> 1. The arbitration committee instructs Anthony to refrain
> from playing around and making provocative edits on VfD
> and associated pages"
Which is pretty clear. That Anthony has apparently ignored a direct instruction is a
matter of regret, and would have reflected badly on him had the case proceeded to
arbitration. This is perhaps why, during mediation, he agreed to accept the following
standing order:
[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_Arbitration/Standing_orders/Anthony]]
> If Anthony should, for any reason, make a provocative edit (that
> is, an edit which is "trolling", "disruptive", and/or "antisocial" as
> interpreted by an admin) or engage in an edit war, an admin, may
> at his discretion, block Anthony for a period of 24 hours, not
> subject to the normal warnings and protections afforded other
> users.
I for one congratulate the mediation committee in their success in reaching an
agreement on this case, that has allowed Raul654 to rapidly and robustly deal with the
issue, pending further discussion. I hope that mediation will continue to resolve many
similar issues without resorting to arbitration.
-Martin
Stan Shebs shebs at apple.com wrote:
And the bulk of the content is from - you guessed it - 172! This
is the hallmark of his style; while there are usually no gross
misrepresentations of fact, the wording is so relentlessly slanted
it would take a week to clean up, at the end of which he would just
revert it all in one fell swoop. It's completely exasperating; I
finally stopped looking at anything he touches, scrubbed it all
out of my watchlist, and regained Wikipedia-nirvana. Even so, I still worry
that the unabashed socialist viewpoint will
hurt WP's credibility as an impartial recorder.
None of the sources are "socialist" by any stretch of the imagination. Go
check them. All of them fall with in the mainstream of the academic
literature, in the mainstream of Western political science and Russia
studies, which you'll find is quite often far harder on Yeltsin than this
article. (see, e.g., the analyses of democratization inspired by Guillermo
O'Donnell's "delegative democracy").
All fair minded users will recognize that Stan Shebs, along with Fred
Bauder, have been haplessly sniping at me for over a year and a half. As
usual, not one iota's worth of evidence is offered, but Stan launches into
the ad hominem bluster. This will be my final comment to them regarding this
issue. This time I will not overreact to Stan's defamation. His unwarranted
(and confused) personal attacks are a dishonor only to him, not to me.
I will discuss this, though, with a user demonstrating good faith and a
satisfactory command of the facts. To quickly address some of the other
charges of bias, perhaps some of the others are confusing the 10/93 crisis
with the August 1991 coup, which was a hard-line Communist coup attempt. If
that's the case, I suggest they do some more reading; these two incidents,
though separated by only a couple of years, were quite distinct.
And I sincerely hope that this does get other users into the fold on recent
Russian history. Our articles in this area are very underdeveloped and I'm
not getting very far very fast being virtually the only one making
substantial contributions to them.
-172
_________________________________________________________________
Overwhelmed by debt? Find out how to Dig Yourself Out of Debt from MSN
Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0407debt.armx
I have no opinion about this, I just forward it in case someone feels
like looking at our articles.
I informed the author that they could edit the site.
----- Forwarded message from .@.-----
From: .@.
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 06:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
To: jwales(a)bomis.com
Subject: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in-accurate history of Goa
Jimmy Wales,
The following is an in-accurate account of my peoples history. We
Goans till today are waiting for our true freedom. Please do some more
research to display the truth on your web site.
When India became independent in 1947, Goa remained Portuguese. The
Indian government of Jawaharlal Nehru insisted that it, along with a
few other minor Portuguese holdings, be turned over to
India. Portugal, however, refused. France, which had also had small
enclaves in India (most notably Pondicherry), gave them up. Portugal,
however, amended its constitution to have Goa made a Portuguese
province and refused to surrender it.
Opinions within Goa were mixed. The port was profiting immensely from
being a conduit of smuggled goods into India, the strong Roman
Catholic faith of the inhabitants also led to some affinity for
Portugal. Many of the people were pro-India, however, and a pro-Indian
resistance group began operating in the territory. In 1955 an unarmed
invasion was launched by a mass of Indians following the teachings of
Gandhi. The Portuguese met them with force and 21 were reported
killed.
In the 1960s the World Court and the United Nations General Assembly
both ruled in India's favour in the dispute. World public opinion was
also turning against Portugal due to their brutal actions in
Angola. The United States, however, remained supportive of its NATO
ally and would not allow the UN Security Council to rule against
Portugal.
The Indians offered continued special treatment for the Portuguese in
Goa and protection of the area's distinct culture, but still the
Portuguese refused to negotiate. This was mostly out of concern for
the situation in Angola, where any concessions in Goa would weaken
Portugal's colonial hold.
