There is now a formal proposal for a criterion for speedy deletion,
worded as follows:
1. unwikified
2. cut-and-pasted verbatim from another website
3. less than 48 hours old (could be relaxed if the source is verified
not to be Wikipedia mirror?)
4. no assertion of permission
5. not from a known public domain or GFDL-compatible source
This appears to be an extension of the copyright infringement CSD,
which is as follows:
An article that is a blatant copyright infringement and meets these parameters:
* Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial
content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service) and;
* The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation
material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits and;
* Uploader makes no assertion of permission or fair use, and none
seems likely and;
* The material is identified within 48 hours of upload and is almost
or totally un-wikified (to diminish mirror problem).
This ignores the statement of permission that is made during posting
of the material, and would not require the deleting administrator to
make a proper investigation--unless he knows the article to be from a
GFDL source or to be in the public domain, the article can be
summarily deleted.
In my opinion this is going far too far. Until recently, copyright
infringements had been dealt with perfectly well by listing the
material of [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]]. Under this new
proposal, articles that are not even copyright infringements would
stand to be deleted on mere suspicion, and without any proper
investigation.
To Whom it May Concern:
I was unfairly blocked by nandesuka for allegedly violating the 3-revert rule. I only reverted once. In no way did I revert four times in a 24-hour period (or any other period for that matter). I was unaware of the 3-revert rule prior to this incident. I have since registered for an account with wikipedia and have become a subscriber to wikien. I enjoy wikipedia and I like to correct errors which I have located with a high amount of frequency.
Yours truly,
neodanite
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
This message was bounced back to me so I am resending it. I do not know
what went wrong and apologize if I am just duplicating.
I do not want to go into details about FuelWagon's behavior, in part
because the list-serve is not going to make any decisions about how to
handle specific problems, and in part because trolls are tarbabies: good
editors respond in arithmetically increasing increments, and trolls respond
in geometrically increasing increments. That said, it was enough for me to
look at FW's absurd and absurdly long list of conditions for resolving the
dispute with SlimVirgin to recognize the pattern. I started going through
FW's list of "reckless" edits by Slim, and as far as I can tell this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=next&oldid=186…
involved nothing more than adding a pdf identifier. Why bother going on at
that point? Yet I did, and saw that Neuroscientist had what seemed to be
several substantive, well-informed, and reasonable criticisms of some of
Slim's edits. Slim provided what seemed to me to be an appropriate
response to Neuroscientist, and Neuroscientist's response,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo&diff=next&oldi…
was respectful and gracious. If anything, this exchange between
Neuroscientist and Slimvirgin proves to me that it is possible for editors
with varying degrees of expertise and experience to handle conflicts in a
mutually respectful way. FuelWagon's actions provide the starkest of
contrasts.
The reason I am writing is because I think the question of good editors
leaving is or should be a matter of central concern to us. I think the
fundamental problem is this: we are growing at an incredible rate. This is
on the surface a good thing: more articles covering more topics is a good
thing, and we certainly have come up with a number of articles that I
believe are of publishable quality. For all I know, we are attracting just
as many new good editors as bad ones. The problem with growth is this: a
troll, or set of trolls, has a much larger landscape on which to roam and
wreak havoc. Consequently, it is often very difficult or at least
time-consuming for the victim of a troll to respond. And it is even more
difficult and time-consuming for anyone else (an administrator, a member of
the ArbCom) to sort out what has been going on. And it becomes very
tiring. Eclecticology alluded to the benefits of dedicated administrators
taking a vacation, and of course he is right. But if there were more
admins who took on the burden of corralling trolls, and more effective ways
of dealing with them, those admins would not need the vacation. So to me,
the fact that admins even rely on vacations as a palliative means that the
damage trolls accomplish is somewhat greater than the healing or repairing
that administrators can accomplish. No surprise: it is easier to break
things than to build them.
Ec also points out that sometimes admins are too harsh too hastily. He is
correct that this does happen; I have done it. But there are plenty more
times where I have addressed a newbie respectfully and the newbie
reciprocated in kind -- and plenty of times where I have addressed a newbie
with respect only to find myself stuck to the mess of tar trolls trail
wherever they go.
Anyone who has been here long enough knows that Ed Poor and I have had
plenty of heated comments. But I have always regarded him as
well-intentioned and open to criticism and that enough is to make us all
concerned that he may feel harassed to the point of leaving (yes, Ed has
taken vacations in the past -- but in those cases he was reflecting on his
own faults or overinvestment in Wikipedia, not, to my recollection at
least, because someone was driving him out). I have even gotten into
conflicts with SlimVirgin, although for the most part I have found it a
real pleasure to work with her. I do not always agree with one of her
edits, but she is among the most reasonable people I have ever disagreed
with. That she may feel besieged is more than a shame. What Ed and Slim
are expressing make manifest a serious issue we should confront head on.
