>> "michaelturley(a)myway.com" <michaelturley(a)myway.com><br>wrote:<br>> I'd say RickK's treatment of Willswikihelp is pretty<br>>> close to harrassing a new user<br><br>>This from User:Unfocused, who likes to run around<br>>attacking VfD nominations as bad faith. <br>><br>>RickK<br>
I *have* commented my VfD votes regarding lack of cursory research before nomination. I will continue to do so where evidence suggests that such simple checks have not been done, however, I will work on my phrasing.
I have repeatedly asked RickK what about my comments was a personal attack, and how I should rephrase them, but RickK has completely ignored me, other than to say that I'm "whining" on his talk page and accuse me of personal attacks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2F… for the latest example.
Had RickK made ANY sincere attempt to communicate with me politely instead of making accusations, this certainly would not have escalated. Instead, he simply ignored and/or deleted my comments, while at the same time, accused me of "personal attacks". These accusations are not supported by WP:NPA, however, RickK's calling my attempts to communicate with him as "whining" is.
However, I expect nothing will happen with either the User:Willswikihelp account nor my issue, since so many have already agreed with the statement in a recent RfC that implied that the wheels will fall off of Wikipedia if RickK's actions aren't simply tolerated as is. Therefore, this is the full extent of my complaint, and as far as I care to prosecute it.
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused
PS: Nice try on changing the "Reply to:" to avoid seeing my response on the list. It didn't work.
_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
I'd say RickK's treatment of Willswikihelp is pretty close to harrassing a new user, given that he reverted the user twice, and in doing so didn't once post a polite edit summary, nor a helpful comment to Willswikihelp's talk page, or even any comment whatsoever to either article's talk page, even after Willswikihelp complained of harassment on RickK's talk page.
Since Willswikihelp is such a new user, you can quickly review his entire contribution history and see how just one or two people, especially if they're admins, can ruin the good faith of a new user.
The actions and comments of Cantus and SchmuckyTheCat aren't any better, but they're not admins, so personally, I don't expect nearly as much from them. (However, reading SchmuckyTheCat's edit summaries in response to this new user on the South Lake Tahoe, California article is especially disturbing.)
I doubt you'll ever see this new user complain to the ArbCom. He's obviously frustrated. I'm not sure he'll be back.
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused
--- On Wed 06/01, MacGyverMagic/Mgm < macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com > wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see an example of an admin repeatedly harrasing a regular user failing to be put before arbcom.
_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
This week's edition of the UK entertainment scandal e-mail Popbitch (see
[[Popbitch]]) includes a link to [[Talk:Michael Colvin]] which includes some
"bizarre conspiracy theories" relating to [[Derek Laud]], a contestant on the
current series of Big Brother. User:Smoddy deleted them as "possibly
libellous" but they have been restored. They also exist in the history of
[[Michael Colvin]] at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Colvin&oldid=6052341
Do we really want to be carrying this stuff? If not we will have to delete it,
both from the article (using selective undelete) and the talk page, and
probably protect the pages to stop it being pasted back in again.
Opinions?
Rob ([[user:Rbrwr]])
--
Rob Brewer <rob(a)rbrwr.org> <http://rbrwr.org>
"This time I want cash, not forged book tokens"
Phil Sandifer wrote:
> May I ask what communities these are? Particularly the one with
> hundreds of thousands of members.
It seems that Skyring has ignored the opportunity to back up his vague
claims with specific evidence. However, judging from his user page, it
appears that the two communities he's alluding to are LiveJournal and
BookCrossing.
Anyway, I'd like to take an opportunity to see how the "competition"
compares, and whether other large, open online communities really are
more "polite and productive" as he claims. First of all, I don't see any
reason to say that the atmosphere at LiveJournal is any better than on
Wikipedia. As with Slashdot and Kuro5hin, two of the other leading
candidates, LiveJournal has its own well-documented social issues, of
which you can get the first inkling by reading our articles about them.
I don't mean to bash any of these sites - as with Wikipedia, if you're
not looking to get involved in contentious areas, you probably won't be
- but they have their own problems, along with their own ways of
combating them. They may not be worse than Wikipedia in this regard, but
I wouldn't agree that they're any better, either.
BookCrossing may have a comparable number of members to Wikipedia, but
its character is too different for a sensible comparison. I mean, who's
going to force you to pick up a book you're not interested in? I don't
see how the community brings out the kind of passion that produces the
disruptions we experience.
I might consider Skyring's argument more plausible if made about some
other communities, including possibly craigslist and Flickr (notably,
unlike the previous examples, their Wikipedia articles fail to mention
whatever critics they may have). With Flickr, you don't have to reveal
anything you don't want to reveal, go anywhere you don't want to go, or
deal with people you choose not to deal with. While collaboration and
community dynamics do exist, the site is not organized in a way that
fundamentally requires it. And still, as their FAQ reveals, where they
do have community groups and channels (similar to IRC), they have the
same problems with disruptive behavior and deal with them in the same way.
That leaves craigslist, in my opinion, as the one realistic candidate
for a more "polite and productive" community on a scale similar to
Wikipedia. If someone knows more about the seamy side of craigslist than
I do, feel free to enlighten me to the contrary. Presumably their forums
can occasionally breed bad behavior, as with all such creatures, but I
know of little else. It's also interesting to note that craigslist
happens to be the only one of these sites we have not yet overtaken in
terms of traffic. Perhaps we should take more interest in figuring out
what lessons we can pick up from their experience.
--Michael Snow
:Sorry, that was me - I removed the address (not banned it) thinking it was
:Enviroknot trolling again - didn't realise it was Everyking. You are free
:to resubscribe the address if you wish to.
Everyking just told me on IRC that tempforcomments is *not* him. So it's
someone imitating him, i.e. trolling.
- d.
tempforcomments2 at hotmail.com wrote:
:I've been banned from the list for speaking out.
:I shudder to think what would have happened if I revealed my Wikipedia
:username or my name on this list.
Sorry, that was me - I removed the address (not banned it) thinking it was
Enviroknot trolling again - didn't realise it was Everyking. You are free
to resubscribe the address if you wish to.
- d.
Hello
I'm constructing a large literary resource, and would like to query
articles about authors automatically, and receive Wikipedia articles
back as RSS/XML documents to present in my website, with all the
relevant backlinks to wikipedia.
Does Wikipedia have customised syndication of its content?
Regards
Amit
quotationsbook.com
Apparently it was a very good idea.
I've been banned from the list for speaking out.
I shudder to think what would have happened if I revealed my Wikipedia
username or my name on this list.
A.Nony.Mouse.
>I have decided to make this anonymous. I do not know how some of you
would
>react and I do not wish to take any chance that I would be harassed for
>this.
Good idea, I think.
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
--- A Nony Mouse <tempforcomments2(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently it was a very good idea.
>
> I've been banned from the list for speaking out.
>
> I shudder to think what would have happened if I
> revealed my Wikipedia
> username or my name on this list.
>
> A.Nony.Mouse.
Really? You've been banned from the list? Then how
did this posting make it through?
RickK
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
>Message: 4
>Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:43:14 +0800
>From: <ultrablue(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <a4a707705053100431977d076(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>On 5/31/05, A Nony Mouse <tempforcomments(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> By the time I got to the discussion, it was a good series of emails
long,
>> and despite the number of list members who had posted, none save
SlimVirgin
>> had bothered to address Enviroknot's concerns on the block in any way.
>> SlimVirgin herself made a bad judgement call. An edit made in good
faith
>> should never be considered a reversion, even if it contains some
content
>> that is included in a later reversion.
>The 3RR provides an electric-fence against continuing revert wars.
>Most of the administrators who enforce the 3RR (and even the
>[[WP:AN/3RR]] page) request that as little circumstantial information
>be provided. Good faith or bad faith does not come into whether a user
>has violated the rule. Your interpretation of the meaning of
>"reversion" is not the one accepted in the Wikipedia community. There
>are simple reverts and complex reverts (where something is
>surreptitiously sneaked back into an article). Every reversion is a
>"good faith" reversion to someone in an article content dispute.
Okay, thanks for clarifying what a "reversion" is.
>Do not assume from the silence of users on the concerns of Enviroknot.
>Before I first replied to the list about this situation, I examined
>all the relevant diffs, and concluded in my own mind that there is a
>clear-cut violation of the 3RR here.
Okay, but you should've explained your reasons beforehand; those reasons
could've saved us much agita!
>The 3RR does allow administrators some discretion, such as the ability
>to unblock people where they have shown remorse for breaking the rule.
>Enviroknot has not expressed any such remorse, and has not addressed
>the allegations of sockpuppetry. Instead, he or she has spammed the
>mailing list and attacked Wikipedia Administrators as a whole. Had
>Enviroknot come up with a good explanation for sharing IPs with other
>users, expressed some sort of remorse for breaking a very basic rule
>and agreed to work collaboratively on the relevant article's talk page
>to reach consensus, I have little doubt the ban would have been
>happily lifted by a number of administrators.
>~Mark Ryan
Agreed. Here is someone who has clear, thought-out, and well-displayed
(now, anyway) reasons for blocking Enviroknot. Anyone who wants to counter
those reasons should go ahead and do so this is what debate is all about,
folks.