I've noticed for quite some time now that the Wikipedia web page is very
very slow to load. I did a traceroute to en.wikipedia.org and it seems
to be a router, 209.247.11.201 (owned by Level 3 Communications in
Broomfield) that adds the most of the delay, rather than the web server
itself..?
I'm pinging from the UK, but I suspect that a lot of the USA (if not
everyone) probably goes via this router also.
Regards,
Ed
PS. Apologies. I suspect this might not be the correct mailing list on
which to mention this.
Well, folks, it had to happen eventually. I can't access the Internet at
work anymore except for STRICTLY WORK-RELATED stuff. (I can't even log
on to the mailing list page to turn on digest access.)
So for the foreseeable future you'll all have to struggle along
valiantly without me. Don't worry, you'll manage splendidly (most will
hardly notice I'm gone ;-)
I hope to come back eventually, bringing an entire ESL class full of
high-school youth or college students with me. Would you like to have an
infusion of a couple dozen of Uncle Ed's friends from the Unification
Movement? I could teach them the wiki-way like Prof. Fuzheado did...
(Please cc me in your reply, as I'm not connected to the list.)
Uncle Ed (user:Ed Poor)
> Please don't. Just avoid being manipulated and provoked in the future.
> Experience is a bit too good of a teacher, if this sort of comedy of
> errors is to knock you out of the game completely.
Well, if and when I return from my Wiki-Vacation, I may, if I feel like
it, put in a request for sysophood again, and let the community decide
properly.
But thanks.
--
Allan Crossman - a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
The Moon is Waning Crescent (40% of Full)
I'm gonna get in some pre-emptive retaliation since I expect this might
be about to be discussed...
I've been accused by User/Troll Libertas of being all "creepy" since I
revealed "her" location after 172 asked me to investigate whether "she"
might be User:Reithy. Libertas claims I've repeatedly revealed "her"
location. This is sort of true. I did indeed look up "her" location and
reveal it.
(I use "her" throughout since "she" claims to be female, but I distrust
trolls...)
I did not use any special powers to find Libertas' IP address. Of
course, mere sysops have no such powers. Libertas revealed "her" IP
address by editing logged out. 172 then gave me it, and asked me to
investigate. I had never been involved with Libertas before.
As far as I recall (the Wiki is much too slow right now to check, so
possibly I'm forgetting something), I mentioned the location on the
following occasions:
I initially mentioned it on 172's talk page, noting that it differed
from Reithy's. I restored it a few times when Libertas edited it
(because I don't like my comments being edited) and mentioned it once
more in a stupid debate (that Libertas started, by complaining about
something I wrote on my userpage about reincarnation) over whether
userpages can contain controversial claims.
I regret the last occurence (the gist of which was that if "she" really
was from said location, it didn't make sense that "her" userpage was so
pro-American, so it looked like it was that way just to stir things up);
but I was discounting the possibility of an American living in said
place. So that was stupid of me.
Anyway, this culminated in a big blowout on IRC. I don't have a log,
alas, but it involved "her" repeatedly claiming that I was acting
creepy, behaving like a thug, and threatening "her". "She" also seemed
to claim that I knew "she" was female (I didn't) and that this made my
discussion of "her" location more disturbing. Curiously, Libertas was
happy to reveal "her" location to everyone on IRC during this discussion.
I did apologise on IRC for the last occurence.
But "she" kept on with "her" insults, and finally, becoming Really
Bloody Furious (tm) I blocked "her". This was possibly another mistake.
I'll step down as a sysop, if people feel I should, but "she" seems like
an obvious troll to me.
But I'm tired, and upset, and angry, and going to bed now.
Evercat
--
Allan Crossman - a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
The Moon is Waning Crescent (45% of Full)
actionforum writes:
> However, I don't think he did anything wrong using info available to
> all, to figure out and speculate on a talk page about who libertas,
> was, wasn't or might be.
