Fred Bauder wrote:
>I suggest you submit names to Jimbo with a basis for why you think
>they would be a good arbitrator. That is basically all we do. If we
>all agree on one person (remember we often disagree) he is likely to
>seriously consider the person. If a person is making a lot of trouble
>already we are not likely to think they are good candidates, but
>personally I am a little concerned that what makes a good arbitrator
>is not all that predictable.
>By the way, anyone who thinks they can contribute to arbitration is
>welcome to make proposal on the /Workshop page of any arbitration
>case. I know I'll be looking for talent there. Rumor has it that
>there might be a small reward for any of the Wikipedia advocates
>should any of their work on /Workshop be used in a decision by the
>Arbitration Committee.
:-)
One of the things the AC has been doing this year, to fill gaps as
they come up, is to actively look around the wiki for sufficiently
clueful people to recruit to the AC. This is harder than you might
think, because a lot of the best prospects for the job fairly sensibly
run screaming from the idea. But we have ways and means to convince
them ;-)
Job requirements, off the top of my head ...
* Analytical skill
* Empathy
* The synergy of the two (which is a different thing from either individually)
* An excellent feel for the community; knowing how to deal with
expectations, which are much more hazardous to break than mere policy
* Consistent free time to put into important but often tedious and
depressing work
* Enough political skill on the wiki to convince people you have enough clue
What else?
- d.
I just got this message:
You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page"
tab or by following a red link.
Your user name or IP address has been _blocked_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy) by _David Gerard_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard) .
The reason given is:
Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by
"_Ugabogaimasuuuukpoopit@!_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ugabogaimasuuuukpoopit@!&act…) ". The reason given for Ugabogaimasuuuukpoopit@!'s
block is: "massive sockpuppetry (A1sdf sockpuppet)".
You can _email David Gerard_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/David_Gerard) or one of the other _administrators_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators) to discuss the block. You may also
edit _your user talk page_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Mytalk) if
you wish. If you believe that our _blocking policy_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: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_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences) .
Your IP address is 64.12.117.8. Please include this address, along with your
username, in any queries you make.
Okay. But this isn't my IP address.
Here we go again: collateral damage.
This hasn't happened for a couple of weeks, but it happens frequently enough
-- often three and four times a week: I get blocked as the result of
someone else's conduct. When I try to edit, I get the "User is blocked" message --
but the I.P. address is never my own.
If this follows the usual pattern, I'll be blocked several more times this
week and the next and the next.
How does this happen?
There also have been instances when I've been blocked from editing a page
(that remains open to edit for other users; it's not locked down), but can edit
elsewhere.
I've been told that such a thing is impossible, yet it's happened repeatedly.
How does this happen? Is there something I or someone else can do to
prevent it from occurring again?
dcv
>From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
>MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>>I don't care about the number of votes. If an expert can assert it
>>meets notability criteria it should be kept. We should try to get such
>>criteria for as many types of articles as possible.
>Tell the people on AFD. (And I dare you to quote actual policy.) They
>seriously argue that a consensus of the admittedly ignorant on a
>subject beats a dissenting actual no-foolin' expert.
Simple self-assertion of expertise carries very little weight in AfD. This is
true whether arguing for exclusion OR inclusion.
If, however, one has actual knowledge of a topic it is quite possible to
influence an AfD _strongly,_ not by asserting knowledgeability but by _using_
one's knowledge to locate and cite convincing evidence weighing on the topic.
One of the characteristics of Wikipedia is that the only authority one has is
one's ability to convince other Wikipedians. This is sometimes a strength and
sometimes a weakness.
The problem with saying that "If an expert asserts that an article meets
notability criteria it should be kept" (or the reverse) is that on Wikipedia,
there are no accepted credentials for expertise.
In any situation, Wikipedians credit you with the exact amount of expertise
you actually demonstrate immediately, on the spot, in their presense.
Thanks for all your help and suggestions. It is all very interesting
-- I'm still very new to Wikipedia. That is, I've been reading it for
a while, but haven't edited much.
Tim Starling, I tried your proposed solution from the page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_Tor_users_in_China,
and it works, after a fashion. However, as I noted on that talk page
(which I used as a test), it breaks my access to, for example, the
mailing list archives. I can't access, for example,
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-October/031345.html.
I get the following error message:
Not Found
The requested URL /pipermail/wikien-l/2005-October/031345.html was
not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to
use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
What is the IP address 145.97.39.155, anyway? Is that your own proxy server?
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiP…
>> "Anthony is subject to a one revert limitation, prohibited from
>> creating deleted content that fails to pass a vote for undeletion,
>> subject to ad hoc blocks for disruption, and banned from editing the
>> Wikipedia namespace."
>> Anthony, it wasn't Snowspinner who got you blocked from the Wikipedia
>> namespace for a year. It wasn't anyone else either. It was you and
>> no-one else. You wuzn't robbed, you did it to yourself. This is
>> unlikely to change until you understand that life is not a breaching
>> experiment.
>False accusations with no facts to back them up. Sounds like a repeat of the
>arb ruling itself.
What amazes me is that you can straightfacedly say that while quoting
the URL documenting otherwise.
