WikiEN-l July 2005

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

156 participants
216 discussions

Re: Hi
by Michael Snow 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Michael Turley wrote: >On 7/6/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>From: "A. Nony Mouse" <temoforcomments4(a)hotmail.com> >>> >>>I hereby propose an alternate policy: Page-based 3RR. If the same phrase is >>>reverted from a page three times in 24 hours, then that PAGE shall be >>>locked for a week and all editors involved in the reverts shall receive a >>>12-hour block to cool off. >>> >>> >>What a bad idea; it allows any editor to hold pages hostage essentially >>indefinitely, even if opposed by dozens of other editors. >> >>Jay. >> >> >Perhaps you could add your thoughts for improvement instead of solely criticism? > >If we kept the "standard" 3RR in addition to a new page based revert >rule, one editor certainly could not hold pages hostage. I didn't see >anything in the previous proposal that suggested throwing away the old >(but actually pretty young) 3RR rule. > > There is no sense in trying to "improve" an unsalvageably bad idea. Also, a much better solution has already been proposed at [[Wikipedia:Per-article blocking]], where I'm glad to see you recently added yourself to the list of supporters. All that remains is for somebody to write the necessary code. To that end, and in the spirit of encouraging people to do constructive things instead of just griping, I have an offer to make. If any user who gets blocked from editing would like to submit valid code for this feature to http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/, email me a link to your feature request and I promise to unblock you. This includes anyone, even "A Nony Mouse" (though he'd have to tell us who he is to take advantage of the offer). Security on Wikipedia works by locking things down as little as possible, and then only when practically compelled to do so. So the message I would give blocked users is this: Look, even though you were getting into some trouble, we would be more than happy to give you the run of (nearly) all of Wikipedia if you'd just do the necessary work to make sure you won't cause problems. --Michael Snow

1 0

Re: Non-free images, there has to be a better way
by Long-time lurker, first-time poster 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

On 07/07/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote: > AFAIK we have not yet received any official take-down orders. That's > disturbing in its own peculiar way. Have you looked at: [[Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation]] ?

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi
by A. Nony Mouse 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Seems to be. Happens all the time on Islam-related and Sex-relate articles all the time - the moment certain editors start an edit war and think they're going to get close to breaking 3RR, they start sending off messages to sympathetic editors asking them to join in the revert war. It's also how we get most of the sockpuppet complaints - there are a number of users on Wikipedia whose first instinct when challenged is to scream that their opponent "must" be a sockpuppet of some other user who previously opposed them either on the same article or somewhere else. And yes, for reference, 3RR does indeed essentially mean that if two editors decide an article should look a certain way, and only one opposes them, then the two editors "win" unless more editors come along or it winds up in Arbitration. Yet another case of seemingly "neutral" policies being a disaster. I hereby propose an alternate policy: Page-based 3RR. If the same phrase is reverted from a page three times in 24 hours, then that PAGE shall be locked for a week and all editors involved in the reverts shall receive a 12-hour block to cool off. What do you think? I know it's not perfect (it still doesn't address WHICH version should be locked to, but that's a losing decision either way) but it gets us away from the current "hey if we get one more guy than they have then we can provoke an edit war, get them all 3RR blocked, and we're free and clear to make the article say what we want it to say" nonsense and into a more neutral stance. A. Nony Mouse >From: Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> >Reply-To: Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> >To: temoforcomments4(a)hotmail.com >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Hi >Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 06:49:14 +1000 > >"I should read the rules more closely. In that case I will revert you >twice a day, for the rest of history if needs be. Plus I have more >allies than you, so your attempts to restalinise this article must >fail." > >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKhmer_Rouge&diff=14835971 > >Is truth really determined by how many allies an editor has? > >This particular editor seems to be able to abuse other editors at >will, with no more than an "admonition". _________________________________________________________________ Millions of quality singles are online now - click to meet them! http://match.msn.ie

5 11

Re: [WikiEN-l] SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin Power
by A. Nony Mouse 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

>Sorry, I appear to have forgotten to send this reply to Anonymouse to >the actual mailing list, and instead sent it to Anonymouse alone. I >note that I haven't received a reply to it in the 16 hours since I >sent it to him or her. Yeah, it's not like it's the biggest holiday weekend of the summer or anything. Wait. It's the 4th of July weekend? WHOOPS! >First off, who is Marmot? Who is Kurita77? I don't know. I'm the list >administrator; I make sure it is used appropriately. I'm not here to >make judgments about the actions of people on Wikipedia; I'm here to >facilitate meaningful and constructive discussion. Marmot is a user wrongfully banned from Wikipedia for the "crime" of dissenting and pointing out when Admins were abusing their powers. Kurita77 I know you knew about; he was a recent new user who came to this list to ask why someone had PERMANENTLY BLOCKED his account from Wikipedia, and instead of treating him respectfully the Admins around here treated him like complete crap, made fun of him, sent him nasty emails laced with racial slurs, and sat around slapping each other on the back congratulating themselves for driving him into enough anger that he started swearing, at which point the admins on THIS LIST used that as an excuse to block him (oops, sorry, "moderating" him which means you'll just let all his emails sit and expire without even bothering to read them) for getting upset at wrongfully being blocked. >You were incredibly rude. As a result, you were moderated, but not >banned. You are still free to send emails to the list, and, like I >said, if they are civil then they will fairly quickly reach the list. Let's test that shall we? Hmm? >It's not what you say >that's important to me, it's how you say it. We'll see. >You claim that your alleged personal attacks were the truth. So you're >saying it's the absolute truth that one Wikipedian is a fat hag who >constantly fellates another Wikipedian? I'm sorry, but that is so out >of line that I do not accept any arguments of censorship or freedom of >speech or anything like that as persuasive. If you have a point to >make, it is more than possible to make it without personally attacking >people in that manner. If you think those were over the line, fine. I stand by my categorization of Ambi as being Wikipedia's version of the Red Queen. Her constant agitation for harsher and harsher punishments by ArbCom, combined with her absolute refusal to show ANY effort to communicate with the users in question, is the equivalent of the Queen sitting around screaming "Orf Wiv 'Is 'Ead" at anything that got near her. In general, the Ambi/Gerard theory of Wikipedia has sucked. Instead of a Wikipedia based on encouraging civil discourse and where temporary blocks are for the purpose of encouraging users to behave within policy (and NEVER supposed to be punitive) we have admins like Bauder, Gerard, Ambi, Sidaway, and others I can name running around like the Wikipedian Inquisition. They make up new policy as they go, they enforce things that aren't in policy, they REFUSE to enforce policy against each other or against their "favorite" users. This needs to stop. But anytime it gets brought up, they instantly go off the deep end looking for any reason, no matter how minor, to block accounts and attack those who are calling their behavior into question. >As for your worries of people hunting you down and blocking you on >Wikipedia for what is said here, you shouldn't worry about that. As >far as I am concerned, although WikiEN-l is expressly *about* >Wikipedia, it is entirely separate *from* Wikipedia, and anything >which goes on one should not have a bearing on the user's >participation in the other. Unfortunately, your IDEAL of how they should act and the REALITY of how they act are two completely different things. The fact remains that if they knew my Wikipedia account name, they wouldn't hesitate for a nanosecond to slap a block on it. >In this way, a user who gets blocked on >Wikipedia proper is not automatically banned from the Mailing List, >and vice-versa. No, but they quickly get ignored or derided for daring to come here for redress of the regular abuses of power we see from Wikipedian admins. Rather than this place being where new users who have been bitten by overzealous, power-hungry admins can come to get redress it's become a place where the users come so that the rest of the admins can have a good laugh at their expense. >Having said that, the fact that the mailing list is >independent means that in *extreme* cases action must be taken in >order to stop spam, abuse or inane repetition. In my view, yours is >the second most extreme case I have seen in the last year of being the >administrator of this mailing list. However, since that last case I >have taken a more liberal approach and instead moderated you instead >of banning you from subscribing to the mailing list outright. This is >because I see considerable value in what you say, and want you to help >thresh out the discussion, just not without abusively kicking other >people in the guts in the process. Right. Like I said, we'll see if this goes through or not. >So if you would please get over the accusations of thuggery and >censorship on my part, and back on topic in a civil manner, hopefully >we can actually get somewhere and maybe even lift the veil of >moderation. I'm giving you a chance to behave in good faith here. We'll see what happens. So far I have four cases of abuse by Wikipedia admins, and ZERO indication that they - especially as 90% of your list adminship are also Wikipedia admins - are inclined to act in good faith. A. Nony Mouse _________________________________________________________________ Upgrade to Messenger 7.0 - more fun features, still totally FREE! http://messenger.msn.co.uk

7 14

RE: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of admin powers by David Gerard and Snowspinner
by Jane Halliwell 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

You won't get any help from this group. You're going to be labeled a troll and your complaints will be ignored. Check the list archives to see how they treat people who dare question the behavior of their fellow admins. Signed, Not One Of Them >From: Norath Norath <norath2005(a)yahoo.com> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of admin powers by David Gerard and Snowspinner >Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:21:45 -0700 (PDT) > >User:Norrath was block by David Gerard for "admitted >sockpuppet and role account". This account is indeed a >sockpuppet of a user in good standing, created to >protest other blocks caaried out abusively by >Snowspinner. The account was declared as a sockpuppet, >in accordance with Wikipedia policy (which does not >prohibit this) and the only edits were polite >questions to Snowspinner about why he did not follow >policy. > >It is outrageous that admins block users simply for >making legitimate requests for explanation from other >admins about why they did not follow policy. > >Please help. > >Norrath > > > >__________________________________ >Discover Yahoo! >Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! >http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html >_______________________________________________ >WikiEN-l mailing list >WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

1 0

Re: Weyes
by J.F. de Wolff 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Instead of supporting this chap's RC work, he gets ranted at for coming down too hard on obvious trolls, spammers etc. JFW Michael Turley wrote: >> >> >> It seems Weyes has left. What a disgrace. We've never had such a diligent >> RC patroller, and he was more right than wrong in his crusade against >> excessive external links. That's another one gone after RickK. Why on earth >> do we fail the Wikipedians who do so much to protect our project from >> vandals, cranks and idiots? >> >> Jfdwolff > >I'm genuinely curious: in what way do you assign his absence to a >failure of ours? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.6/33 - Release Date: 28/06/2005

7 17

Re: Categories and NPOV
by Geoffrey Bell 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

On 7/2/05, Nathan J. Yoder <njyoder(a)energon.org> wrote: > > > If you could provide specific examples of what you consider POV within > a logical fallacy article, I'd like to see them. > > From "Ad hominem" "An *ad hominem* argument, also known as *argumentum ad hominem* (Latin<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin>, literally "argument [aimed] at the person", but usually translated as "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy>that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself or an argument pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs." >From "Wishful thinking": In addition to being a cognitive bias<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias>and a poor way of making decisions <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making>, wishful thinking can also be a specific logical fallacy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy>in an argument when it is assumed that because we wish something to be true or false that it is actually true or false. For example: The teacher gave us a difficult exam! We shouldn't have to be subjected to such stress under the course of our education. It may be that it was uncomfortable, but that does not mean that uncomfortable things should always be avoided. Wishful thinking underlies appeals to emotion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion>, and is a red herring <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28fallacy%29>. I would like to mention that I don't agree that "we shouldn't have to be subjected to such stress under the course of our education," but I certainly know some who do. --~~~~

2 1

Used-with-permission images, a modest proposal
by Haukur Þorgeirsson 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

>>> The goal of the project is not to produce an encyclopedia with content >>> that is free for some people for some uses. >> >> But that's exactly what's happening as long as >> all the focus is on U.S. laws. Fair use won't >> protect you if you're publishing Wikipedia derived >> content in Denmark. Nor will Bridgeman v. Corel. >> >> Recently a picture of the Lindisfarne Gospels >> taken from the British Library website became >> a featured picture even though the BL explicitly >> claims copyright on it and that claim may well >> hold up in a British court. > > Well I can't speak for others. > In general I believe we should never feature a picture not produced by > a Wikipedian. The behind featuring works is to show the best we have > to offer, not the best we've found someplace else and are > redistributing. :) That's certainly a reasonable opinion. But whether or not it's featured the fact remains that we're using it. Look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg You'll see that there's a link to the British Library page from which the image was snatched. Following that link you'll see that the British Library claims copyright on the image. As far as I know this may well hold up under British law (evil as that would be). This may conceivably get someone publishing Wikipedia in Britain, even just mirroring it on a British server, into trouble. Using used-with-permission images will not get Wikipedia into trouble. With all such images properly tagged it would be simple for downstream users to avoid mirroring them. And if they needed particular images they could always apply for permission for themselves. Of course I agree that we should get free images wherever possible. But in a few cases it may not be. The Z machine picture I keep coming back to will not be easily replaced (and I doubt the lab will release it under a free license). Nor will the deleted IBM 1360 images. As for the idea of restoring the IBM 1360 pictures using a "fair-use-and-used-with-permission" tag - I think that nicely illustrates my point that disallowing used-with- permission will encourage shady "fair use". And if "permission" is useful after all, as Michael says: > the fact that we have permission bolsters our claim to fair use > ... it is very useful to note that we have permission. Then I don't think the image upload text should discourage users from trying to get permission - as it currently does. Overall I think that a few used-with-permission images are far less harmful to the universal distributability of the project than over-reliance on the U.S. legal code. I'm not talking about thousands of pictures here - more like a few dozen we may not be able to replace. That's something we can easily keep tabs on and provide appropriate warning labels for downstream users. We can use any number of methods to quarantine these images and strictly limit their use. How about a voting mechanism? Anyone proposing we use a new used-with-permission image must obtain a consensus that the image is sufficiently useful and hard to replace to justify a used-with-permission exception. That is my modest proposal. Regards, Haukur

8 10

Re: [WikiEN-l] SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin Power
by A. Nony Mouse 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

> > Kurita77 actually sent emails from MANY IP addresses in his block. > >One overlapping IP is all we need for near certainty. When DHCP is involved, no, I don't think so. > > I checked the record. Enviroknot's edits and emails to this list do not > > contain a single swear word, anywhere. > >So? anyone can change their writing style. Anyone "can" change their writing style... in the same way that people can change their handwriting or their hair color. Very, very rarely can someone hold such subterfuge for that long. Somewhere, IF Enviroknot were also KaintheScion/ElKabong, there should have been a slip-up somewhere. SOME swear. Especially with the number of people here and on Wikipedia who were spending much time personally attacking and harassing Enviroknot. > > Kurita77, on his initial 25 edits, made only one set that were on the >same > > subject as Enviroknot. But we have policy on Wikipedia about that. >Merely > > editing on the same subject or sharing similar opinions is NOT an >indication > > of sockpuppetry. > >It's not. When combined with the overlapping IPs, however, it is very >difficult to dispute. Again, when DHCP is involved, I don't think so. What would you do if it were an AOL subscriber who happened to get the IP of another blocked AOL subscriber and edited on the same topic? > > Kurita77 was an example of a bunch of Inquisitionists running around >needing > > someone else to persecute, and biting the newbies. There was no good >faith > > involved in dealing with him. > >Perhaps it could have been handled better initially, I haven't looked >but I'd be surprised if I hadn't posted saying that. If you did, you didn't spend much time on it. In fact, YOU were the one who sent the little "gem" telling him that the only way he'd get his account back would be to hunt down Enviroknot wherever he was and force him to move out of the area. No. You crossed the line, you purposely agitated Kurita77 rather than dealing in good faith. > > Instead, the Kurita77 case has proven a few things about the bad faith > > inherent in the behavior of editors/admins like YOU: > >I have assigned no bad faith to Kurita77, I have only stated that >obvious that his equivalence with enviroknott is nearly beyond >reasonable dispute. And I state for the record that any such assertion is roughly the equivalent of what I remove from my horses' stalls in the morning. > > 1 - You believe that no editor is smart enough to read the rules and > > tutorials before posting, and that (therefore) any editor who comes in >and > > doesn't sound like a l33t skr1pt k1dd13z poster is guilty of being a > > sockpuppet. > >I have *never* made this claim, and I disagree strongly with anyone >who makes it and I have done so publicly on the list. Yet that is PRECISELY the claim made time and again as evidence - that Kurita77 "had" to be a sockpuppet because he "knew too much" about formatting edits on Wikipedia. This despite the fact that he had to go asking another editor for help in formatting his signature, and proceeded to get it wrong multiple times. That's not the act of an experienced editor, it's the act of a newbie. > > We should not bite the newbies for actually paying attention. > >agreed. At least you agree on that. Too bad you fail to practice it. > > 2 - You believe that quoting someone (which is as simple as copying and > > pasting their edit) is evidence of sockpuppetry. Again, this CANNOT be > > allowed to be the case. > > The case of Kurita77's quote - which you call "complete support" - is >YOU > > misrepresenting the event, nothing more. His actual behavior was to take >a > > small paragraph from out between the bickering between Zeno of Elea and > > BrandonYusufToropov/Anonymous Editor, because it held a valuable >suggestion > > - a suggestion that BrandonYusufToropov even agreed was a good one, >though > > the suggestion itself stirred up the usual hornets' nest of Islamic > > detractors and defenders pushing alternate readings of the Koran. > >I said, "Furthermore Kurita77 initial edits were on the same subjects >and enviroknott, and even came out in support of enviroknott.". Please >get your quotes right. He did edit in support of enviroknott, this is >not by itself evidence of anything. When you combine it with the other >evidence.. the likelihood is overwhelming. Hardly. "Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, __particularly in controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle East__, cult figures, or Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Some have suggested applying the 100-edit guideline more strongly in such cases, assuming that all accounts with fewer than 100 edits are sock puppets. Generally, __such beliefs have been shown not to be well founded__." How much clearer do I need to be? I tried to bold it but the list doesn't allow Rich-Text Emails (can the admins check on why this is?). There is not "overwhelming" evidence of anything - there is the assertion that because he: - edited the same article, - and cut-and-pasted a valid point which was being overlooked under the usual holy-warrior garbage that goes on every time editors like BrandonYusufToropov and Zeno of Elea get together, - and happened to live somewhere inside the Houston city limits (gee, not like it's not the fourth largest city in the US or anything), that somehow he "must" be a sockpuppet even though his other edits don't match up and neither does his language. I don't buy it. This is a case of admins on a power trip biting the newbies and refusing to admit they were wrong to do so, which was made worse by admins like YOU who saw an opportunity to jump in and cause a personal attack free-for-all on the innocent newbie. NEVER the way you should treat new users. But you and every other admin who jumped in to start attacking Kurita77 (I think I only saw ONE mail that was even close to being in good faith) showed what you were made of. It wasn't pretty. What's even sadder is that I see this kind of stuff all the time on Wikipedia. The inner clique of Adminship has become a license to make up rules as you go along and break the existing rules with impunity, rather than a trust to enforce them and stay within them. Calling it a "despotism" isn't far off from the reality. >I realize you are trying to defend the wronged here... but there are a >lot of wronged people who would make a better case for your >assistance. We'll start with this one, thank you very much. Now address the points. A. Nony Mouse _________________________________________________________________ Upgrade to Messenger 7.0 - more fun features, still totally FREE! http://messenger.msn.co.uk

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin Power
by A. Nony Mouse 06 Jul '05

06 Jul '05

My apologies to the list, this will be rather long as Maxwell staunchly STILL refuses to deal in good faith. >On 7/5/05, A. Nony Mouse <temoforcomments4(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Kurita77 actually sent emails from MANY IP addresses in his block. > > >One overlapping IP is all we need for near certainty. > > When DHCP is involved, no, I don't think so. > >The address that was used is allotted to a single HFC network region. >The both participants would have to live within blocks of each other, >in the worse case the same town. Within that area there is probably a >dhcp pool of many addresses (hundreds for a geographically larger >area). The provider in question uses persistently allocated IPs, as >long as the modem stays on you should keep your IP. *AS LONG AS THE MODEM STAYS ON* - and if an area is having consistent power failures/brownouts (which seems to be a recurring theme in states like California and Texas) what happens then? >The chance of two unrelated people getting the same IP, and both >editing the same subjects on wikipedia is infinitesimal and once you >factor in any other additional indicators... it removes all doubt from >anyone with any understanding of the issues. ONE conjunction of interest out of multiple subjects of interest, and a conjunction of interest in something that is WORLDWIDE a point of argument? Sorry. That's a "coincidence" on the same order as "wow, who would have thought a train would come down those parallel rails of metal conveniently arranged over a procession of railroad ties." > > >It's not. When combined with the overlapping IPs, however, it is very > > >difficult to dispute. > > > > Again, when DHCP is involved, I don't think so. What would you do if it >were > > an AOL subscriber who happened to get the IP of another blocked AOL > > subscriber and edited on the same topic? > >AOL proxies many users behind the same IPs. The case is not the same. >You are incorrect here. No, I'm not. This is no different than a user on DSL or dial-up getting snagged the same way. DHCP is DHCP, IP addresses change. > > > > Kurita77 was an example of a bunch of Inquisitionists running around > > >needing > > > > someone else to persecute, and biting the newbies. There was no good > > >faith > > > > involved in dealing with him. > > > > > >Perhaps it could have been handled better initially, I haven't looked > > >but I'd be surprised if I hadn't posted saying that. > > > > If you did, you didn't spend much time on it. In fact, YOU were the one >who > > sent the little "gem" telling him that the only way he'd get his account > > back would be to hunt down Enviroknot wherever he was and force him to >move > > out of the area. > >That was long after he became an abusive pest on the mailing list. In >any case my advice, though silly still holds. We may have made a >mistake, some unforeseen interaction... But we've made an effort, and >now the accused can make an effort... I don't see why you found it so >offensive, if Kurita77 isn't the real enviroknott, going and finding >the real one would probably be useful for all involved. Yeah. Telling someone to go knock door to door in their neighborhood looking for someone to tell them how naughty they are... lame. Beyond lame, even. And the fact that you can't see what an insult that was? Pathetic. > > No. You crossed the line, you purposely agitated Kurita77 rather than > > dealing in good faith. > >I think you've lost your mind. I didn't even say "buzz off- you are >enviroknott" to this user even though I think the likelihood is >overwhelming. I said that we just weren't going to change our mind >for anything short of finding enviroknott... The practice of driving >unwanted people off the network you are on is well precedents on the >Internet which is why the antispam services will tend to overblock >against IPs which permit spamming users. Yes, I was a bit of a >smartass in my reply, but the advice was still useful. If you don't >think I should be permitted to be a smartass towards annoying pests >flooding my inbox then, quite frankly, you can bite me. You're supposed to be an example. I'm going to point out the MULTIPLE personal attacks you've just made and let that be that, because making one back would be against policy. > > >I have assigned no bad faith to Kurita77, I have only stated that > > >obvious that his equivalence with enviroknott is nearly beyond > > >reasonable dispute. > > And I state for the record that any such assertion is roughly the >equivalent > > of what I remove from my horses' stalls in the morning. > >You should focus your attentions on the horse then, because you appear >to be misunderstanding technology. No, I understand the technology perfectly well. >Yadda yadda yadda. Look, if you're going to make accusations against >me get your darn facts straight.. and when I catch you slinging >bullshit, at least you could give me an apology. You're the one slinging bullshit. Anything else I'd say on the subject (and I have edited out my initial instinct here) would be a personal attack. >Back when you first started posting I argued with others to keep you >on the list because they thought you were just another troll. I >regret that now. I am not sure of your intentions of motivations, but >I can say with confidence that your repeated attacking messages are >effectively trolling the list. In the same way that blacks "trolled" lunch counters during Jim Crow days perhaps. > > > > We should not bite the newbies for actually paying attention. > > >agreed. > > > > At least you agree on that. Too bad you fail to practice it. > >Yet another unsupported allegation from you, no shock there. >:-( Not at all. Your treatment of Kurita77 proves it. >Yes users can come to write up on the same thing. >You need to take a class in statistics. >When you combine several rare uncorrelated events, the chance of them >all happening becomes very low very quickly. DHCP being reassigned - not a "rare" event by any stretch of the imagination. Users deciding to edit on Jihad - about as rare as waiting for a man to walk into a barbershop. User coming in and reading the tutorial before editing - not ALL that usual, but when we ENCOURAGE them to do so we shouldn't hold it against them. What's your point? You clearly haven't got one. > > I don't buy it. This is a case of admins on a power trip biting the >newbies > > and refusing to admit they were wrong to do so, which was made worse by > > admins like YOU who saw an opportunity to jump in and cause a personal > > attack free-for-all on the innocent newbie. > >Get off it. We deal with hundreds of newbie editors a day. I agree >that things don't always go right.. and we do have a few users who are >too aggressive. If you'd pay any attention who *who* you're ranting >at you'll notice that you've yelled at a number of people who spend a >fair amount of time looking at the work of others and reminding them >to be more polite and good-faith assuming to all users and especially >newbies. No, I'm yelling at the ones who don't practice what they preach, who regularly believe that they can lecture newbies and established editors about policy and "good faith" all day long while being quite comfortable ignoring those same policies whenever the mood strikes. > > NEVER the way you should treat new users. But you and every other admin >who > > jumped in to start attacking Kurita77 (I think I only saw ONE mail that >was > > even close to being in good faith) showed what you were made of. It >wasn't > > pretty. > > What's even sadder is that I see this kind of stuff all the time on > > Wikipedia. The inner clique of Adminship has become a license to make up > > rules as you go along and break the existing rules with impunity, rather > > than a trust to enforce them and stay within them. Calling it a >"despotism" > > isn't far off from the reality. > >You know what, if you think wikipedia is so broken why don't you start >your own? You can even start off with all the articles that exist in >the current one. I'll even help you setup the software. I'd rather fix the one that's here. It's worth saving. > > We'll start with this one, thank you very much. Now address the points. > >It is your choice to waste your time on the nearly indefensible, as it >was your choices to reply to my offlist email on list... in violation >of netiquette, common courteous, and copyright law. ... and as it is >my choice to petition the list moderators on list to deny you >participation because you are antagonistic, disruptive, and >disrespectful. Netiquette - riiight. Since when do you care about that? Common Courtesy - I'm keeping things right out in the open. If YOU want to hide what you're doing, that's your problem. Copyright Law - quoting someone's words is fair use, so I rather suppose that you can (as you said to me earlier) "bite me". A. Nony Mouse _________________________________________________________________ Send a sexy animated wink with Messenger 7.0 - FREE download! http://messenger.msn.co.uk

1 0

← Newer
1
...
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l July 2005