Thanks. For the record, when I say I discussed her location, it wasn't
something specific, merely which country she was in.
nas ral writes:
> I saw what was said between you and Libertas. You said some pretty
> nasty things as well. You are CLEARLY too emotionally/personally
> involved to issue a block against Libertas
I know, I know.
> Your last act as an admin should be to get another admin to block you
> for the exact same time that Libertas was erroneously blocked. Its a
> shame, since you seem like a nice person, and this may have been an
> unfortunate lapse.
Well, that's not really necessary; this incident has given me a strong
desire to take some time off, which I am doing. :-)
--
Allan Crossman - a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
The Moon is Waning Crescent (41% of Full)
It looks to me like the block on Libertas should be removed immediately, Evercat has pretty much admitted he abused his powers in blocking her.. His IRC communications are irrelevant to his wikipedia actions. He could have ignored the talk page issues and let them settle down.
However, I don't think he did anything wrong using info available to all, to figure out and speculate on a talk page about who libertas, was, wasn't or might be. That is the risk we take when we use the internet. If he had used sysop powers to violate pseudonym privacy that would be a different matter. I know I don't expect my IP address and information discoverable from it, to be private.
-- Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------
> I'm gonna get in some pre-emptive retaliation since I expect this might
> be about to be discussed...
>
> I've been accused by User/Troll Libertas of being all "creepy" since I
> revealed "her" location after 172 asked me to investigate whether "she"
> might be User:Reithy. Libertas claims I've repeatedly revealed "her"
> location. This is sort of true. I did indeed look up "her" location and
> reveal it.
>
> (I use "her" throughout since "she" claims to be female, but I distrust
> trolls...)
>
> I did not use any special powers to find Libertas' IP address. Of
> course, mere sysops have no such powers. Libertas revealed "her" IP
> address by editing logged out. 172 then gave me it, and asked me to
> investigate. I had never been involved with Libertas before.
>
> As far as I recall (the Wiki is much too slow right now to check, so
> possibly I'm forgetting something), I mentioned the location on the
> following occasions:
>
> I initially mentioned it on 172's talk page, noting that it differed
> from Reithy's. I restored it a few times when Libertas edited it
> (because I don't like my comments being edited) and mentioned it once
> more in a stupid debate (that Libertas started, by complaining about
> something I wrote on my userpage about reincarnation) over whether
> userpages can contain controversial claims.
>
> I regret the last occurence (the gist of which was that if "she" really
> was from said location, it didn't make sense that "her" userpage was so
> pro-American, so it looked like it was that way just to stir things up);
> but I was discounting the possibility of an American living in said
> place. So that was stupid of me.
>
> Anyway, this culminated in a big blowout on IRC. I don't have a log,
> alas, but it involved "her" repeatedly claiming that I was acting
> creepy, behaving like a thug, and threatening "her". "She" also seemed
> to claim that I knew "she" was female (I didn't) and that this made my
> discussion of "her" location more disturbing. Curiously, Libertas was
> happy to reveal "her" location to everyone on IRC during this discussion.
>
> I did apologise on IRC for the last occurence.
>
> But "she" kept on with "her" insults, and finally, becoming Really
> Bloody Furious (tm) I blocked "her". This was possibly another mistake.
> I'll step down as a sysop, if people feel I should, but "she" seems like
> an obvious troll to me.
>
> But I'm tired, and upset, and angry, and going to bed now.
>
> Evercat
> --
> Allan Crossman - a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
> The Moon is Waning Crescent (45% of Full)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Just answer these questions:
a) Do green flamingoes sing Schubert when the sky is a bright canary
yellow?
b) Could you lend me six, no eight, filter-tipped Chesterfields without
any menthol?
c) Are there bombs in Gilead?
> > From: Stewart Pederson <stewped(a)gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx
> >
> > And to Fred, yes I believe the article has factual basis because I've
> > been involved in the research. Rice is and has been in Tibet for a
> > long time. This was a very very quirky story that has reached an
> > almost legendary status in Tibet. I'm going to work in getting
> > pictures of the Yopu statue and form a separate site about the on
> > going research.