For those wondering at the veracity of my statements above, I offer
the above URL, its related detailed ruling and evidence pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiP…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiP…
And the previous arbitration case concerning Anthony:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiP…
>Not sure what you mean about it not being likely to change. I'll be allowed
>to edit in the Wikipedia namespace again in a few months.
Then please note from the proposed decision in your second case: "I
would warn Anthony that should Anthony 3 be necessary any hesitations
we have about imposing a substantial remedy may not apply. Fred Bauder
10:23, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)"
The last cases of an editor waiting out their bans and coming back to
continue where they left off (Plautus Satire, Irate) resulted in a
rapid ejection from the wiki. Anthony, I ACTUALLY DON'T WANT THIS TO
HAPPEN and I really don't think anyone does. Your dedication to and
love for Wikipedia is unquestionable, and it'd be a damn shame.
> Can't be much worse than the current system. I've come to find that the best
> way to deal with the arb com is to ignore them. I can't think of a single
> good thing that has come out of the arb com, save those things that only
> needed to be resolved because the arb com existed in the first place. I
> don't think it matters very much who's on the arb com. The position itself
> is fundamentally flawed.
You really, really need some self-insight and to admit the possibility
that you may be at least somewhat the author of your own misfortunes,
not everyone else.
- d.
Hi Fred,
Unfortunately, I have obligations under the law as a litigant to enforce
the Courts orders since the Court retained jurisdiction. At present,
internet stalkers from SCOX have posted the terms of a sealed document
to this site. The best solution is total removal of the page about me,
or a minumum, rollback to the approved content Wales and I agreed to and
permanent locking of the page. Anything else is going to result in
these people coming back to the site, posting the content again, and an
edit war ensuing. I won;t stand by and be libled or used as a whipping
boy for Linux propaganda. I will sign written agreement, provided the
page is locked with approved content or removed entirely. As it stands
I just had Wales served with an order and I notifed Judge Kimball the
content is on this site, I have no other choice, I have an obligation to
enforce this order. The way to remove this obligation from me relative
to this site is to remove the page or better even still, lock it to
prevent these folks from posting sealed materials in the future. As it
stands, I would expect the Federal Court will serve a Praecipe from the
Sheriff on Wales and have it taken down in any event, whether anyone
here agrees or not. I wanted to avoid all that, so I tried as best I
could to provide sound advice on how to sidestep this problem. I wish
the folks on the site had listened. As you have as an attorney, so have
I lived in a constant cloud of litigation for the past ten years. I
really would like for that to change.
Sincerely,
Jeff V. Merkey
Tony Sidaway wrote:
>On 10/26/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What else?
>Skin like a rhinoceros and eyes in the back of your head.
The first one, yep. The second one is covered by the "empathy" and
"politics" requirements - if you have those, 370-degree vision (all
the angles and more) are part of the package ;-)
- d.
geni wrote:
>On 10/26/05, Han Dao <wikipediankiba at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder why Skyring took the trouble of annoying us. What is his agenda?
> What is his motive?
>You are presumeing a rational individual.
>However I suspect it is a desire not to lose face. He has to make us
>appear stupid in order to make it appear that his banning was stupid.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. His blog
(http://skyring.livejournal.com) is a study in denial when it comes to
anything relating to Wikipedia. Also,see
http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=prikipedia .
- d.
Christopher Maloney wrote:
>I configured myself to receive the message digests -- there's way too
>much volume on this list for anything else. I want to respond to a
>particular thread, though, and can't see how to do it easily. Is it
>just a matter of copying the subject line? Actually, I'm pretty sure
>it's not, because I see several cases of duplicate subjects which are
>separate threads.
You'd need to cut'n'paste the References: or In-Reply-To: header from
the original messages, and those won't be in the digest. I'd just
cut'n'paste the Subject: line and put a Re: in front of it as
appropriate.
(Those who notice my appalling threadbreaking of late will be
unsurprised to know I am in fact doing this myself, reading the
messages from the web archive ;-)
Perhaps it works better from the gmane.org version of the list.
Actually, I should look into that one myself.
- d.
dcv wrote:
>Now, what about the selective blocking. How does THAT happen -- being able
>to edit one page and not another, when the article I can't edit is open for
>editing?
> I've been told that such a thing is "impossible," but it's happened to me
>many times.
>Does anyone have an explanation?
That's the bit I mentioned about how each individual *page view* might
come from a different AOL proxy. You're at the same address,
Wikipedia's at the same address, but AOL uses a different proxy in the
middle and Wikipedia sees the proxy's IP, which may be the same or may
be different each time.
(Is it actually completely consistent behaviour per page? i.e., a
given page is always either editable or blocked from editing? If so,
that's something I didn't know before about how AOL does its thing
...)
AOL is a Headache. It's 22% of the US Internet, and that's a LOT of
people. And Wikipedia, being (like AOL) one of those marvellous pieces
of technology that people who can't work computers but are good at
other stuff can use effectively, does in fact want those people in the
pool of possible contributors. But AOL was developed as a completely
separate and unrelated creature to the Internet, and you can still see
the hooks and stitches and bolts and gaffa tape joining the two, and
the way they do things technically looks ... weird.
- d.