhaps I was less than clear. My offer to un-ban you was CONDITIONAL on
your seeking out my advice and following it. My promise was (and still
is):
* No one who seeks out my help and follows my advice ever comes to harm.
I have had no messages from you, either in private e-mail, the Wikipedia
mailing list, or the Wikipedia website. I can't help someone who refuses
to communicate.
Now I must ask you the same question I asked Lir:
* What advice of mine did you ever follow?
Sadly,
Ed Poor
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=10909&hed=Wiki+wars
Makes it sound as though we will have professional editors next year, hmmm.
When will someone write an article on Gdanzig? Aside from a few minor
errors - the # of times arts were protected and the "Wikipedia
Foundation" - it's pretty positive.
--
+sj+