In December 1961 India, under pressure from public opinion, and
foreign pressure from the rest of the third world to oppose
colonialism, moved into Goa. Twenty Indians and 17 Portuguese were
killed in the fighting, which lasted twenty-six hours.
After annexation the area was under military rule for five months, but
the previous civil service was soon restored and the area became a
federally administered territory.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
----- End forwarded message -----
Fred wrote:
> It would require any administrator who blocks a user to set
> forth at least a reference to the section of
> [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] on which they rely in order for
> the block to be presumed valid and not subject to immediate
> reversal. Reasons like "troll", or "disruptive" would not be
> acceptable.
I will adhere to this. I think it should be policy.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Did anyone else get this??
If so, then beware, this is a scam. See http://www.stlouis.bbb.org/news052004a.html
for details.
Arno
----- Original Message -----
From: "jan tinubu" <janproject200(a)galmail.co.za>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 04:05:51 +0200
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: TRUST
> DEAR SIR,
>
>
> I AM MISS JAN TINUBU 25YRS,THE DAUGHTER OF THE
> PRESENT EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE, NIGERIA,
> SENATOR AHMED BOLA TINUBU. I HAVE IN MY
> POSSESSION THE SUM OF TWELVE MILLION UNITED STATE
> DOLLARS{$12,000,000.00},AND THE TOP LIST OF MY
> PRIORITY
> IS WHERE TO INVEST THIS MONEY OUTSIDE MY COUNTRY.
> "REASON BEST KNOWN TO ME" . I URGENTLY NEED YOUR
> ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING A RELIABLE GENUINE TRADE OR
> COMPANY WHERE I CAN INVEST THE FUND AND IMMEDIATELY
> MEET YOU IN YOUR COUNTRY FOR SETTLEMENT.
> PLEASE I WILL KINDLY WELCOME YOUR ADVICE TOO.
>
> I AM EXPECTING YOUR URGENT MAIL REPONSE. I NEED YOUR
> SUPPORT AND URGENT REPONSE. I HAVE RESIGNED MY
> APPOINTMENT IN THE STATE MINISTRY BECAUSE OF THE
> INVESTMENT.
>
>
> MISS JAN TINUBU
>
>
> THE $12M IS OUT OF NIGERIA AND PRESENTLY DEPOSITED IN
> A SECURITY VAULT. DETAILS WILL BE GIVEN TO YOU AS SOON
> AS YOU REPLY THIS MAIL. PLEASE YOUR REPLY TO MY
> CONFIDENTIAL BOX:janinvest2004@indiatimes.com
>
>
>
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
I need your help. Zero0000 is insisting upon a
verison of events that is based upon a single report
in AFP. The BBC, NYT, HaAretz, INN all disagree with
Zero0000's version. This is detailed in a table on
[[Talk:Current Events]]. Zero0000 is also
insisting, that a different article in HaAretz is a
retraction of an earlier one...there is no indication
of such in the article itself. While that article
details other deaths in this horrible conflict,
nowhere does it discuss the incident of Hassan Zaanin.
Zero0000's version:
* An 18-year-old [[Palestinian]], Hassan Zaanin, is
shot dead in Beit Hanoun in the [[Gaza Strip]] when
heand his familiy attempt to stop Palestinian gunmen
from planting an anti-tank explosive outside their
house.[http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/455715.html
(Haaretz)]
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3920181.stm
(BBC)]
My version:
* [[Palestinian terrorism|Palestinian terrorist]]s
of the [[Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades]] an armed branch
of
[[Yasser Arafat]]'s [[Fatah]] organization,
[[murder]] 16-year-old [[Palestinian]] Hassan
Al-Za'nin and shoot several members of his family,
when the family refuses to allow the terrorists to use
the Al-Za'nin property as a [[Qassam rocket]] launch
site.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3920181.stm
(BBC)]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/23/international/middleeast/23CND-MIDE.html?…
(NYT)]
[http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=66197 (INN)]
[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/455377.html
(HaAretz)]
To prevent me from insisting that the more common
version be used, he is blocking IP addresses that I
use. Please help in preventing Zero0000 from doing
this.
