Sheldon, as usual, has contributed a very wise observation to the
community. He has also made a potent suggestion which requires
discussion.
Should we invest some users with authority which elevates them from
"vigilantes" and makes them more like a police force ("judges", as
Sheldon put it)?
This is essentially Erik's idea, dressed up in an official uniform (hope
I'm not being tactless, here :-)
I had proposed the same idea many times, a couple of years ago -- but
I'm currently opposed to it.
Ed Poor
Plautus adds a lot of bullshit to the wikipedia, but
he also has a lot of "fringe" sources to cite. For
instance, he apparently thinks that the Columbia Space
Shuttle was shot down by a US missile-defense laser;
likewise, he thinks that tornados generate some kind
of plasma.
Now, it didn't take me long looking at yahoo to see
that Plautus may love conspiracy theories; but so do a
lot of other people. There are 65,000 websites on the
internet which discuss whether, or not, Columbia was
shot down.
In short, Plautus is adding the kind of information
which the Wikipedia should contain. I will agree that
this information should not be presented as NPOV fact,
it most certainly should be presented with an "experts
tend to disagree" disclaimer -- however, it should NOT
be deleted.
People are deleting Plautus' contributions which,
while they should be edited, are valid enough that
they should not be deleted. If Plautus gets upset over
the deletions, it is entirely understandable -- he is
being treated poorly, and if anyone should be banned
it is those who delete his text while hurling insults
at him.
People that disagree with Plautus should edit for
NPOV, they should not delete and censor him.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Plautus has now rejected Ed's tuttilage and despite Jimbo's warning on his talk page, persists in his vandalism.
I just got an email from a fellow Wikipedian (who will remain anonymous): "Please tell me that something will happen with Plautus soon. I'm at the end of my rope with him and I'm about to write wikipedia off if it will actually allow his nonsense to stay in place."
Eloquence said he would support me if I re-banned Plautus, and if something doesn't happen really soon (in the next 24 hours or so), I intend to. I'll even report myself on the misuse of admin powers page, as long as the ban remains in place.
I know Jimbo said to show him love, but (god bless him) I think he is being overly optomistic. Vigilantism is one thing, but I don't think it qualifies when people are so desperate for a user to be banned that Jimbo has 6 people on his talk page begging for it; when the RFC pages shows overwheling support for it. I'm posting this to the mailing list in the hopes that this will spur the arbitration committee into doing something.
--Mark Pellegrini
User: Raul654
Hmm, after viewing messages about Plautus, I must say
that I find Jimbo's "All you need is love" response
most disappointing.
I must say that he's a busy little beaver. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=… shows that he has made over 500 edits over the last three days alone. This includes some articles such as quasar, but mainly in advocating and splattering his ,um, views all over the talk pages.
For instance, on the Sep 11 Attacks page, Plautus is
now arguing that the Flight 93 passengers did not
charge the hijackers, and is veering that page off in
a direction there that may see this site crashing into
a lawsuit or two. (He does seem to be saying that the
families who reported the phone calls are all liars)
The size of the talk page is also growing.
People have now left the wikipedia site, or so I hear,
and there's a list of complaints growing on Jimbo's
talk page. Let's also not forget what might happen if
his stuff gets copied across to other sites that use
wikipedia material as all or part of their content.
My own feeling is that Plautus should be given
the "Get back to where you once belonged" treatment.
He is completely fouling things up here.
____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
Well maybe I'm in the minority, but I haven't been under the impression
that the idea that the Star Wars lasers that can't even shout down test
missiles were the cause of the Columbia disaster.
And if we have to do is add that "experts tend to disagree" I think we'll
soon have the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Lyndon Larouche's
conspiracy theories about the Queen of England and a load of other
"crackpot theories" included in related articles as important pieces of
info -- duly noting that they aren't NPOV facts.
Just my $0.02,
Brian (Bcorr)
Lir wrote at Wed Feb 25 19:43:44 PST 2004
>Plautus adds a lot of bullshit to the wikipedia, but
>he also has a lot of "fringe" sources to cite. For
>instance, he apparently thinks that the Columbia Space
>Shuttle was shot down by a US missile-defense laser;
>likewise, he thinks that tornados generate some kind
>of plasma.
[snip]
>In short, Plautus is adding the kind of information
>which the Wikipedia should contain. I will agree that
>this information should not be presented as NPOV fact,
>it most certainly should be presented with an "experts
>tend to disagree" disclaimer -- however, it should NOT
>be deleted.
[snip]
I appreciate Martin's email. I for one should have been more clear.
I had been taking individual action which I have found only marginally effective -- avoiding almost all contact with Plautus, while encouraging others to do the same, in hopes that a lack of interaction would be the "balm to heal the wounded spirit."
I should have asked, "When will the community take organized collective action to reduce the amount of time and energy which is being spent on what I believe are ineffective attempts by individuals to end or reduce the conflicts with Plautus?"
Having said that, I'm gratified that a number of people are still discussing this on the list, and though I fear that the current attempts may not work, I appreciate them and hope that Jimbo's assessment is correct.
Thanks,
Brian (Bcorr)
Quoting Martin Harper:
> Arno M wrote:
> > When will something be done?
>
> Brian Corr wrote:
> > Could someone give an update on a timeline for action?
>
> Something will be done about Plautus when you do something about
> Plautus. The timeline for action on Plautus is roughly:
> 1) You decide to act.
> 2) You act.
>
> Perhaps you meant to ask a different question?
> -Martin
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Paul_Vogel/6…
He's coming in from three IPs and putting the same bit of spam into
a set of articles and their talk pages (and those of anyone who
reverts the spam).
He intends to continue however possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:White_supremacy&diff=245855…
"WE can revert until the cows come home as long as a NPOV is not being
maintained regarding this strictly Marxist-PC POV propaganda article."
At what point should an anon user be blocked for spam? Is there a
measure of what's spamming on Wikipedia?
(And I am following bcorr's example and trying to keep reverts to
no more than three per article.)
- d.
I didn't want to get involved with this on the mailing list, but this is
getting ridiculous. I've been involved in this since the first ten minutes
or so, so I'm uniquely qualified to say - the whole situation is a case
study in how the system has failed to repel a persistent bad user. I'm sorry
to all the good people who put thought into the dispute resolution process,
but it's broken.
Plautus has been here 2 weeks, and virtually every single person he's
interacted with wants him banned - that doesn't happen by accident. He's
apologized time and again, but (each time) courteously rejects any advice
that he should cooperate with other users or obey the NPOV policy. He's
abusive, impossible to work with, and paranoid.
Erik wasn't half right when he said Plautus is not reformable. He's driving
away good users (Evercat and Finlay McWalter, just to name two), and wasting
enormous amounts of contributor time. If Wikipedia is to become popular on
the scale that many of us would like to see, the system needs to be
reformed. Just what does it take to get banned from this place?
--Mark Pellegrini
En. Wikipedia Administrator
User: Raul654
> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikien-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: "Go" back to WikiBooks vs. Wikipedia discussion
> (Poor, Edmund W)
> 2. Re: Re: recipes (Peter Jaros)
> 3. Plautus (Martin Harper)
> 4. Re: Plautus (Jimmy Wales)
> 5. Re: Paul Vogel and anon IDs (Jimmy Wales)
> 6. Protected Wikipedia:Main Page (James Rosenzweig)
> 7. Re: Re: recipes (Ray Saintonge)
> 8. Re: Instructions (Anthere)
> 9. Re: Plautus (Erik Moeller)
> 10. Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperativecontent
> (Anthere)
> 11. Re: Plautus (Fred Bauder)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:05:04 -0500
> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] "Go" back to WikiBooks vs. Wikipedia
> discussion
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>
> <E506B3FF6BC1254C9AC1B948C380BC2801FBB340(a)sm-nyny-xm05.nena.wdpr.disney.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> LOL! You want to step outside and repeat that remark? You know, a boxing
> ring is square, too!! ;-)
>
> Ed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Barrett
>
> Not recipes, but the fact that Go is an unacceptable topic for
> Wikipedia: the very raison d'etre of the off-square-ness of the grid is
> the player POV. NPOV requires a square grid.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:37:41 -0500
> From: Peter Jaros <rjaros(a)shaysnet.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: recipes
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <38CFB646-67E3-11D8-930E-000A27B3913C(a)shaysnet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> On Feb 24, 2004, at 11:51 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > Peter Jaros wrote:
> >
> >> Giving a recipe for a particular chocolate cake would not serve to
> >> describe chocolate cake. If one recipe was particularly famous,
> >> however, it might merit its own section (or possibly article; I'd
> >> like to try *that* cake) where the recipe *would* be descriptive.
> >> It's a subtle distinction, but an important one. It comes through to
> >> readers, if only in terms of a sense of the style.
> >
> > That's very patronizing of you.
>
> Sorry, I worded that poorly. What I meant that the distinction may not
> jump out at casual readers, but it sounds better nonetheless. As
> analogy, using the wrong word in a sentence and making the sentence
> meaningless is obvious to even a casual reader, while using casual
> language in a formal setting is often "felt" while not directly
> noticed. It can take a bit of working with a sentence to figure out
> what in it sounds too casual (or too formal, or awkward, etc.).
>
> Peter
>
> -- ---<>--- --
> A house without walls cannot fall.
> Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
> -- ---<>--- --
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:55:52 -0000
> From: "Martin Harper" <martin(a)myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <403D27F8.5938.B4BD82@localhost>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Arno M wrote:
> > When will something be done?
>
> Brian Corr wrote:
> > Could someone give an update on a timeline for action?
>
> Something will be done about Plautus when you do something about
> Plautus. The timeline for action on Plautus is roughly:
> 1) You decide to act.
> 2) You act.
>
> Perhaps you meant to ask a different question?
> -Martin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:49:16 -0800
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040225224916.GK23806(a)joey.bomis.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Ed Poor is helping Plautus to try to learn the norms of the community,
> and has great hopes for the future. Plautus has also written to me
> expressing a desire for change.
>
> I will also try to help.
>
> In the meantime, show him love. Love is the only hope for us all.
> If that doesn't work, well, at least we tried.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> Brian Corr wrote:
>
> > I know folks are busy with Irismeister right now, but Plautus satire seems
> > to be eating up a lot of people's time -- both on talk pages and on
> > whichever article he decides to target -- currently
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tornado and
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado
> >
> > Could someone give an update on a timeline for action?
> >
> > Thanks, Brian (Bcorr)
> >
> > At 12:40:27 2/25/04 +0600, you wrote:
> > >Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:40:27 +0600
> > >From: "Arno M" <redgum46(a)lycos.com>
> > >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> > >
> > >Speaking of which - this guy now has 21 signatures (myself included) who
> > >want him banned. He is continuing to make a joke out of the Sep 11 page
> > >and antagonising other users. When will something be done?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:05:26 -0800
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040225230526.GM23806(a)joey.bomis.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I'm a little confused. Why are people so adamant against having an
> article "White Separatism"? Rather than banging our head against the
> wall fighting this guy, why not just make a better article?
>
> The junk this guy is inserting is junk. It looks like a quote from
> someone, and if it is, then it's probably worth treating in a short
> article on the subject.
>
> There's nothing inherently wrong (that I know of) about having an
> article on "White Separatism" as distinct from (but related to) "White
> Supremacy".
>
> Here's a book about it:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801865379/102-0949346-133850…
> lance
>
> My dictionary (American Heritage) has separate entries for "White
> separatist" and "White supremacy".
>
> The (in my opinion, disgusting) point of view expressed in the quote
> is of encyclopedic interest because it *is* a point of view held by at
> least some people who take action in the world, action that should
> concern us all.
>
> David Gerard wrote:
>
> > See
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Paul_Vogel/6…
> .10.66/24.45.99.191/216.99.245.171
> >
> > He's coming in from three IPs and putting the same bit of spam into
> > a set of articles and their talk pages (and those of anyone who
> > reverts the spam).
> >
> > He intends to continue however possible:
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:White_supremacy&diff=245855…
> id=2458453
> >
> > "WE can revert until the cows come home as long as a NPOV is not being
> > maintained regarding this strictly Marxist-PC POV propaganda article."
> >
> > At what point should an anon user be blocked for spam? Is there a
> > measure of what's spamming on Wikipedia?
> >
> > (And I am following bcorr's example and trying to keep reverts to
> > no more than three per article.)
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0800 (PST)
> From: James Rosenzweig <jwrosenzweig(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Protected Wikipedia:Main Page
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <20040225232703.18502.qmail(a)web60707.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Isomorphic caught someone vandalizing [[Wikipedia:Main
> Page]]. Iso reverted, and I decided to protect that
> page for essentially the same reasons that the Main
> Page has traditionally been protected. If you
> disagree, I have noted the protected status at
> [[Wikipedia talk:Main Page]] (and listed it as
> semi-permanently protected at [[Wikipedia:Protected
> page]]), and am happy to discuss things at W:MP's talk
> page. I assume I have done the right thing, but am
> happy to hear other perspectives.
>
> James Rosenzweig
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:13:01 -0800
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: recipes
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <403D3A0D.5090608(a)telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Peter Jaros wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 2004, at 11:51 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Jaros wrote:
> >>
> >>> Giving a recipe for a particular chocolate cake would not serve to
> >>> describe chocolate cake. If one recipe was particularly famous,
> >>> however, it might merit its own section (or possibly article; I'd
> >>> like to try *that* cake) where the recipe *would* be descriptive.
> >>> It's a subtle distinction, but an important one. It comes through
> >>> to readers, if only in terms of a sense of the style.
> >>
> >> That's very patronizing of you.
> >
> > Sorry, I worded that poorly. What I meant that the distinction may
> > not jump out at casual readers, but it sounds better nonetheless. As
> > analogy, using the wrong word in a sentence and making the sentence
> > meaningless is obvious to even a casual reader, while using casual
> > language in a formal setting is often "felt" while not directly
> > noticed. It can take a bit of working with a sentence to figure out
> > what in it sounds too casual (or too formal, or awkward, etc.).
>
> I do get a little hot over these deletion issues. :-)
>
> The expression that I found most patronizing was "it might merit its
> own section". I suspect that the subtleties between descriptive and
> prescriptive or between imperatiuve and indicative might not be
> meningful to the casual reader who wants to find out about a food and/or
> how to make it. The technical detailsof chocolate cakes are not
> inherently controversial. If different ways exist for making such a
> cake, the results of which is better can be entirely subjective.
>
> Using a wrong word that gives the sentence a different meaning, rather
> than just making it meaningless can launch a discussion into a very
> different direction. I confess to being quick to notice this kind of
> thing as I did with the earlier part of your previous post.
> "Proscriptive" and "prescriptive" have almost contradictory meanings,
> but grammaticaly can fit equally well into the same context. I couldn't
> pass up the opportunity.
>
> Ec
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 01:34:18 +0100
> From: Anthere <anthere8(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Instructions
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <403D3F0A.8060104(a)yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
> Ray Saintonge a écrit:
>
> >
> > Let me know, Anthere, if you need help in reverting these changes.
> >
> > Ec
>
> well, thanks Ec :-)
> I'll see how it goes...I am very optimistic :-)
>
> All involved are reasonable people. In case we need more
> reason(s)...your help will be appreciated :-)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: 26 Feb 2004 01:39:00 +0100
> From: erik_moeller(a)gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <93bAfYQxpVB@erik_moeller>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Jimmy-
> > In the meantime, show him love. Love is the only hope for us all.
> > If that doesn't work, well, at least we tried.
>
> Plautus is not reformable. He is a mentally unbalanced, paranoid
> delusional individual. The evidence here is about as clear as it can get.
> There is a discussion / evidence page at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire
>
> In an informal poll, 23 users have expressed that they want Plautus to be
> banned. 3 or 4 users currently think that he can be reformed.
>
> This situation is much clearer than it was with Clutch, and Clutch was
> banned. It is much clearer than it was with Helga, and Helga was banned.
> It is much clearer than it was with Lir, and Lir was banned.
