I should point out that this is the second day in a row Anthony has pulled a
stunt like this. Yesterday, when Jim Henson was featured with a fair use
picture, he removed the picture (causing a revert war betwene him and
several
others) and then when the page was protected (by me) he uploaded a blank
image to replace it. When people reverted that, he got into a revert war on
the
image page. Like today, all this edit warring was visible on the main page.
Anthony is doing this just because he can, because Wikipedia has no
guidelines
against users who are out to disrupt things.
Futhermore, I don't particularly like the suggestion that his actions
motivated policy.
As I said on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Feature : "I've
opposed previous
proposals for voting on stuff because it would add a helleva lot of work to
the process
(as people above have said). The reason I support this is because it
contains no voting.
As a result, unlike all previous proposals, it seems like it might actually
reduce the work
and the bickering. If this had been brough up before Anthony's vandalism
spree, I would
have supported it just the same. Raul654 22:23, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
--Mark
Hi,
Does the mediation committee still exist? I know it hasn't been sitting for
that long, but there's a request on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation where
all three users have requested mediation (myself, RK, Zero). I also left a
note on Wikipedia talk:Mediation committee.
RK is misrepresenting both myself and Zero, but I don't believe this is the
correct forum to discuss it. However, if there is no prospect for
mediation, we will have to find a forum somewhere, because [[Israel
Shahak]] has been protected for a while and there is absolutely no sign
that the discourse around this article is becoming more civil, let alone
productive.
--Dan
> > > Anthony is doing this just because he can
> > Sounded to me more like he's doing it because he's against fair use
images.
> Seems like both, really.
First of all, I'm not against fair use images. I'm against non-free images
being featured on the front page, especially ones with no source information
or which are especially unlikely to be reusable by a large majority of
people.
Secondly, I can't, apparently. I thought I could, I guess.
Anthony
The entire point of the pictures is that they mildly (you should see the OKmagazine covers I DIDN'T use) illustrate what the movement is really about, which is what makes them so important. I'm sorry that some are offended but remember that the offense stems from what they represent, which is the same as what the article represents.
I honestly and truly don't understand (especially in the intensity of the reactions) how anyone could believe that the posting of those images is propoganda in FAVOR of pedophiles.
--C
> Yes, however morally repugnant we and most of the
> world might find this, stating that there are some
> people who hold this POV and linking to material that
> they produce is NPOV. It is not acceptable to pretend
> that such people do not exist. We must, of course, put
> this in the context of the general feeling in society
> that this is reprehensible.
> Mark
>
>
> --- Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> > daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > This morning, I removed two images from
> > [[Childlove]]
> >
> > Thanks for announcing it, so someone can revert it
> > ;-)
> >
> > > Frankly, I am quite disgusted by this abuse of our
> > NPOV policy.
> >
> > So now wanting to represent a POV is abuse of the
> > NPOV policy? That's
> > interesting.
> >
> > I haven't participated in this discussion so far
> > because this is a very
> > sensitive subject, and because I didn't know much
> > about it until
> > recently. This discussion got me interested, and I
> > read some of the
> > stuff that was linked to in order to inform myself
> > of the pedophiles'
> > point of view. It is a very radical point of view,
> > and one that is quite
> > contrary to that of society at large, but that only
> > makes it all the
> > more important for us to include it. Someone
> > mentioned early in this
> > discussion that it would be dangerous for us to make
> > the impression that
> > we are somehow endorsing pedophilia, but at the same
> > time, censoring
> > this POV would be endorsing society's aversion,
> > which (apparently)
> > pedophiles perceive as discrimination and prejudice.
> >
> > I therefore strongly suggest we keep images that
> > document this POV (as
> > long as they don't break any laws, of course).
> >
> > Timwi
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
I don't understand Fred Bauder personal attacks on me or
his bizzare logic.
Fred Bauder quotes from Israel Shahak's obituary in the
Guardian, and claims that this "puts the lie to your false
accusations, Robert.
I read the quote he included, and nothing in it denied that
quotes from Israel Shahak's book; nothing it denied the
existence of the point of view of the Anti-Defamation
League, and nothing in it denied the existence of the point
of view of most Jews.
I honestly don't know what Fred imagines he sees there, but
the words he quotes have nothing to do with what I was
talking about.
A few people here still misunderstand what NPOV means. Zero
and Fred think that they can do their own original research
on a person, and present their own personal conclusions as
"NPOV" facts. Sorry, but that is not how it works. Rather,
in our encyclopedia we give the view of a person
(especially on the subjects they are most well known for).
We also give opposing points of view, and allow these other
POVs equal weight.
Fred seems to have read these two sentences in an obituary,
read nothing else, and then decided for himself that this
somehow neutralizes the points of view of all other people
and groups. That's not so. In fact, the text he quotes
didn't mention the issue of dispute at all.
The issue stands.
Robert
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>While we're discussing violation of the 3-revert guideline,
>let's also discuss violation of the guidelines on use of the rollback
>button, which is meant for reverting anonymous vandals. I was neither
>anonymous nor a vandal, yet the first and majority of the reverts of my
>contribution were made using the rollback button.
>
It's meant for vandalism of any kind, anonymous or no. And yes, I agree
that according to our policies, this situation should not be handled
with the rollback button, which is why I brought up the point in the
first place.
--Michael Snow
As the mailing list admin, I take issue with the charge that "The
mailing list is a terrible place to run a wiki." In my nearly three
years as a Wikipedian, I have found rather that mailing list discussions
tend to be _more_ fruitful than the website talk pages. There are
several reasons for this.
1. Only people who really care a lot about Wikipedia subscribe to the
list. So you get the key players' attention.
2. Discussions cannot get fragmented onto several different and shifting
talk pages. So you _keep_ the key player's attention.
3. Mailing list posts cannot be retracted or altered; they are a
permanent, easily referenced record.
4. There is stricter attention paid to the "no personal remarks" rule
here, so discussions don't descend to the "you're a poopyhead" stage as
quickly as on talk pages. So the discussion stays on topic.
5. Jimbo reads the mailing list. ('nuff said)
6. Finally, we do it because it works. It's a self-perpetuating
tradition, and all major issues have been resolved (or at least first
floated) here.
We've tried to run the wiki on the wiki itself, for routine matters, but
when that breaks down we need a "court of last resort".
Ed Poor
English Wikipedia Mailing List Admin
Jimbo is right:
> Behaving like a jerk to force an issue is really not helpful.
> Getting into edit wars to get your way is just poor form.
There's a difference between taking bold (but reversible) action, as I
myself occasionally do -- and then taking the heat for it.
... And committing the most venial of Wiki sins: blitzing a page with
reverts to prevent anyone else from modifying it.
The difference between doing what Larry originally wrote about it
[[Wikipedia:Be bold]] and what all those annoying edit warriors do is
like day and night, light and darkness, good and evil. It's the
difference...
...between a wake-up call and a fatal drug overdose;
...between having a bucket of cold water thrown in your face, and having
a old tire filled with gasoline hung around your neck and set on fire.
Ed Poor
(I'm a big 4 fan: I never metaphor I didn't like ;-)
"In the particular case of Martha Stewart, Anthony takes matters into
his own hands, breaking long-standing rules that Anthony knows all about."
I think you have mischaracterised this severely. There is absolutely *no
rule* saying that Raul has the right to do whatever he wants on that page.
He merely has been permitted to do whatever he wanted in the past because he
wasn't doing anything that people disagreed with. If this were an article,
this would be clearcut. See [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles]]. But for
some reason because it is a template suddenly people are claiming that it
can be owned, and that a single person can do whatever he wants? Well,
perhaps now that it is clear that people will be blocked for disagreeing
with Raul on a template that can be considered a rule, but it certainly
wasn't a long-standing rule before that.
As for Raul's comment: "As a result, unlike all previous proposals, it
seems like it might actually reduce the work and the bickering. If this had
been brough up before Anthony's vandalism spree, I would have supported it
just the same." I'd note that my proposal, which is nearly identical to the
one which apparently is going to be implemented, had no voting involved.
As for Jimbo's comment (he apparently doesn't know the full story) that I
should have used the mailing list, I have had nothing but trouble with the
mailing list. I'm not even sure if this will go through. The mailing list
is a terrible place to run a wiki. The wiki should be run on the wiki
itself.
Instead of inserting a conclusion here, I'm going to take another day or
more to think about things first. I'm seriously disturbed by the hypocrisy
of this organisation right now.