A few contributors have taken me to task, for daring to suggest that
enforcing the rules of Wikipedia is a duty -- rather than something to
be apologized for.
I do not believe in "moral equivalence". When people agree to follow
rules, and one of them breaks the rule, another of them has the RIGHT to
point out the violation. At this point, the two parties are no longer on
the same standing. The violator takes the low road, and the
pointer-outer takes the moral high road.
Normally, the offender would then apologize, make amends, etc. Others,
including the pointer-outer would then forgive him.
Some people disagree with this norm. Or they think that social graces
should apply to all situations, regardless of import. "Sorry, that's my
seat." (apology given to offender!)
How about if someone wearing a tee-shirt with a large rooster on it
walks down your street breaking car windows with a baseball bat. Would
you feel a need to apologize to him, before calling the police? (Or
getting together with a couple of neighbors and tackling him?)
Problems with Wik dragged on because we don't have clear moral ideas,
that all subscribe to. The problem with 172 _was_ resolved (without
resorting to the Arbitration Committee), because we were all able to
discuss it on the mailing list. But Abe maintains the posture of having
taken offense, rather than realizing he offended, so the resolution
remains incomplete.
Imagine getting a phone call from the mother of the kid who was breaking
car windows, demanding an apology: "How dare you tackle (or call the
police on) him?" Would you say, "Sorry, I admit it was wrong for me to
try to stop him from destroying things. I promise not to do it again."?
That's ridiculous.
Ed Poor
> if MNH comes back on 2nd October and starts doing the same
> stuff again, will it take another few months for this to be acted
> upon?
In Wik's case we had a "parole" ruling authorising sysops to implement 24 hour bans in
certain cases. Such a thing may be done for Mr. N-H (and Irismeister, as it happens) -
the "certain cases" being personal attacks and similar unpleasantness. Would this
resolve your concern?
-Martin
I have been graced with the following action:
> Your user name or IP address has been blocked by 14002.
> The reason given is this:
> repeated vandalization by adding nonesistant world revolution link to a dozen articles.
> You can email 14002 or one of the other administrators to
> discuss the block. If you believe that our blocking policy
> was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the
> WikiEN-L mailing list
> (http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l).
> Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature
> unless you have a Wikipedia account and a valid email
> address registered in your user preferences. Your IP address
> is 212.181.86.76. Please include this address in any queries
> you make. If you need to see the wiki text of an article,
> you may wish to use the Export pages feature.
I am convinced it's below the dignity of anyone put in this position, to argue over the understanding of "vandalism" and over Wikipedia's need (or
alleged lack of need) of articles on World Revolution and Fall of Communism; and I do not think it is up to me to discuss the interpretation of your
blocking policy -- but maybe it would be in your interest to discuss it? Maybe someone who take, or at least took, his or her engagement in Wikipedia
somewhat seriously is receiving this mailinglist.
I do however question if actions and a policy that are blatantly contrary to how Wikipedia presents itself to the World Wide Web can be in the
interest of a serious project. Like after the non-accepted corrections I tried to make April 10th this year, I can't help a resulting impression of
this Wikipedia being or becoming more of a playground for ignorant but maybe power-intoxicated systops than a field for serious additions to an open-
source encyclopedia.
Angela has pointed out that there are many very old discussions on
[[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]] and she has offered a gmail account
(which I don't need, as I have one) to anyone who can remove 10 of
those old discussions from the page. I looked at the page, and that's
just an overwhelming prospect. The discussions still there are there
because they are the most complex or controversial copyright disputes,
and no administrator has felt comfortable making a final decision and
resolving it. Attacking any number of them at once is way too much
work.
So I'm issuing a challenge to every administrator on this list.
Choose one of the discussions that is older than 7 days. Do all the
research necessary to make an informed decision about whether or not
the page is a copyvio, and perform the necessary action. Many of them
will be quite a bit of work as they require figuring out which parts
are copyvio, etc. But I figure if we tackle one each it won't be too
much work for any one person.
moink
My IP address is 24.4.202.208 .
Today I added a phrase to an article which clarified an important point.
Two or three people who don't want the phrase there have been deleting it
all day, without giving a reason, and marking their deletion as "minor"
(it's against policy to mark a deletion as minor). They have also lied,
calling my edit "vandalism" when they know very well it's not (and anyone
can see this for themselves).
I have restored the phrase each time. Now, without warning, I've just
been told that I've been blocked by 40277. The reason given is the cutesy
but meaningless phrase "Strike 3 bucko". Strike 3 of what? I'm not the
one violating policy here. Other people are. (Are they blocked too?) I
haven't vandalized. Rather, others have been deleting text with no
reason, which, while not technically vandalism, is much closer to it than
anything I've done.
If I was blocked but the other users weren't, then user 40277 is misusing
her/his blocking authority and violating policy; maybe some things need to
be explained to her/him. In any case, s/he needs to do a better job of it
than just giving the lame "Strike 3 bucko".
You don't need me to tell you that if the administrators use their power
to promote their point of view, rather than to do their non-biased duties,
then the whole Wikipedia becomes less relevant in the long run.
You can trace some of the dispute here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ronald_Reagan&action=history
If anyone is in doubt of the relevance of my addition, then I'm happy to
explain it fully and give supporting evidence. So far, none of the
deleters have cared for that.
James
I have been working on various controversial new religious movements
including [[Sathya Sai Baba]] of which I am an ex-member, and
[[Maharaji]]. Unfortunately, it seems very difficult to maintain
objective, balanced articles about these gurus and their corresponding
new religious movements.
People who are followers try to insert positive material and ex-members
go to the other extreme of abusing their former gurus. It is an almost
full time job for me which cannot continue because I will have others
things to do.
It seems that the Wikipedia system does not work well for these kinds of
cases. I would appreciate help in maintaining the articles. Does
somebody have another suggestion?
Thanks in advance, Andries Krugers Dagneaux [[user:Andries]]
User ZW must be banned immediately. I do not want to have
to threaten legal action, but ZW has no right to post
personal information about any Wikipedia users, whether it
is correct or incorrect, especially in the context of a
flame war.
In the recent past I already have received a death threat
from EntmootsOfTrolls (verified by other members of the
Wiki-En discussion list); I also received what some
interpreted as a threat from John Goode, aka Mr. Natural
Health, who explicitly stated that he knew I was Jewish,
lived in NY, and that he was a Nazi who also lived in NY.
The threat was clear.
I am not willing to allow more such threats to be made.
Wikipedia must not allow death threats, nor must it ever
allow private personal information to be put online.
Wikipedia Sysops must purge this article's records so that
such personal information is permanently removed. ZW must
be banned immediately.
I take my personal safety, and the safety of my family,
very seriously. I do not want to have to initiate legal
action against anyone here in order to protect myself. But
it is now a common pattern for those people who hate me to
try and expose me, and then threaten me. If Wikipedia
doesn't take action to stop such outing and threats, then
Wikipedia effectively becomes to party to them, as it
enables them to occur without disability.
This shouldn't be controversial to any sane person. If any
of you are here privately, then you do not want your
private information outed, and you do not want to be
threatened. You don't want people to out your name, then
maybe your address? You don't want Wikipedia to work on
the level of threats, do you? I merely feel the same way as
most of you.
Robert (RK)
=====
"No one is poor except he who lacks knowledge....A person who has knowledge has everything. A person who lacks knowledge, what has he? Once a person acquires knowledge, what does he lack? [Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, 41a]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail