Mathias Schindler wrote:
> http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/02/41ae87066c10f
>
> "I never fully understood the sheer awfulness of the human condition
> until last Tuesday. In the course of a debate about mammalian
> intelligence, my friend Harlan and I discovered an online encyclopedia
> called Wikipedia.org, a depressingly successful effort to harness the
> elusive Power of Loser."
That's brilliant, it's a little insight into the mind of a vandal. He's
calling us all losers for trying to construct something of value. He
attacks the site just out of revulsion for the effort we put in. I guess
if we want to be more than "barely-sapient", we should discard our
geekish ways and go play football.
-- Tim Starling
I believe that at present the autoblocker is doing more harm than good.
I believe we should shut it off.
Alternatively, we could cause autoblocks to affect account creation and
anon editing only. At present they also affect logged-in users, which
is particularly unfortunate.
I recently blocked [[User:259]], and an ensuing autoblock also affected
[[User:SFTVLGUY2]] who asked me to explain why the block applied since
he was adequately identified by his username and password and had no
history of vandalism.
Other than saying, "that's the way it works, I'm sorry," I had no reply
to give him. And I hate giving out answers like that.
The Uninvited Co., Inc.
(a Delaware corporation)
>There may have been other reasons to block the other user but it
>was the 3RR that was quoted. Irate should really have been warned and
>(if necessary) blocked at this time.
You are right Sannse but the other users were clearly sockpuppets. If
this ever happens again we should treat sockpuppets as we would vandals
- warn (just to be sure) then block. We should put "sockpuppet" as the
reason for the block and the block should either be indefinite or long
term to stop the user trying to use that particular sockpuppet again. I
think I am correct in stating that the autoblock will block the IP of
the sockpuppet for 24 hours as well so that will probably get who ever
is behind the sockpuppet as well, which should slow them down.
This is going to be a tricky policy to implement, Admins are going to
have to be very very careful to be fair and be seen to be fair. Theresa
Hi,
I seem to have been disabled for breaking the 3RR. My last 3 msg being 10
hours after the previous bring it to four, and happened when User:Anthony
DiPierro engaged in deliberate vandalism of the Clitoris page. I wasn't
diabled until about 5 hours after the last revert.
User:Anthony DiPierro who revert four times to my three this morning has
been left online by user:ChrisO.
I think my account should be reanabled and User:Anthony DiPierro
disabled and user:ChrisO admin rights should be removed. It seems a
pervers use of the 3RR for whatever reasons.
ChrisO should provide an explanation of his slective and deleyed action.
Yours
John Bradley
Loc: 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK.
Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238
Email: john(a)ontobus.co.uk
WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
Could we possibly convince Cornell newspaper's editor-in-chief Andy Guess (editor(a)cornelldailysun.com) to print an actual positive article from one of our own writers?
Nick/Zanimum
---------------------------------
Moving house? Beach bar in Thailand? New Wardrobe? Win £10k with Yahoo! Mail to make your dream a reality.
Can someone please ban the trolls? Please? I've got better things to
do with my time than read R.E. Broadley's attempts to needle RickK or
the rantings of some "iridologist" with a personality problem.
--Sheldon Rampton
I have no idea why Irismeister is sending this to me in particular.
Forwarded without comment, hard as it was to resist.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Irismeister <danjipa(a)freemail.iris-ward.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:54:56 GMT
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
As per your choice of banning me for one year, and our "agreement"
concerning such an unwise move, please find attached the text of my
first legal action. This was started during the day of my ban. And the
fronts of the huge legal battle that has started against your
dictatorship are multiple and wide.
Ten individual FTC Consumer Complaint Forms have been filed on behalf
of prominent public figures nominally, against each of the offending
sysops on the Wikipedia list.
You'll find the scope of the problem by checking the legal records and
papers with an attorney of law of your choice, as per rn.ftc.gov
policies, or only by waiting patiently for legal papers coming in your
own physical mailbox. You will be informed individually and in due
time of your rights and of your "space of legal opportunity" with each
of the following move in the list.
Let us say, safely, that a lesson in modesty will be gently and
legally taught. You no longer have the opportunity to stop the legal
action because of your vote on my ban. Finally, a word of wisdom: let
us hope that, to the very least, you'll think twice before your next
movement as an admin, sysop, or only editor.
We are all real human beings, David, not products of your imagination :O)
Wikipedia.org, a product of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. promotes media
violence, violence as a mean to settle intellectual dispute, and
violence as a culture - notably in the form of libel, abuse of sysop
power, censorship and overt insults. Moreover, Wikipedia.org, a
product of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. promotes disinformation,
pornography and disgraceful displays of pornographic images under
cover from arcane "company policies". Perhaps the long experience of
its founder, Mr Jimbo Wales, a former CEO of Bomis and a leader of
pornographic industry, explains such disgraceful, offensive company
policies. As an author, an editor, user and contributor, and a medical
doctor myself, I have repeteadly and publicly informed the founder,
sysops, administrators and editors of Wikipedia of their enormous
bias, media violence, promotion of disinformation, promotion of media
violence, libel and unjustified public insults - all to no avail. My
contributions have been censored, and traces!
of public dispute have been wiped out. They are available as track
records in public repositories, at trusted third parties, complete
with the list, addresses and legal files and profiles of offenders.
Dr Dan Jâpa, MD, PhD
Second irismeister,
danjipa(a)freemail.iris-ward.com
I had an ephiphany today. I saw the write up on Firefox on the main page.
It got me thinking - what is to stop Microsoft, which (a) funds fallacious
studies showing that its products are more stable/secure/cheaper (studies
which everyone knows,are laughably wrong) and (b) has a history of
astroturfing
(" formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the
impression
of spontaneous and populist reactions to a politician, product, service,
event, etc") -
what is to stop them from starting large, organized astroturfing on
Wikipedia?
I'm going to make a prediction. Within the next 6 to 18 months, we're goint
to start
seeing organized corporate astroturfing on Wikipedia. They've already
started doing it
to blogs (EA even went to far as to run a false blog, which posed as a beta
developer for
one of their upcoming games). I'm not talking about the little stuff we see
already - I'm talking
about PR drones register wikipedia accounts, making large contributions over
a long time to a
large number of articles with no attempt at NPOV, citing ludicriously biased
studies, writing
glowing product recommendations (or conversely, we could start seeing
negative propaganda).
I think it would be a good idea to having some contigency plans in place
should that happen.
--Mark