WikiEN-l March 2004

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

94 participants
256 discussions

DNA controversy: 168, Lir, Mav, and Erik: I am sorry for my mistake
by steven l. rubenstein 09 Mar '04

09 Mar '04

In my last e-mail I expressed dismay that 168 had blanked Erik's pages. I was mistaken. Someone has explained to me that 168 had blanked his own pages; another explained to me that 168 has left the project. I apologize to 168 and to the list for my mistake. Of course 168 has a perfect right to blank his/her pages, and even to leave. I stand by the spirit of my posting -- there is something profoundly wrong when things reach the state of a multiple revert war, and people have to find some way to work together -- not that anyone should be banned, or should leave the project. I am sorry 168 has left, because s/he has made important contributions, and I hope 168 comes back and is able to work well with others once again to produce good articles. Steve Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004

1 0

DNA controversy: 168, Lir, Mav, and Erik
by steven l. rubenstein 09 Mar '04

09 Mar '04

I have been trying to follow the list-serve discussion of this, and have gone through the talk-page and page history of DNA, and admit that I may be missing some facts. The whole thing is overwhelming. Unless this discussion ends with some sort of productive resolution, a whole lot of capable people will have wasted an awful lot of time. This distresses me. As I see it, there are really three different issues here and it would be unconstructive to reduce it to one, even if that one were the one that started it all: 1) a conflict between 168 and Lir over the content of the DNA article 2) a conflict between 168 and Mav over the process of editing an article 3) a conflict between 168 and Erik over the rights and responsibilities of a sysop As for the first conflict, I have little to say except I myself have been involved in revert wars with both parties. In my experience, 168 knows more about molecular biology and I respect his knowledge. As for the second conflict, I must confess that some time ago I was caught up in a revert war with 168 concerning genes and drift. Obviously I am biased, but my experience was that it is practically impossible to work with 168 because s/he is highly resistant to compromise. But compromise is a crucial value for a community project. We have to be able to distinguish between factual knowledge and process -- not because facts are unimportant but because each of us has to admit that we may not know all the facts and that another contributor might have something important to offer. This is even more important when it comes to style (i.e., a matter over which no one has particular expertise; that is, a molecular biochemist may have authority in molecular biochemistry, but not necessarily in style). I agree that ultimately there was an edit war between Lir and 168 that has to be resolved, and that the merits of the DNA article provide the basis for resolving it. But there is a larger issue which is how to work with others, and I am very concerned that 168 cannot work well with Mav who, besides being quite knowledgeable about biology, is clearly someone who is devoted to wikipedia and a congenial member of the community. As for the third matter, do I understand correctly that Erik merely de-sysoped 168? It seems to me that he did so with good cause. Perhaps there should have been dome discussion first, but really, things did seem to be getting out of hand. One reason for clear policies is to ensure that we don't have to get bogged down in endless discussion. Perhaps some want to revisit the matter of a de-sysop policy -- okay, that certainly merits discussion. But de-sysoping isn't, in my mind, so awful. I admit were I de-sysoped, my ego would be bruised. But it wouldn't silence me, I could still work on articles like most people; I don't think of de-sysoping as being as serious as even a temporary ban, especially since it can easily be reversed. If I were de-sysoped I would make an appeal here, to create some general discussion, or would contact other administrators for help. That 168 would blank Erik's pages, however, really upsets me. It is childish and unconstructive and shows absolutely no interest in being part of a community and working with others. We have a problem that keeps escalating. The three escalations all have one person in common -- 168. Now, I hate suggesting that someone be banned and am not saying 168 ought to be banned, especially when he knows so much. But knowing a lot is not enough here; contributors have to be able to work with others. Can someone communicate with 168? Steve Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004

3 2

redirecting to user pages
by KNOTT, T 09 Mar '04

09 Mar '04

A couple of days ago I removed the page [[Davide Mana]] from VfD and redirected it to [[User: Davide Mana]]. Another user wrote this on my talk page "I don't think Davide Mana should become a redirect to the user page. It is a bad precedent to allow redirects to user pages. It makes the redirect seem to be a legitimate article to outside links and during database extracts and other forms of porting to other formats for the encyclopedia it will not take user pages (I think) and thus it goes as a broken link. Please reconsider your redirect and return the issue to VfD. - Texture 23:02, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)" I don't think that we should worry about broken links in porting to other formats, but I'm interested in what you all think. So should redirecting non famous people to their userpages be stopped ?

5 5

Erik a couple of issues
by Anthere 09 Mar '04

09 Mar '04

Anthere- > Erik, I reverted that edit of you. > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship& > diff=2676279&oldid=2674374 > (comment : delisting sam, too contentious and will > only provoke extended flamewars) > If you disagree with Sam as a sysop, please just do > like everyone else (but you) does : vote against Sam. >No. I have removed him again. RfA is *not* a voting >page, it operates by consensus, and when it is clear >that no consensus will develop, then it is >pointless to go through the procedure. It's the same >on VfD. I disagree with this opinion of yours. However, I will not revert you again since Sam has expressed his disinterest for sysophood. Otherwise, I would have, as I consider it is not your job to prevent other people from speaking up. You may, however, lead a campaign to prevent Sam from being made a sysop if you wish. But it is not your role to decide whether other people may or may not discuss an issue. Next time you decide to do that, please check with the user first, make campaign, but do not decide for other people please. > Erik, when you unilaterally unsysop someone, could you > please tell the community about it and not only the > user in question (and me, thanks for telling) ? >Which place do you suggest? The mailing list? The >Village Pump? The >Requests for comment page? The arbitration page? The >Wikimedia board? Any of those would have been fine. >As for whether it was justified: "168..." again acted >in clear violation >of the sysop guidelines by protecting a page in an >edit war in which he >was very much involved (see history of [[DNA]]). He >had been warned not >to do so in the past. I do not remember I put your decision into question. If I remember well, I told you yesterday to do as you feel like. I did not scream "nooooo, don't do it". Though I felt like saying it. I do not think you should feel that you have to justify yourself about this move (unless you somehow feel uncomfortable with it afterwards ? :-)). However, as a ***developper***, so as someone whose community ***trust***, you should feel yourself bound to report such action to the community. It is bad you take this kind of decision, and do it, without telling the community. I entirely support your right to do so in emergency (though in truth, the emergency was ***gone***), however, this does not mean you may whatever you feel like without others being aware of it. The arbitration committee has >not even heard his >case because he was not referred by Jimbo! This is >ridiculous. I agree this is ridiculous Erik. I only asked twice the arbitration committee to do something, and only asked twice Jimbo to refer it. Plus it was seconded by Sannse. However, I think there is something your are forgettting here (or possibly you do not know). The fact is that if Mav was willing to go to arbitration, as somehow a representant of the community to fix this sysop abuse issue, the primarily requester maker was 168...who also had issues to fix with Mav. So, in the end, you practiced yourself arbitration on behalf of Mav (and by extension the community), but 168 request...are just in the trash can. >If there's >one person who should not be a sysop, it's this guy. >And not in 3 weeks and >for 24 hours, NOW and indefinitely. As I said, the problem is not your decision, but the lack of transparency. You did not even remove the guy from the sysop list, no ? >I refuse to sit idly by as our >policies are mocked. I second on this; I also do not appreciate the current immobilism :-) Regards, ditto __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com

2 2

Blocked user: Jesus Chirst
by Optim 08 Mar '04

08 Mar '04

Summary: EdPoor blocked a user "Jesus Chirst". My reply: His/her username was the only reason for the block? There was no discussion before the block? If these two statements are true, then this user should get unblocked. --Optim __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Erik, a couple of requests
by Brian Corr 08 Mar '04

08 Mar '04

I am very concerned and disturbed by these events. I think that these sort of actions "win the battle, but lose the war." I had not been involved in the Mav/168... issue, but what I have read on the list and the various Wikipedia pages leaves me still unclear why 168... had to be sysoped unilaterally and before the arbitration committee was assigned the case. If 168... had been engaged in a range of conflicts at that moment and taking advantage of his sysop powers in them, I could better understand, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I appreciate that Erik has apologized for forgetting to let people know about it. However, I am fearful for the reason Anthere laid out about people exercising their power to act as the police, the judge, and the jury -- even if I would agree with the decisions they make However, I *have* been carefully following what's been going on with Sam Spade/Jack Lynch for the last couple of weeks. Indeed, I have been rather involved in dealing with him when I have the stamina. I am completely opposed to his being removed from VfA after a few minutes. I understand the point about flamebait -- and clearly many of us are convinced that this user is a troll -- a very persistent and strategic one, but still a troll. But to remove this from VfA was counterproductive: * Sam Spade was nominated by Perl at 21:24 -0500 * I had gotten notice from someone that Sam Spade was listed on the page at 21:58 -0500. * By the time I got to VfA the nomination was already deleted -- not even removed to the talk page. That happened at 21:52 -0500 I think that the nomination should have stayed up for at least a day -- then it could have been removed to the talk page as is normally done. If we are to operate in a cooperative manner, we need to know about these sort of things. I don't think it would have been a problem. There of course wouldn't have been much support for his nomination -- even though Erik told Sam Spade that he would have supported the nomination on his talk page -- but I think it would have created less "evidence collection" than did the numerous attempts of Aplank/Greenmountainboy to become an admin. If Sam Spade had left a message on VfA saying he didn't accept the nomination that would have been one thing, but I don't think his message to Perl <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Perl&dummy=1&diff=2675…> was enough to justify removing from VfA either. I will add that I'm sure that Sam Spade reads this list a few times a day for more ammunition, so we are all doing the worst thing possible in this case -- we're feeding the troll here and all over the wiki. I think the voting and discussions of RfA would have done that to some degree, but now he's succeeded in getting the list involved -- again. And I'm sure bringing the conflict to this forum is much more nourishing than just having it on the wiki itself. If you think I'm exaggerating I'd suggest spending a few minutes perusing his contributions: <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=…> He's a master at wasting people's time -- both newbies and more experienced users -- and he's been sucking up a ton of people's editing energy. Three more examples: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarian_socialism#featured_article???> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Bryan_Derksen&oldid=23…> as Jack <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pantheism> as Sam (and I included one with my involvement in the interest of "full disclosure") *But overall*, I am very concerned that we are being increasing divided and split by internal disputes and by trolls -- and while this isn't in any way new or unique, I haven't seen this level of rancor and mistrust in my time here. Considering how rapid Wikipedia's growth has been of late, I am very worried about what this bodes for the future. I think the mediation and arbitration committees are an important first step, but for them to do what they need to, there needs to be more energy put into keeping them moving forward and staying active -- and I believe that the mediation committee needs to be able to directly refer "cases" to the arbitration committee. I also think that this must go hand-in-hand with a lighter touch by sysops and developers, and some clarification of guidelines to help make the various systems that keep Wikipedia functioning (sysops, bureaucrats, developers, the two committees, and Jimbo's role) all work together better than they are currently doing. Thanks, Brian (Bcorr)

1 0

DNA, Mav, 168
by Anthere 08 Mar '04

08 Mar '04

>It is completely wrong to characterize this as a me vs >168 issue. Several people on Talk:DNA have tried to >work this out with 168 and Lir. This last bit >saw one revert from me, two from Bryan Derksen, three >proposed compromise versions submitted by me and 6 >reverts by 168. After 168's last revert >to his favored version, he protected [[DNA]]. Erik >later de-sysoped him for >this. 168 then blanked his user and user talk pages. Let's be more accurate. The current issue on the DNA (I mean, the content of the page itself) is clearly not a 168/Mav issue. It is more a 168/Lir issue that degenerated into meaningfullness. Most of the original contributors to the debate are wisely hiding themselves :-) In a mail I received saturday, I had this comment (I dare making it public, because it is so true :-)) "I don't envy your position as mediator. Personally I think I will go back to investigating whether Huntsman spiders will really bite people as they are claimed to do, and whether it really hurts so much when they finally do it. I think maybe that is safer. ;-)" Note that Lir is extremely discreet as well. That leaves just a couple of people hurting themselves, and a good contributor leaving. Mav just happen to be an element in the last reversion scheme. However, the arbitration issue is another matter entirely. Mav wanted the arbitration to consider whether to unsysop definitly 168, or perhaps to get a pledge from him not to abuse power again. 168 considers Mav was highly unfair to him, and is partially responsible of what happened. In my great innocence, I had hoped that the sysop issue could be fixed before we could go back to an unprotected article. In my other great innocence, I had hoped that any conclusion resulting from the arbitration committee could help 168 feels better, and approach the article in a better frame of mind. God preserve my innocence ! :-) >An except from >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168 >(you should read both summaries if you want an >overview of the two versions of >events): I added a third version :-) >On March 5 DNA was unprotected by Kingturtle.ns. All the report by Mav is entirely correct. >Jimbo has not decided yet whether to allow admins the >ability to block >users for 24 hours for breaking this rule. And this is correct as well. And I do not think there was an emergency to unsysop 24 hours after the reversion war. This should have been Jimbo or arbitration committee to decide. Anyway, this conversation is pretty much academic now. 168 left anyway. Wikipedia is actively making sure to select contributors for their strength and ability to resist pressure and bullying. That won't help decrease the conflict to do so. ihmo :-) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com

2 1

personal report of DNA and related events
by Anthere 08 Mar '04

08 Mar '04

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168#Version_of_… __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com

1 0

DNA, Mav, 168
by Daniel Mayer 08 Mar '04

08 Mar '04

Jimbo wrote: >So I'd like to appeal to 168 and Mav to set a good example, >to try to show people how this can be done, to show how >love for knowledge, love for our big picture goals, and yes, >love for each other, and be used to resolve an issue. It is completely wrong to characterize this as a me vs 168 issue. Several people on Talk:DNA have tried to work this out with 168 and Lir. This last bit saw one revert from me, two from Bryan Derksen, three proposed compromise versions submitted by me and 6 reverts by 168. After 168's last revert to his favored version, he protected [[DNA]]. Erik later de-sysoped him for this. 168 then blanked his user and user talk pages. An except from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168 (you should read both summaries if you want an overview of the two versions of events): On March 5 DNA was unprotected by Kingturtle. [57] On the next day, Anthere asked Kingturtle for the article protection to be restored at first sign of necessity. 168's first edit to that article was a revert to his favored version the next day. [58] Mav reverted the article back to the version most people who voted on the February_5_Version liked. 168 reverted the article to his favored version again. [59] Mav responded with a proposed compromise version that combined the information contained in both versions. [60] 168 reverted that as well.[61] Mav tried another compromise [62], but 168 reverted back to his favored version again.[63] Bryan Derksen then reverted 168. Mav saved another proposed compromise version [64], which 168 reverted (marking the revert as a minor edit and not giving an edit summary). [65] Bryan Derksen reverted 168's revert. 168 auto-reverted Bryan [66] and protected the page. [67] Note that that was a total of 6 reverts by 168 in a 24 hour period and that a poll that would make a 3-revert per day limit policy has 45 votes to 6 [68] Jimbo has not decided yet whether to allow admins the ability to block users for 24 hours for breaking this rule. --mav __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com

2 1

Be heartened by the fact 168 will not write any more DNA article
by Anthere 08 Mar '04

08 Mar '04

Be heartened people. The DNA article is a good article indeed. Its main author was a wikipedian named 168... 168... authored many good articles in the molecular biology field. Unfortunately, he met a user called Lir on the way. He tried to raise the discussion many times on her case. When he saw no reaction from the community whatsoever, he tried different options, which unfortunately, do not go along the rules. He did them in great part to raise attention. He was treated like a paria for doing this. He requested public trial. He had not. I should never had tried to help with mediation, I should have left him speak aloud. He requested arbitration, as he felt he was wronged. He was denied that right. I now know, that arbitration is an unfair process, because access to arbitration is only granted to a certain category of people. So, be heartened people, the DNA article is good article (thanks in great part to 168), and the DNA article is now secure from the outrageous attacks of a dedicated man, who gave so much hard work to the project, and who ended up being treated like a paria and a vandal. >From many conversations, I know a couple of people will be very happy and relieved that 168 is gone. I hope it will not be the general feeling at least. And that, in spite of 168 abusing sysop power, there will be a couple of person to just thank him for the hard work he gave to the project. Please, do not ALL OF YOU let him go just as you would do with a vandal. It was not winning a battle against 168 that occured. It was just forgetting that those who build the encyclopedia are human beings, and not perfect. ------- A copy of a comment from POM I went back and read through the archives. I think it is clear that Lir has achieved a stunning victory against all others by playing "let's you and him fight," and I can understand why 168 does not like to be in the position of dealing with his victory. I don't think anybody else should be happy with that victory either. If anything has emerged from these discussions its seems to be a consensus regarding Lir's edits. That consensus should not, IMHO, argue in favor of any of the other candidate passages. P0M 06:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com

1 0

← Newer
1
...
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
...
26
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

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 March 2004