I have two propositions. The first one is based on a premise some of you
may not share: I believe that experienced administrators can within two or
three days of dealing with someone tell the difference between a troll and
a non-troll (e.g. someone educable, or someone with whom we simply have
legitimate differences of opinion that need to be sorted out). I have
never sat down to think, concretely, what it is that so clearly signals at
the earliest moment that someone is a troll. But I think if a few of us
put our heads together, and revamp either the Wikipedia: Etiquette page, or
one of the other pages on personal behavior. I think we can and ought to
come up with a set of clear diagnostic traits for trolls and have a very
clear policy page. My intention is for there to be a set of guidelines
that helps us identify trolling at the earliest possible moment so we can
act on it before we end up in a situation where someone has to go through
hundreds of edits to prove a pattern of abuse. I recognize that this is
not an easy task -- many of us, certainly I, have at times fallen short of
ideal personal behavior. And, as Ec rightfully reminds us, there are many
Newbies that at first act inappropriately yet turn out to be great
contributors. Perhaps we can come up with a hierarchy of rules and
guidelines -- one's at the bottom that non-trolls may even frequently fail
to comply with, but that characterize situations that are and have been
easily repaired, and one's at the top that are almost exclusively limited
to trolls. I am as committed to the quasi-anarchic nature of Wikipedia as
anyone here. But we already have guidelines about personal behavior: let's
make them clearer and more effective. I think people who have served on
the ArbCom for starts would be a good group of people to at least develop
proposals. Also, long-standing and well-regarded editors who have been
victims of harassment and trolling (but who have also gotten into conflicts
that were resolved in a positive way) should be well-suited to develop
proposals.
Second, Mav has stated "Admins need more authority to enforce all our
policies. But, and this is important, they should get other admins to do
the enforcement in cases that will likely be challenged." I fully
agree. Here is my proposal: if someone believes they are the victims of
trolling, that is, a pattern of unacceptable abuse by people who have
resisted compromise or dialogue, or who have clearly escalated a conflict,
there should be a specific page on all sysops' watchlists where they can
make a petition (with evidence, but at a much lower standard than the
ArbCom -- say, three examples that reveal a pattern of escalating
abuse). If two (or, three) admins certify the petition, the harasser is
banned for one week. If it happens a second time, the harasser is banned
indefinitely. In both cases the accused harasser must have a means to
appeal the decision (I think to the ArbCom). But the burden of proof in
these cases would be on the appellant, not on the petitioner.
Mav writes,
>I'm sick of the high turnover of good contributors too. We need to fix
>that if we want to
>encourage a productive work environment. This bullshit has got to stop so
>we can concentrate on
>creating the world's best encyclopedia. Openness is a means to an end.
>Nothing more. Crackpots,
>POV pushers, and trolls are not welcome.
I agree with him 100%. It is time to act.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
I checked my cache to see if I messed up somehow, and I think I did. After
finding HTML that would work in IE, I wanted to check it in Firefox, so I
opened Firefox and pasted the edited thread in the edit window to preview
it. Unfortunately, I clicked the "Edit this page" link on top instead of the
"edit" link next to the particular thread that I wanted to edit, so I ended
up replacing the entire discussion with just one thread, and unfortunately I
saved it in Firefox instead of going back to IE.
Oops.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry" <barry(a)polisource.com>
To: <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 11:47 AM
Subject: Did 71.247.13.53 deserve being blocked?
>I tried starting a discussion over whether my edit should have been
>removed,
> but I discovered I was blocked by Brian0918 for vandalism...
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.11/191 - Release Date: 12/2/2005
i have meen blocked by drini and i dont deserve it. i was just getting use to the capabilites that wikipedia offers. Please give me another chance and i am sorry for any promblems
Christopher and Kelly,
I know what you're saying, and I don't think anyone on the
Foundation-L list would endorse anything like regulation or being on
the hook legally.
But this clearly should be added to the wake up calls -- "SOFIXIT"
does not cut it anymore. Wikipedia cannot enjoy the bragging rights of
a "Top 40" web site without changing its quality standards to match.