>
> 1. If what you say is true, then you can resolve the issue very easily
> by showing us the journal article which you claim to know of.
I have now received a reply from timothyfox(a)panopticonasia.com. You may
recall that the only evidence Tteexx presented in support of the existence of
the legend, and defending against charges that it appeared to be a hoax, was
this citation:
> Lewinski and Manes. "Legends of Rural Tibet." The Journal of
> Asian/Diasporic and Aboriginal Literature.
> http://www.kuixing.panopticonasia.com/fall04/yopu.html. Fall 2004
That URL returns a 404 Not Found, but User:Tteexx or "Stewped" (if he wants
to use it as his email address I think I can use it to address him) insisted
that it was a real article temporarily unavailable at the website.
I have now received a reply from the editor of the online journal, who says:
> From: timothyfox(a)panopticonasia.com
> Date: 2005/01/03 Mon AM 02:45:58 CST
> To: "Daniel P.B.Smith" <dpbsmith(a)verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: Did Fall 2004 issue contain an article on Yopu by Lewinski and
> Manes...
>
> Dear Professor Smith,
>
> Kui Xing has not even had a first issue out yet; it would also be
> available online. Sadly, we have had thus far just one submission for
> possible publication and that is available in the "Workshop" section of
> the website.
>
> What you find at the Kui Xing website
> (http://www.kuixing.panopticonasia.com) is all there is. How terribly
> distressing if indeed somebody has used our website as a defense for a
> hoax of some sort. Hopefully this sort of thing does not happen too often!
>
> Thank you for notifying me.
>
> Sincerely,
> Timothy R. Fox
> Kui Xing: The Journal of Asian/Diasporic and Aboriginal Literature
Since the VfD discussion page asks that it not be edited further, and the
article is deleted so its talk page is unavailable, I am presenting this here
for the record. However, I would like to add it to the VfD discussion page
with a suitable explanation if the acting sysop, Ta bu shi da yu, will give
me persmission to do so.
Well you still haven't removed the block even though it should have expired 20 minutes ago. Once again abusing your priviledge and shirking responsibility.
-- Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------
> Reverting and adding is still reverting. If it weren't then that would open
> a huge loophole in the 3R rule. You were warned, you ignored the warning
> just as you ignored requests to provide citations for the paragraph to show
> that it wasn't original research.
>
> I'm not sure what you are referring to below since you provide no context
> for the adjectives you cite but I'm certainly not immune to having my
> writing edited though I think if you go on a vindictive binge and won't
> exactly enhance your credibility.
>
> AndyL
>
>
> on 1/2/05 4:56 PM, actionforum(a)comcast.net at actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you were doing original research, seeing if you could abusively
> > impose your novel interpretation of reverts upon someone, unsupported and not
> > rigorously defensible by the policy documentation. You succeeded. I've got
> > another 30 minutes or so to serve. I've noticed that you use terms like
> > "rapid", "influential" and "massive" in your writing, it is difficult to tell
> > whether these are POV or original research. It will be interesting to see.
> > Perhaps you want to abuse your priviledge again.
> >
> > -- Silverback
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >
> >> The objection was that no work was cited which applied the concept of
> >> "altruistic genes" to communism and that therefore the claim was "original
> >> research". I believe you cited Wikipedia's altruism article when a citation
> >> was asked for but that article neither had a citation for the claim nor did
> >> it even make the claim itself and this was pointed out to you. The additions
> >> you made did not add a citation or, in any way, mitigate the "original
> >> research" complaint, it simply compounded the problem. Not only did you keep
> >> 90% of the paragraph that was originally removed, you added more
> >> questionable material and didn't even bother taking the matter to Talk for
> >> discussion.
