I have been asked to forward this message to the WikiEN-l mailing
list. A research institute at Haifa University are conducting a study
of Wikipedia, and request the participation of the Wikipedia
community.
~Mark Ryan
WikiEN-l mailing list administrator
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tsahi Hayat <ihayat(a)com.haifa.ac.il>
Date: May 27, 2005 4:29 AM
Subject: RE: A survey about Wikipedia
To: ultrablue(a)gmail.com
Dear Wikipedians,
We cordially invite you to answer a short questionnaire which is a
part of a non-commercial cross-cultural research project conducted at
INFOSOC (The Center for the Study of the Information Society),
exploring Wikipedia community aspects.
The findings of this study will be published in Wikipedia to the
benefit of everyone, personal copies will be also available via e-mail
(wiki(a)shil.info).
Click here for the questionnaire: http://wikien.shil.info/
Thank you in advance.
Research Team, INFOSOC
Haifa University
You are lying, David, and you are violating Wikipedia policy in doing so.
But since you are one of the admins who has been using this as an excuse to
harass users, I fully expected to see that from you, just as your cohorts
have been claiming alternately that I am ElKabong, or KaintheScion, or Sam
Spade, or any number of other users I may have missed in their accusations.
This is really getting quite silly, watching you and yours flail around
trying to scream "sockpuppet" whenever someone disagrees with you. Of
course, it completely violates Wikipedia policy on using Admin powers to
gain advantage in content disputes, but since your little cabal is so high
up you can just order a spurious ban any such user (as Slimvirgin just did
to me, and as your crew did to Sam Spade earlier) so that they cannot defend
themselves against the charges. Quite a neat racket you have going.
-Enviroknot
===============================
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 10:03:27 +1000
From: David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notice to an Admin
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <20050528000327.GW9978(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cranston Snord (enviroknot(a)hotmail.com) [050528 07:20]:
>Apparently, for the crime of disagreeing with a few Admins, I am now being
>targeted for abuse and harassment, including bogus inclusion in a RFAr
>which I believe was started under dubious motivation.
>I have left notice on Mel Etitis' talk page that I will not stand for what
>he has done, but I am informing you all on here as well. Mel Etitis is not
>allowed to edit my User page, nor is he allowed to delete messages or
>content from my Talk page. I want his, and the rest of his fellow admins',
>harassment of me to end.
You are KaintheScion and I claim my 5p.
- d.
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 02:33:46 +0200
From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notice to an Admin
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <fb7fdd9c05052717334b85307e(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Would you mind backing up that statement with evidence from the
history tabs of articles and other pages?
--Mgm
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Brian0918 claims that I was blocked because of multiple vandalisms. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=146.…
According to policy, any good faith-effort to improve the encylcopedia is not considered vandalism. If you look at my edits, they were each an attempt to clean up information about Michael Behe, the Discovery Institute, and the Intelligent Design movement, which is often confused and misrepresented. Edits were made to delete information that was unsubstantiated and that was dismissive of these views without warrant.
Nothing I did could be considered vandalism, and I request this block be reconsidered and reviewed.
--- Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> The site is hosted on com.haifa.ac.il, which is not only in Israel,
> but
> even a Haifa university server.
So that must be the server that went down hard when I tried in vain
to submit my survey...
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com
chris.mahan(a)gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Jack would be well advised to note that I posted that message
to-and-for the benefit and easy linking convinience of the mailing
list. He is well aware of my comments there? Good for him, other
members of the list may not be.
I did not, nor do I have any intention to, contact him "directly" (!)
My comments here are the same --and I insist they must be treated the
same by him-- as they would be on any Wikipedia talk page. Frankly, I
find his reaction hysterical, and outragouesly hypocritical.
He dares to speak of indignity with such impunity. He breaks the 3RR,
he titles a propper block as a "Wrongful Block," David Gerard unblocks
him, assuming I'm sure that good behaviour is forthcoming --it seems
Jack convinced David that he made comrpomises or something to that
effect (?) with his reverts, which he did not; he made one useful
addition with his revert, but I still reverted it just the same and
kept the addition as it has nothing to do with the reversion-- and
then what does Jack do? He makes that snide "certainly" remark to
Mel.
Now, Mel reblocked him, the right and just thing to do in the case of
Jack's contempt for the rules everyone else is expected to adhere to,
the rules I have always adhered to. I also note that David Gerard (who
seems to mistakingly think I'm accusing him of something sinister -- I
am not) is not objecting to the re-blocking, now that he had a closer
looked at the evidence.
Jack "suspect[s] the circumstances amuse [me] too much to refrain" ?
If a reprieve from his circularities in that article for 24 hours is
amusment, then count me as ROFL-ing.
Epiprologue: It all begins yesterday. I went and congratulated Chip
Berlet on a fine article in the article's talk page, 4 days after
Charles did (I only noticed it at that time). Mine was the 2nd comment
in that talk page following Charles', and I intended to edit the intro
(no content changes whatsoever, just make it less conversational:
which I did) later that day, but when I got back home, I found Jack
already start editing it. Ahhuhh. And so it begins, again.
And all this is nothing, it dosen't even pretend to scratch the
surface about Jack.
El_C
>I am well aware of your comments there. Why you are simultaneously
>escalating our bad relations whilst contacting me directly off the
>wiki, I have no clue. I suspect the circumstances amuse you too much
>to refrain? I do feel a bit sad that I am involved with a project that
>rewards persons such as yourself and mel with authority, if that gives
>you any satisfaction. I have often considered leaving, but there are
>so many excellent friends I have met, and so much I have learned, and
>so many others I have helped ... The indignity of circumstances such
>as this weighs more lightly than all of that.
>Jack
--- David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>*usually* if another admin removes a
> block the first one
> shouldn't reblock, just to avoid the appearance of a
> blocking war.
Why not word it the other way: If an admin blocks,
another admin shouldn't unblock.
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/En_validation_topics
The article rating feature is going live in 1.5.
SUMMARY: Articles will be rateable on various attributes. All ratings
are public and attributed, just like edits are. We'll be taking
ratings from anons as well as logged-in users, since our readers
vastly outnumber our editors. We're explicitly not doing anything with
the data, so if 10,000 anons rate [[Image:Autofellatio.jpg]] the best
article ever then it doesn't matter. For further detail, see recent
extensive thread on wikipedia-l, and go to http://test.leuksman.com/
using the Monobook skin and click on the 'Validate' tab.
Now, the point of the link at the top of this message is that we
haven't decided what attributes we'll be rating on. We need a good
selection and discussion of them. And we need it soon - 1.5 is
supposed to be rolled out early June. Presumably there will be a vote,
or maybe Magnus will just pick the ones he likes. Or I will. Or
something.
I particularly want to hear from academic researchers interested in
Wikipedia - you folk will LOVE this data. What things would you
particularly like to see reader/editor ratings of?
Also read about the feature and anticipated possible problems:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Article_validation_featurehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Article_validation_possible_problems
- d.
--- Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>I have often considered
> leaving
Oh, nooooooo! How would we possibly survive?
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#Us…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_blocks
I feel I am a "logged-in user(s) with a substantial history of valid
contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block"
I feel that Mel Etitis has a long history of conflict with myself, and
should not be blocking me once, much less twice. Comments he made to
me by email after the incident (a conversation which I feel should be
fully disclosed) make this especially clear. I further feel that I
could have been warned, and challenge anyone to suggest that i was
aware that my edits were seen to be a 3rr violation, or that if I had
been advised thusly that I would have continued to revert. As I made
clear in my comment to David here, I do not feel that I had violated
the 3rr, and I have no intent to resume the questioned behaviours. I
request that I be unblocked.
Jack (User:Sam Spade)
>I didn't think you were accusing me of anything sinister :-) I chose not to
>re-unblock so as not to continue a cycle of blocking/unblocking. If someone
>agrees with me they'll unblock, if not they won't. There's lots of admins.
Oh, okay, good! :) Then I misread that, because you said I
charactarized your unblock, so I thought you meant bad. That said, I
did hope the reason you didn't didn't unblock again was because you
had a closer look at the evidence, information which, as I mentioned
on your talk page, you were not privy to at the time of unblocking. If
not, oh well, it dosen't matter. As I also said, you're not obliged to
get involved and immerse yourself in the details if you don't intend
to unblock the re-block anyway.
>Even though *usually* if another admin removes a block the first one
>shouldn't reblock, just to avoid the appearance of a blocking war. But if
>Mel judges it's severe enough then I'm happy to wait until/if someone else
>thinks Sam should be unblocked.
Usually, but usually an admin such as yourself, dosen't get persuaded
to unblock only to discover such severity -- I'm positive you have
scarcely enocuntered that in the past. Yes, if another admin thinks he
should be unblocked, they can do so, this is how the wiki runs.
>Sam can rub people up the wrong way, but I don't doubt his sincerity.
>"Assume good faith" can require gritted teeth when someone is really
>annoying you ...
>- d.
David, if this was really limited to the realm of annoyance, I would
not be going through this lenghts, I hope you believe me.
El_C