I'm not convinced the Article Rating feature that is waiting in the
wings is the right or efficient way to do it. But we have to get
closer to the "1.0" solution. It's time.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 11/30/05, Brian <brian0918(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x…
>
> Talk amongst yourselves.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
I tried starting a discussion over whether my edit should have been removed,
but I discovered I was blocked by Brian0918 for vandalism. In my edit I
fixed a couple of typos in my post, which I assume wasn't the problem. I
also moved Hamletta's comment from between two paragraphs of my comment to
right after my comment. I used unconventional code to make that work because
otherwise it was spaced too far from my comment. This is what it looked like
in the edit box (between the dashes):
--------------------
<ul style = "margin-left: 155px;">
<li>Y'all it's a lie. Siegenthaler did not move to the Soviet Union, and he
didn't start a PR firm. He was the editor, then publisher, then publisher
emeritus of ''The Tennessean'' up till he started the Freedom Forum. Any
newspaper reader in Nashville could tell you that. And you damn well better
have some proof that he was "thought to be involved" in the Kennedy
assinations, because I call horse puckey. No, this bio was a malicious lie
conjured up in some hateful person's fevered imagination.</li>
</ul>
::::::[[User:Hamletta|Hamletta]] 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
--------------------
After Hamletta's comment, I added my own comment (between the dashes):
--------------------
<ul style = "margin-left: 180px;">
<li>Are people allowed to insert their comment in the middle of someone
else's, like Hamletta did? That could get messy if everyone wants attention
like that. Oh, think I know why Hamletta did that. The spacing gets messed
up otherwise. I used a HTML list and CSS to fix it. Works in IE and Firefox.
Use of the asterisks to indicate a bullet should probably be avoided until
it's fixed and can be used when a comment contains multiple paragraphs
without spacing getting messed up. I'll continue to use it in this thread
for consistency.</li>
</ul>
:::::::More on topic...I believe so strongly that information in Wikipedia
should be confirmed that despite my comment titled The name and the sponsors
at [[Talk:Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act]], I didn't edit the article at
all. There were a couple of things that I felt pretty strongly should be
changed, but despite my research and a quote from Library of Congress staff,
I thought it should go through some more checks and balances.
:::::::Barry ~~~~~
--------------------
You can find the above content in the too-difficult-to-figure-out history
page at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Seigenthaler_Sr.&diff=p… .
I think I gave a useful formatting tip that also explained my edit and could
prevent spacing problems and having to comment within another comment, and I
gave my opinion on how careful people should be before editing an article.
Strict content standards are best left for the articles, not the discussion.
Barry
http://www.polisource.com
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.11/191 - Release Date: 12/2/2005
For the most part, I have been impressed - and pleased - with the speed,
efficiency, and boldness of the ArbCom regarding this case. While I won't
comment on any specifics of the case, I was pleasantly surprised at how fast
the ArbCom developed this case, compared to some of the other cases that
have apparently stalled, and how quickly it responded to requests and
comments by all parties. Keep up your great work!
Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
>Yes, please look at this and give us some feedback. If we have not
>explained well enough why we are coming to the decisions we have in
>this case, dialogue here would help us explain it better. For a
>start, there is no finding that there was any conspiracy. A number of
>folks who could loosely be described as "right wing" have engaged in
>a number of activities which violate Wikipedia policies and
>guidelines. The most serious violations involve Nobs01 who basically
>acts like an attack dog. This has little or nothing to do with
>anyones political viewpoint, a great deal to do with the targeting of
>a valuable Wikipedia editor.
>
>Fred
>
>On Dec 2, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/
> > Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision
> >
> > The appointed arbiters don't seem to be working out, place have a look
> > at their handiwork. Note the lack of recusals, and near perpetual
> > conflicts of interest. Note the political railroading of a handful of
> > "rightwingers" on trumped up conspiracy charges. Look at the ability
> > of an editor who barely warrants an article to cite himself, and
> > enforce his blatantly biased POV w impunity, due to friends in the
> > right places. It is a caricature of wikipedia at its worst.
> >
> > Sam Spade
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Today's news clips including the New York Times take on Seigenthaler
although you have to be registered to read it.
Regards
Keith Old
Keith Old
User:Capitalistroadster
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Google Alerts <googlealerts-noreply(a)google.com>
Date: Dec 4, 2005 3:05 PM
Subject: Google Alert - Wikipedia
To: keithold(a)gmail.com
Google Alert for: *Wikipedia*
Rewriting History Snared in the Web of a *Wikipedia*
Liar<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04seelye.html>
New York Times - United States
ACCORDING to *Wikipedia*, the online encyclopedia, John Seigenthaler Sr. is
78 years old and the former editor of The Tennessean in Nashville. *...*
*Wikipedia*: A Techno-Cult of
Ignorance<http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1635>
ZPEnergy - USA
*...* scientists and their efforts than on creating an encyclopedic article,
but also part of a general fanaticism displayed on all *Wikipedia* entries
relating to new *...*
USATODAY.com - A false *Wikipedia*
'biography'<http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x…>
This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It
could
be your story.
------------------------------
This as-it-happens Google Alert is brought to you by Google.
Remove <http://www.google.com/alerts/remove?s=9a4f2425fa5d9963&hl=en> this
alert.
Create <http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en> another alert.
Manage <http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en> your alerts.
SlimVirgin & Ed: I did not know this monster has been around since
July. I would have quit the wiki 50x (after returning because of Wikiholicism).
You both need a wikihug.
One wishes the Fuel in Wagon caught fire.
JFW
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/190 - Release Date: 01/12/2005