Sincerely,
Lance6Wins
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Your statements about IMDB show a complete misunderstanding of the
researching, editing and writing of reliable film data, or any other data
for that matter. IMDB is nothing more than a vacuous depository of
misinformation, plagiarized credits and unreliable commentary from amateur
observers, which, for useful searchers, is gobbledygook. The creators of
this site began with the wholesale filching of all of the credits
laboriously and painstakingly assembled by my firm, CineBooks, in the early
1980s, which produced the definitive work on film, The Motion Picture Guide
(MPG), 25 vols. offering more than 65,000 in-depth, reliable entries on
feature films, from the silent era to the present. These IMDB plagiarists
were smart enough not to steal any of the "creative" synopses in MPG,
knowing that would be a clear-cut violation of copyright. (And that is why
they show so few synopses in their database, having on in-staff films
experts.) They did not attempt to rewrite my synopses because, simply, they
had never seen most of the films (as I and my staff of experts did), nor did
they have the research to show any background on the films (as we did-from
more than 50,000 published works, and 200,000 files, including production
reports). Even in taking all of our credits, these thieves were clever
enough to know that the credits in and of themselves were "facts" that were
copyrightable under the "organization of the facts" (the legal term employed
in suits to prove plagiarism for non-fiction works). To avoid litigation,
they re-arranged the assembly of the credits, cutely positioning them in
"alphabetical order," but in so doing, misrepresented and wrongly positioned
the credits as they appeared for on-screen productions which properly show
appearance in order of importance of players and crew.
What these moronic thieves did not know and still do not know (until the
time of this message to you and the New York Times) is that in their
wholesale theft of MPG research, they mindlessly (and here only a film
expert would know) picked up and posted all of the many seeded
"plants"-fictional creations of my own, films never made-and blithely,
stupidly incorporated these non-existing films into their useless database.
In organizing the Motion Picture Guide (which took ten years in the making)
I anticipated an attempt by those technocrats busying themselves only with
the impending Internet to steal our content, particularly the credits,
knowing full well that they had no analytical ability or discriminatory
knowledge in selecting or evaluating data, and would simply take whatever
they thought they could use without being sued. Of course, IMDB is nothing
more than a job market now, for anyone trying to get a paid position on any
new movie or TV production, and, to that end, IMDB posts claimed credits by
job seekers. As a reliable reference site on the movies, however, it is
utterly unreliable.
The reason why Jeff Bezos at amazon,com bought IMDB is clear to me. Bezos
and his crew, like IMDB, do not have any true experts capable of discerning
genuine data on film, or, for that matter, books. Bezos is typical of the
Internet tycoons who believe that it is not necessary to employ human
analysis to the data he peddles and that programming will do all that is
necessary. Actually, he and too many like him, will not pay to have experts
address his own data, content that requires only expert (human) evaluation
to be worthwhile to anyone. Thus, he and his kind continue to perpetuate and
make millions from useless or misleading data. When it comes to IMDB, the
uninformed Bezos bought a "pig in a poke."
The tradition of "seeding" data to protect content is maintained by standard
reference firms, including Marquis Who's Who, where I once worked as an
editor. My application of that traditional protective measure for MPG was
therefore not exceptional, but routine.
Jay Robert Nash, Author, MOTION PICTURE GUIDE
Phone: 847-256-2468
Fax: 847-256-2473
Email: via fshields(a)iservices.com
From: "sannse", Sat, 31 Jul 2004 21:37:21 +0100
> As an administrator you do not have the authority to block a logged
in
> user except in the cases outlined in the blocking policy - which
basically
> comes down to instances of simple vandalism.
According to [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]:
Sysops may also permanently block user accounts that make lots of
disruptive edits. However, blocks should not be used against
isolated
incidents of disruptive behaviour from IP addresses and user
accounts
that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits.
Reading that carefully, I am permitted to block accounts that make
many repeated disruptive edits, since those are not "isolated
incidents".
>From the previous paragraph we learn that "disruptive edits" include
"deliberately misleading edits". Since this particular case fits the
description quite well, I believe my actions are within the policy.
Also, since "Lance6Wins" is a new user account only created after I
blocked his IPs, I am entitled to use the more lenient rules on that
page concerning new user accounts (but I don't need to). Finally,
I'll say that in my opinion I am doing Wikipedia a service by cracking
down on this fanatic who has been a thorn in the side of all decent
editors of the middle-east portion of Wikipedia for many months.
Zero.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> Why does the Arbitration page list only one party to
> arbitration issue. It would seem that it should list
> both (all) parties. No?
If there is a dispute between two or more editors, then this
is called a "Mediation" issue and is listed on
[[Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation]]. In the case of charges
against one editor, it goes on [[Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration]].
The person or persons making the charges need not have been
involved in any direct disputation with the person they are
charging, but they might have been. In your case, Viajero charged
you with repeated disservice to Wikipedia over many months and
I plan to support that charge with many examples when the
arbitrators decide to hear the case.
I notice you just added an example in [[Israeli West Bank barrier]]
where your edit summary "replace image with one agreed to in
talk on 26 Jul 2004" shows your lack of integrity since two
complementary images were agreed to after a long negotiation,
and you know that. Next stunt like that and I will block you again.
Zero.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail