WikiEN-l February 2004

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

106 participants
441 discussions

More in sorrow than in anger (was: Also mad as hell...)
by Poor, Edmund W 23 Feb '04

23 Feb '04

I gave Irismeister a strong warning and have placed him on Uncle Ed's "Naughty List". He better not step out of line again. Ed Poor

1 0

Going to Court
by Allan Crossman 23 Feb '04

23 Feb '04

Sean Barrett writes: > I find it hard to believe that the act of editing Wikipedia could > possibly cause someone to lose his right to seek redress > through the courts. It's the other way round. Seeking redress through the courts could possibly cause someone to lose his right to edit Wikipedia. -- Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)

1 0

RE: [WikiEN-l] Going to Court
by Poor, Edmund W 23 Feb '04

23 Feb '04

I'd rather not be a volunteer here, if people are going to sue each other over talk page comments. If I were on the Arbitration Committee, I'd most likely veto to expel anyone who threatened another Wikipedian legal action in some real-world court. Get a grip, people. We're just helping each other edit a few articles. WHAT is the BIG PROBLEM?! The only grounds for suspension or expulsion is deliberately uncooperative editing or discourteous behavior: *outright vandalism *POV masquerading as "obvious truth" *name-calling If you can't get someone like me or Angela or TUF-KAT to mediate, they are refered to Arbitration. We get a decision in a week. What's wrong with that?! Ed Poor Mediation Committee member

1 0

I'm etc
by Allan Crossman 23 Feb '04

23 Feb '04

Jimbo writes: > Yes, agreed! Allen, don't go. We need level heads. It's Allan, you insensitive clod. ;-) Although my talk page says my return is "possibly hypothetical", that leaves things pretty open. I've never actually said I'm leaving forever, so this shouldn't be interpreted as "do what I say or I'm walking." :-) -- Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)

1 0

I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it any more
by Allan Crossman 23 Feb '04

23 Feb '04

Wikipedia's methods to deal with trolls are broken. I'll refer to 2 cases, one I'm not involved in, the other I am. The former is Irismeister, who, as well as engaging in a prolonged edit war on [[Iridology]], has now threatened legal action against not one but two other users. Is this acceptable behaviour now? He remains unbanned. The latter is User:Plautus_satire, who has engaged in edit wars on: [[Quasar]], [[Laser star hypothesis]], [[Albert Einstein]], [[Black hole]], [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], [[Space Shuttle Columbia disaster]] and others. A look at the full (ie 500 edit) history of [[Black hole]] shows that on that one page he's been reverted by me, SheikYerBooty, Cyp, Jwrosenzweig, Isomorphic, Modemac, Morwen, Curps, and an anonymous IP. He has had similar wars on other pages. Even after 8 days, and certainly after having had NPOV pointed out to him, he continued the insertion of opinion as fact, for example, on [[Laser star hypothesis]], stating categorically that Hubble is a spy satelite. According to a a poster at Apollo-moon-hoax groups, who commented at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire]], he has been banned from two such groups. Said poster gave a link: http://www.clavius.org/plautus.zip At the above is an archive of Plautus's messages to the Yahoo Apollo group, in which he sends literally hundreds of messages, often abusive, in the space of a single week. This suggests to me his motives are simply stirring up arguments, rather than any genuine desire to contribute. [[User:Silsor/fanmail]] contains several extremely abuse emails from him when he was temporarily banned. As has been noted on this list, he also spammed just about every sysop in connection with that event. Now, I freely admit I have not always acted well when faced with Plautus - I have occasionally adopted a sarcastic and condescending tone, for example. As a result of feeling I was in too deep, I decided to try to take a break from Wikipedia for a while. Yet even after this was pointed out to him, he repeatedly trolled my talk page with absurd complaints about me removing comments from it. Lest anyone should think it's just me who has a problem with this guy, there is a vote at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire]] where, at the time of writing, 14 people are in favour of him being banned, with 5 opposed. Yet he remains unbanned. Supposedly, instead of banning him, we now have to mediate with him. This is quite literally insane. -- Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)