>
> I am all for due process. But this is not a case for mediation. I am
> beginning to doubt the capabilities of the arbitration committee. If they
> can't see that a user who writes messages like "UNBAN ME YOU FUCKING
> IGNORANT ASSHOLE" is a candidate for a ban, then they should not be
> allowed to make such decisions in the first place.
>
> We need quicker and more effective action against policy violations, or
> more users will be driven away in disgust. Wikipedia is a natural
> attraction point for cranks and crackpots. If you want to run an asylum,
> Jimbo, you should say so upfront. Otherwise we should refer these
> individuals to the proper institutions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:01:59 +0100
> From: Anthere <anthere8(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other
> imperativecontent
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <403D4587.8050609(a)yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
> Charles Matthews a écrit:
> >>I really don't think it matters if recipes and other how to's are on
> >
> > wikipedia or on wikibooks, as long as they are not deleted totally. Can we
> > come to some agreement on what to do and just do it. I would like a policy
> > in place so that they don't keep getting listed on VfD.
> >
> >>Theresa
> >
> >
> > Well, I believed it was policy they all went to wikibooks; I thought and
> > think that that's a good, clear policy; and not one that hampers changing
> > the policy later if other thoughts prevail.
> >
> > Charles
>
> No, there is no policy on the matter. It seems it was agreed upon among
> the couple of people doing transwiki and vfd users. In short, that is an
> assumed consensus among a couple of people who care about the matter,
> and want wikibook to progress (which is something I certainly support :-))
>
> But I fear this supposed policy, is clearly not consensual at all.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:08:09 -0700
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <BC629508.18EC%fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> I didn't actually fall down and roll on the floor, but LOL.
>
> Don't worry, we can do the job.
>
> Fred, arbitration committee member
>
> > From: erik_moeller(a)gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: 26 Feb 2004 01:39:00 +0100
> > To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> >
> > Jimmy-
> >> In the meantime, show him love. Love is the only hope for us all.
> >> If that doesn't work, well, at least we tried.
> >
> > Plautus is not reformable. He is a mentally unbalanced, paranoid
> > delusional individual. The evidence here is about as clear as it can get.
> > There is a discussion / evidence page at
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire
> >
> > In an informal poll, 23 users have expressed that they want Plautus to be
> > banned. 3 or 4 users currently think that he can be reformed.
> >
> > This situation is much clearer than it was with Clutch, and Clutch was
> > banned. It is much clearer than it was with Helga, and Helga was banned.
> > It is much clearer than it was with Lir, and Lir was banned.
> >
> > I am all for due process. But this is not a case for mediation. I am
> > beginning to doubt the capabilities of the arbitration committee. If they
> > can't see that a user who writes messages like "UNBAN ME YOU FUCKING
> > IGNORANT ASSHOLE" is a candidate for a ban, then they should not be
> > allowed to make such decisions in the first place.
> >
> > We need quicker and more effective action against policy violations, or
> > more users will be driven away in disgust. Wikipedia is a natural
> > attraction point for cranks and crackpots. If you want to run an asylum,
> > Jimbo, you should say so upfront. Otherwise we should refer these
> > individuals to the proper institutions.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Erik
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 7, Issue 72
> ***************************************
I think the distinction is between "neutrality" and "advice".
A neutral article /describes/ the various ways to make guacamole or to
raise a child.
A How-To book gives /one author's/ advice about the "best" way to do
something.
Are WikiBooks supposed to be communally-written?
Maybe Ed Poor can write a book about prayer and release it as a "free"
text. But I'd probably like at least one copy of "Uncle Ed's Guide to a
Happy Prayer Life" to remain intact at WikiBooks. If anyone wants to
fork (and make their own, radically different text), they have my
blessing.
I'd like to see a book of Anthere's recipes...
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Isomorphic caught someone vandalizing [[Wikipedia:Main
Page]]. Iso reverted, and I decided to protect that
page for essentially the same reasons that the Main
Page has traditionally been protected. If you
disagree, I have noted the protected status at
[[Wikipedia talk:Main Page]] (and listed it as
semi-permanently protected at [[Wikipedia:Protected
page]]), and am happy to discuss things at W:MP's talk
page. I assume I have done the right thing, but am
happy to hear other perspectives.
James Rosenzweig
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools