WikiEN-l August 2005

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

127 participants
181 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Encarta article list
by daniwo59＠aol.com 28 Aug '05

28 Aug '05

In a message dated 8/28/2005 9:43:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sean(a)epoptic.org writes: I win! I got 11 of them; Danny got 9. Tabbed browsing is wonderful. I came in second! Danny

1 0

Pseudodoxia (neo-Nazi Wikipedia)
by Zachary Harden 28 Aug '05

28 Aug '05

Dear All, While the website said they are not open, I decided to take a peek and see what they offered. So, for a test, I check out one of my articles [[Hero of Belarus]]. Well, they have a version of the article, which was an edit done on June 18 of this year http://pseudodoxia.flawlesslogic.com/index.php?title=Hero_of_Belarus&action…. That is the only edit, surprisingly, that the history shows. So, for another test, I clicked the talk page. They are using our templates alright, but no images (like in the article). I scroll down and see my name, and sure enough, my user page exists (http://pseudodoxia.flawlesslogic.com/index.php?title=User:Zscout370). Well, for other problems, I see the MediaWiki logo to the bottom. If there are other things that worry you, just let me know and I could snoop around. But, most likely, they took out site from the end of June, so this could have been untouched for two months. Regards, Zachary Harden

20 26

Fwd: Hey shithead
by A. Nony Mouse 27 Aug '05

27 Aug '05

I believe this should be added to Yuber's RFAR... A. Nony Mouse ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Yuber <yuber07(a)gmail.com> Date: Aug 19, 2005 5:20 PM Subject: Hey shithead To: mousyme(a)gmail.com How goes it?

4 3

Rewards and punishments
by Jack Lynch 27 Aug '05

27 Aug '05

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#General_user_co… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfA I just noticed that the RfC on other users exceeds the RfA by aprox 3 times. That sucks. I really think we need to spend more time complimenting each other, and less time conflicting. Jack (Sam Spade)

5 6

admins:emergency copy of blocked user's demand for a admins:emergency copy of blocked user's demand for a
by MAURICE FRANK 27 Aug '05

27 Aug '05

In answer to the point of no legal threats - The legal reference was to the fact that I was being threatened with various forms of complaint that would need defending against, by the AFF couple, at the same time as the block began, thus obstructing my actions. I don't see that as a legal threat to sue anyone. The point is one should not have personal feuds from outside Wikipedia brought into it, and if any harrassment that would be a wrong in the world outside Wikipedia had been effected during the block which it had blocked me responding to, then that clearly would have been a legal wrong, because Wikipedia can'topt out of the world. It is not isolated from the existence of those factors in society as a whole. e.g.in the argument about Nazism that's going on here, you are taking a position against having Nazis' target groups put in danger, and you are doing that because it's an outside world legal issue. "Wikipedia is not a democracy" needs quite a sharp answer given to it. For the reason of keeping itself in passably right relationship with the outside world, i.e.readers, Wikipedia holds a policy on neutrality of content. But the only way this policy genuinely exists and is not a lie to readers, is if unconditionally anyone who falls victim to crowd psychology can lay claim to by right, not have to beg for by favour, any measure that prevents a force of group numbers keeping a bullying bias in place without having to find NPOV ground. Now, "laying claim to" anything, inherently means being entitled to anything. This is actually a case-study in how society emerged from the Middle Ages. To have any credible claim to work by any principles, a society must show they operate reliably fairly, and to do that means that people are entitled to it. No way out of that. Hence, as soon as any group tries to follow any policy code like neutral POV, immediately people are entitled to things and all things are not dependent on favour. So, it stands absolutely logically proved: either * it's wrong to say to any user ever "you're not entitled to anything", or * it's wrong to say to the public that Wikipedia has a neutrality policy that works. They can't both be right because anyone can see they contradict each other head-on. At least one must be wrong. Which is it? ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

4 4

A cry to save the Asperger's Syndrome page
by Ryan Norton 27 Aug '05

27 Aug '05

Hi, This was an otherwise great article that as of late (the past 3 days) has seen excessive edit warring and POV entries injected into it. Now it has been (predictably) set up for removal as a featured article. All of this is due to a single user, Tern, who continually injects this passage "These things illustrate how AS appears to correlate with child authorship, hence a number of aspie communities have a concerned awareness of the terrible injustice an aspie child can suffer when the [http://www.phad-fife.org.uk/recognition.html chance to achieve child authorship] is unfairly wrecked by high-handed [[school]] pressures." and links to a very controversial site which nearly everyone else describes as a "hate site", which other editors are editing anonymously to avoid being listed on. The link above in question is merely the rantings of a 14-year-old person with Asperger's Syndrome who could not get a scifi book published (and some other editors also claim that Tern is the person referenced there)- so initially users (before I came in the debate) just reverted the passage and noted on the talk page that it needed to be reworded to be less POV and needed a better reference. However, as evidenced by the history page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Asperger%27s_syndrome&curid=37556&action=history Tern continued to revert back to his version many, many times against MANY other editors who reached their 3 revert limit VERY quickly (reverts often happen within 10 minutes!). So, out of desperation the other users attempted to reword the passage in order to be less pov and accurate, including myself - however, this was not enough and Tern continued to revert back to his version. Some of his edit summaries have been very hurtful and involve personal attacks, such as "sysops look how this rv of haters' vandalism gives new consensual edits to both items" "the last attack made here, the public can see is blatant personally malicious bullying against wikpedia's rules and illegal in intending to suppress prevention of child cruelty" "creatively revert the llast absurdity, cos it's obviously just an irresponsible personal insult and not verified" Tern has also accused other editors of "hurting children" on the talk page. Tern has violated 3RR at least 3 times, and depending on how you want to do the math many more times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/ 3RR#User:Tern I'm just a participant in the war and have reached my 3RR limit twice already, and I've filed the 3RR against Tern. I WANT to work with the user, but the user needs to calm down and discuss with more sense about what he wants to do with the page, not just revert other good faith editors. I've tried notifying two admins without response on the issue also - and one admin - Zscout370 - simply voted to remove the article from FA status and not get in the debate with the user. I'm the one who brought the Autism article to its Featured Article status and used this article as a reference more or less on how to do it, so its really a pity to see this happen - I'd hate to see it lose its status because of a war with one user. Thanks, RN

7 14

admins:emergency copy of blocked user's demand for a deletion vote in return for bullying
by MAURICE FRANK 26 Aug '05

26 Aug '05

Attention other admins please. Foul play needing an emergency response. (Asperger's Syndrome article.) mailed to Redwolf: "I demand that you put up a vote for deletion of the Aspies For Freedom article, on my behalf, now, without waiting 48 hours, in the category that it is a Vanity Article promoting its own writers' business and is a totally personally biased view of themselves. Unless you do this without claiming to even have even in theory a shred of discretion not to, I challenge your admin position as abused on biased behalf of Wikipedia's name. Also that you post the reply to Amy I just sent you, and relabel the Asperger's article as neutrality disputed. I'm going to copy this message onto wikien-l." I have not broken 3RR, yet admin Redwolf has blocked me for "user spam" for reinserting a link that has been discussed in the talk page and that vandals keep deleting. I reinstate it only because it is needed for balance against another link, Aspies For Freedom, that others keep reinstating and I had been seen as censoring for trying the option of removing it. This proves that this block on me, the second in 3 days, is blatantly biased and bullying. The opposing side of this argument have not been blocked, yet they are elements associated with a commmunity outside Wikipedia that has socially hurt many people and that I had shown evidence of following peopleto other forums to harrass them. The picture is now strongly circumstantial that the entire crisis at the Asperger's Syndrome article since Aug 18 has been another case of this, in which case I am being stalked. Now that's very serious. Stalked. With this block forming part of it. Blocking me in the stalkers' favour prevents me answering on talk page some serious accusations that a character called Amy from this group made against me there 2 hours ago, and Redwolf has not put it there for me. Aspies For Freedom also has its own Wiki article. Its leader Gareth has threatened me with "filing a DMCA notice to the Wikimedia foundation", just before a block on me begins whose timing prevents me acting to oppose this - except by posting here. On the evidence of this campaign and the disruption of Wikipedia by it, I propose the Aspies For Freedom article for deletion as a Vanity Article, + in these circumstances of foul play I must be legally entitled to have this proposal filed right now, not with a 48 hour wait. ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

7 7

Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia
by Lisa Thurston 26 Aug '05

26 Aug '05

So... - Amalekite wasn't banned for non NPOV (apparently there's no evidence of his/her non-NPOV edits) - Amalekite wasn't banned for being a neo-Nazi (the consensus is that we can't block people of any particular political/religious persuasion) - Amalekite wasn't banned for disagreeing with me about group X of society (the consensus seems to be that people are entitled to their viewpoints no matter how warped) (I'm glad we got that out of the way -- hard as it was to put aside) But - Amalekite was banned for making a threat to disrupt Wikipedia (even though this was off of Wikipedia) Jay, if this user was to write on the Stormfront noticeboard "Sorry guys I've changed my mind. Let's edit our own encyclopaedia and leave Wikipedia alone." would you unblock him? Lisa [[User:Lisathurston]] > Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:59:40 -0400 > From: "JAY JG" <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia > > >From: Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com> > > > >Many articles contain '''cited''' POV, but when they are unbalanced, > >or express POV in the narrative, they violate NPOV. Were getting off > >topic here. The point is admins are not allowed to ban others based on > >differences of POV, because that violates both the letter AND the > >spirit of the blocking policy, as well as NPOV. > > Um, no, that's not the point, because that's not why Amalekite was banned. > > Jay.

5 5

Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia
by Rob 25 Aug '05

25 Aug '05

I thought you were making a reference to my statement jokingly advocating illegal actions against Nazis, since you quoted it and posted your comment directly below it. I apologize for misinterpreting your comment. If you want to try to get me banned for "hate speech" against Nazis, go ahead, I don't care. I have plenty of unpleasant things to say about them, but I'd just be violating [[WP:POINT]] to rattle them off. I find the idea that it's offensive to hate Nazis so mindboggling that I just don't know what to say without degenerating into homilies about the Greatest Generation and all that sort of thing. Anyway, we might as well let this die as it doesn't particularly matter to me that you rank me down with the Nazis on your moral hierarchy, because I'm able to sleep at night by just not being a Nazi. Gamaliel Matt R matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk: I certainly found your statements offensive, and it's not clear that they were a joke at all. They look very much like hate speech to me ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

1 0

Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia
by Rob 25 Aug '05

25 Aug '05

Apparently you are so intent on seeing me as a gutter dweller for daring to disagree with you that you can't see an obvious joke for what it was. No need for your implied threats, though I find it ironic that you'd make them in the same post while you claim you find it "utterly wrong to bar people from Wikipedia because of what views they hold." This entire discussion (and the rest of these comments are about this thread in general and not your post in particular) has long passed the point of usefulness so I'm going to try to limit my participation in it unless someone refers to me as pathological again. Apparently many of you find the profession of hatred of Nazis offensive; what I find offensive is that so many of you are willing to make other editors deal with these Nazis in the name of your principles. Terms like "rights" and "day in court" are inapplicable. This is not a court and not a democracy and not a free speech forum. In those areas, Nazis should have the rights of anyone else. This is an encyclopedia. You're here to make this an accurate, NPOV encyclopedia, or you're in the way. We just have to decide how much crap you want other people to put up with before we decide these people have wasted enough of our time. Gamaliel Matt R matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk: You should be aware that you're beginning to sound an awful lot like the very people you oppose. Do not make any more comments of this nature in this forum. We certainly wouldn't allow neo-Nazis to post such comments (mutatis mutandis). I believe it is utterly wrong to bar people from Wikipedia because of what views they hold, regardless of how unpopular or repellent those views are. Moreover, I think it would hinder us in our goal of building a complete and NPOV encyclopedia to do so. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
19
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 August 2005