5 5

RE: [WikiEN-l] I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it any (a scenario)
by KNOTT, T 23 Feb '04

23 Feb '04

IMO crazy user 2 should be banned for not using option 1. Theresa -----Original Message----- From: Optim [mailto:optim81@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: 23 February 2004 08:54 To: Dan Drake; English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] I'm mad as hell,and I'm not gonna take it any (a scenario) --- Dan Drake <dd(a)dandrake.com> wrote: > No. I'm using the legal system this week, if > the lawyer who's handling my [civil matter, > none of > your business, not expected to be litigious] is > ready for another conference. I admit this in > the full > expectation of not being banned from Wikipedia > for handling my own affairs. Is your question > deliberately misleading, or is it just > looseness of expression? Misleading? No. Probably it was looseness of expression. > New question: Is using the legal system to > settle Wikipedia disputes and vendettas > bannable > behavior? > > Answer: How can you ask? Of course it is. Take > it from an Americocentrist in litigious > America: > you don't want to go there. > >From below the thread starts becoming silly. Don't continue reading if you don't have time to waste. Bad-User-1 may post libel or personal information against Crazy-User-2 on Wikipedia pages. The nature of the libel and the information is such that in a lawsuit against Bad-User-1, Crazy-User-2 could win immediatelly. Crazy-User-2 has two options: Either ask Wikipedians to remove the libel and personal info from public view and ban Bad-User-1 or fill a lawsuit. The first option is, of course, the best, but Crazy-User-2 is a bit crazy and is willing to spend money and time for fun. Crazy-User-2 also wishes to "test" their new lawyer. Crazy-User-2 chooses to fill a lawsuit. Without involving Wikimedia Foundation, Crazy-User-2 finds Bad-User-1. Crazy-User-2 fills a lawsuit against Bad-User-1. Wikimedia Foundation knows nothing about the lawsuit. Bad-User-1 didn't threatened in public Crazy-User-2 with a lawsuit. Nobody, except the lawyers and the two users, know anything. Bad-User-1 sends an email to Wikimedia Foundation asking to ban Crazy-User-2 from Wikipedia because of the lawsuit: "Hi! Crazy-User-2 just filled a libel lawsuit against me! Crazy-User-2 is a bad person! Please ban Crazy-User-2! Thanks!" The lawsuit does not involve Wikimedia Foundation or Wikipedia in any way. Nobody asked Wikimedia Foundation to give information about any user. Other Wikipedians would know nothing if the email was not sent. Will Crazy-User-2 get banned? Note that this is a different case than if the lawsuit involved Wikimedia Foundation (for example. asking the developers to disclose information such as IP addresses etc). This is only a theoretical discussion, mostly to see our reasoning on some scenarios. And, hey, Don't take this discussion too seriously! :) --Optim __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

1 0

Also mad as hell...
by James Rosenzweig 23 Feb '04

23 Feb '04

I am doing my level best to remain silent in the face of a campaign by Irismeister to bait me into lashing out at him. I have been advised from several quarters not to say anything bad so he can get himself banned. I may lose patience very soon, and either make horrible comments his way or leave Wikipedia (possibly both). Irismeister apparently believes he can threaten to sue me and then blame me for cutting off contact. If I have to endure much more of the following "Jwrosenzweig is an adult and perhaps he can speak for himself. But if he refuses to speak to me (perhaps he is just afraid and/or embarassed for the miserable things he did to me and the iridology page) - then why doesn't he address the Wiki community instead, for what he did last week? Does he fear legal action there too ? I know it's hard for him to be a policeman (keeping him from editing - which he really does better than policing) but I am willing to forgive his provocative and insulting behavior" from a known troll, I think it will be the end of me. I believe I have exhibited as much patience as possible, but I cannot continue to try and edit productively here if I am threatened with libel for talking to trolls, and threatened with censure or ban for ignoring them. If anyone thinks it is easy to endure the kind of baiting that Irismeister resorts to, I invite you wholeheartedly to attempt a discussion with him. Will the AC please consider looking into Irismeister? I am very sorry to admit that I wouldn't bring the charges myself (without a document from him stating that I would not be held liable for any statements made), as I can't risk a lawsuit. Really, I think that's the point. When a troll also apparently possesses some funds, legal counsel, and the desire to sue, I feel trapped. And I've probably already said too much that would be counted libel by Irismeister, so I'm done talking now. HELP. Jwrosenzweig __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

2 1

I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it any more
by Allan Crossman 23 Feb '04

23 Feb '04

Optim writes: > Do you mean using the legal system is considered > bannable behaviour? Users making serious threats against others should not expect to be allowed to continue here, especially when they're involved in other disruptive behaviour. That's what I mean. Obviously there are exceptions - legal action against Michael was talked about, for example. A little common sense needs to be applied. -- Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)

1 0

Mediation 168 Mav
by Anthere 22 Feb '04

22 Feb '04

Hello all, This is an update of the current situation between 168 and Mav disagreement with each other. As a reminder, Mav requested mediation with 168, officially for abuse of sysop position, and general disruption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation#168..._and_…), 168 considers that Mav had an unfair behavior towards him, and that it had detrimental implications on the way his actions were perceived by the community. ------- Some time after Mav requested that 168 behavior as a sysop be examined, 168... was temporarily unsysoped as preventive action, as many editors thought he was using his sysop power in the wrong way ------- Today, following a poll, 168 sysophood was restored. Several users considered the initial unsysoping was meant to be temporary, and that it had to be kept temporary for the temporary tool to stay usable as a *temporarily* tool. Jamesday comment : That's one reason why it's important that 168 be only a tempoprary de-sysopping. If it is not reversed it will create the impresion that it was not temporary and people will be reluctant to use this approach for similar ongoing situations in the future. I urge everyone to select the poll choice to re-sysop 168, knowing that if misuse happens again, we can repeat the process rapidly. Jamesday 14:23, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) -------- Several people have expressed their opinion that 168 should be unsysopped, for a short time, or more permanently, or that at least resysoping should be accompanied of guarantees from 168, that he will not act again in an alleged bad way (mav, Maximus Rex, Lirath Q. Pynnor, RickK, Eloquence, Kingturtle, plus other comments) ------- The resysoping of 168 does not change the initial request of Mav...nor does it change the initial feeling of unfairness of 168. Mav and 168 have both written their own factual report of what happened on DNA and related pages. Reports may have been edited by other people, but they both agree with at least one report of facts. These are available here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168. From my opinion, they both agree on facts. But two versions were necessary, since opinions tended to mix with facts (it is really tough to be NPOV right :-)). I am currently trying to decipher the bottom reasons of each to be rather unhappy with each other. Curiously, I think they might agree on more than what they think...but well... :-) ------- I am sure that some people will want to request that 168 is unsysopped again. I hope they will give a little more discussion time to us before going on a crusade. I think it is very important. I just want to reassure Mav that it is not because 168 has been resysopped that his request is not relevant any more (this in case he feels like calling for arbitration), to tell 168 that his other concerns are still valid, and anyone not to put fire on the oil, even if they currently feel like 168 sysophood is a community matter, not a 168/Mav matter. I think these two people are good people, and both good contributors, perhaps both with nice egos, and there is no terrible hurry. Please, give them time (well, us :-)). Thanks Ant

1 0

wikipedia & hard drive
by John Knouse 22 Feb '04

22 Feb '04

Oh, and when I use the Bomis browser to try to edit articles, I can't insert carriage returns -- what happens is that the edit screen reverts to a blank screen! -- John Knouse jaknouse(a)frognet.net

3 2

← Newer
1
...
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
...
45
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l February 2004