> >>
> >> I don't see how your edit can be seen as anything but a reversion just as
> >> the following would be a reversion:
> >> a) someone had written in an article "John Smith is a jerk"
> >> b) that statement was removed and
> >> c) you inserted "John Smith is a jerk, and he really smells"
> >>
> >> You didn't do anything to address the complaint. You didn't discuss the
> >> matter in talk. You did not fulfill the request for citations, you simply
> >> reinserted almost all of the original paragraph and then made it longer.
> >> Frankly, that not only looks like a reversion, it's a reversion which adds
> >> insult to injury by making the disputed passage even longer and more
> >> questionable.
> >>
> >> You then ignored a warning that you had reverted 3x and that a fourth
> >> occasion would result in a temp ban. You didn't then take the issue to talk,
> >> you just reverted an additional time. And then you come here to claim you've
> >> been hard done by!
> >>
> >> AndyL
> >>
> >> on 1/2/05 1:55 PM, actionforum(a)comcast.net at actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
> >>
> >>> The changes I made were to show the connective logic by which my statement
> >>> was
> >>> not original research, which was your extremely brief and unclear objection.
> >>> Sometimes small changes can be significant, for instance if you ever read
> >>> the
> >>> added wikilink to "altruism" you would see there is a substantial evolution
> >>> section. Changes do not have to be contiguous to be responsive to
> >>> objections.
> >>> My change elsewhere was related to my insert, and a further answer to the
> >>> objection, making the connection clear. Although it would be flattering, I
> >>> doubt that I am the first person to realize that "to each according to his
> >>> ability" is "altruism", or that altruistic memes ride on phenotypes that
> >>> evolved in smaller social groups where kinship was more likely.
> >>>
> >>> My changes were not reverts, the substantive and responsive, to wholesale
> >>> reversions to earlier versions with the rather cryptic "original research"
> >>> complement as an explanation.
> >>>
> >>> -- Silverback
> >>>
> >>> -------------- Original message --------------
> >>>
> >>>>> Comparing Silverback's edit at Jan 1, 20:30 to the one at Dec 31,
> >>>>> 07:22 it seems to not have been a revert,
> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=9017540&oldid=897
> >>>>> 53
> >>>>> 93
> >>>>> since he changed the disputed paragraph quite a bit.
> >>>>
> >>>> He hasn't changed the paragraph as much as add to it. The problematic,
> >>>> undocumented original research is still there:
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Altruism]] [[evolution|evolves]] when those being helped have a strong
> >>>>> likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]]. Altruistic,
> >>>>> non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their
> >>>>> persuasive,
> >>>>> replicative power by riding on these genes, in much the same way that
> >>>>> humans
> >>>>> have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though large nation
> >>>>> states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish genes,
> >>>>> which
> >>>>> tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in others
> >>>>> may
> >>>>> also be of assistance to the communism meme.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is the Libertas version that caused the original problem of which
> >>>> Silverback
> >>>> reinstated the following (that is all but the first sentence from above):
> >>>>
> >>>>> Altruistic, non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain
> >>>>> their
> >>>>> persuasive, replicative power by "riding" on these genes, in much the same
> >>>>> way
> >>>>> that humans have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though
> >>>>> large
> >>>>> nation states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish
> >>>>> genes,
> >>>>> which tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in
> >>>>> others
> >>>>> may also be of assistance to the communism meme.
> >>>>
> >>>> And added:
> >>>>> The explanation for the development of [[Altruism|altruistic genes]] by
> >>>>> [[evolution|natural selection]] is that those being helped have must a
> >>>>> strong
> >>>>> likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]].
> >>>>
> >>>> to the beginning and:
> >>>>> Without the presence of altrustic behavior in humans and the appeal of
> >>>>> altruistic behavior in others to humans, communism and other altruistic or
> >>>>> collectivist memes, such as nationalism, religion, charity, etc. would
> >>>>> have
> >>>>> no
> >>>>> appeal to humans
> >>>>
> >>>> To the end. Given what he reinstated, unaltered, from Libertas' version I
> >>>> don't see how the edit in question can be described as anything but a
> >>>> reversion. A reversion with other changes made but a reversion
> >>>> nevertheless.
> >>>>
> >>>> AndyL
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>>> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> >>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> >>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'd like to chime in on this topic: I doubt very much
that Fred was implying that certain users have a de
facto (if not de jure) status which allows them to
violate Wikipedia policy. If Fred was, I hope he'll
explain why, but as I said, I doubt very much that he
meant this.
Instead, I think what he was pointing out is really a
very simple truth, and one that I think cannot be
fairly called "rankism" (even if it appears in some
ways to be "rankist"). Wikipedia, because of its very
nature, attracts both the good and the bad from the
Internet. Upon a user's arrival, it is often
difficult to tell why they are here, how well-informed
they are on certain topics, what they are willing to
do in terms of finding consensus, etc. Gradually,
water finds its own level, and it becomes obvious to
most people in the community that certain users are
unreliable, here to make trouble, etc., and that
certain other users are generally reliable, here to
contribute, etc. "Assume good faith" is a wonderful
principle that is very important when dealing with
newcomers especially (and one we can still improve on,
I think). It remains an important principle for
dealing with experienced editors, but with experienced
editors it can be informed by that editor's track
record. This is not to say that _policies_ should
apply differently to experienced users, but I think
_editors_ can _choose_ to interact differently with
"old hands" and there's nothing wrong with it.
I'm not defending the protection of the page until
Adam returns -- I think it's better not to do so. I
agree that it seems rankist. But I don't see anything
wrong with saying that Adam has a track record (in my
opinion, and I think in the opinion of many if not
most community members) of being reliable, fairly
reasonable, and a good contributor. Based on this, I
would be more inclined personally to give him the
benefit of the doubt, and I would advise others to do
so, simply because I know Adam's work is almost always
very good. If he is wrong in this case, I would still
say that extending him some grace will almost surely
pay off, since having a good relationship with an
intelligent and usually accrate contributor will
almost surely help me be a better collaborator and
contributor for Wikipedia -- I can say this with
confidence based on my knowledge of Adam, which I
could not say with confidence about an unknown user
(or a new user). It has nothing to do with elitism
and everything to do with experience.
You who are complaining about Adam's conduct may not
know him well. You may also be seeing a side of Adam
I haven't. Either way, I don't see that there's a
problem with a user (arbitrator or no) commenting
that, in their experience, Adam's a good fellow and a
smart one, and so even if he's wrong here it might be
a good thing to try to promote a positive and
collaborative atmosphere with him. It may be that
Fred didn't communicate this well (or that he wasn't
trying to communicate it), but it's how I took Fred's
comment, and certainly it expresses my view of the
situation (knowing the subject matter and the dispute
not at all). I think Fred's comments about sociology,
etc., are intended to point to the simple truth I have
tried to talk about at considerably more length (and
probably much less eloquently), which is merely that
over time a member of any group will become known in
that group, and because their conduct is well-known,
it makes sense to interact with them according to a
different set of expectations.
If I made a little joke about your writing skills, you
might never forgive me -- you don't know me. If an
old acquaintance did, you might take the crack a
little more easily because of your history with them.
If a man or woman you loved made the comment, you
might be able to bear it very easily (or even find it
funny), knowing as you do their experiences in life,
with writing, and how their week had gone. Maybe
that's not a perfect analogy for the situation, but I
hope it at least illustrates somewhat the principle
here, which I don't believe has much to do with "ranks
of users". If I'm screwing up or violating policy, I
expect to get hell for it from anybody and everybody
here -- I don't want "special treatment" and I am sure
I won't get it. But I think I will be spoken to and
interacted with a little differently than a user who
has established a career at Wikipedia of nothing but
screw-ups and violated policies, and I don't think
that's a bad thing -- it's the nature of human
interaction.
Sorry so long -- as usual my comments have probably
outlasted the attention of the mailing list. Happy
new year to all who observe the Gregorian calendar,
James R.
en:User:Jwrosenzweig
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com