Last night my userpage was attacked by the one and only Willy on Wheels... or should I say William on Discs? First, I'd like to thank Meelar for getting that straightened out. Second, I received a strange email around the same time. The email seems most definitely faked: gjspace (at) gjspace (dot) com. GJSpace.com is similar to MySpace, except for the fact that it's cool, and doesn't suck so bad; it's run by GreatestJournal, so I have a GJSpace account.
Anyway, I've got my userpage linked from my GJSpace profile, and the text of the weird email was:
"You [sic] site is sooo damn insecure it makes me laugh, AH-HAHAHA!!"
I'm guessing that "insecure" refers to the "Edit this page" button. Could this be related to the WoW incident?
--Ryan
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
An IP poster at 216.146.93.139 has posted to
[[Wikipedia talk:2004 Encyclopedia topics]] and
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic
articles]] wanting to know where Wikipedia got the
list of topics in the 2004 Encyclopedia Brittanica.
What makes this interesting is that 216.146.93.13
resolves to corp.eb.com, i.e. within the corporate
offices of Encyclopedia Brittanica.
I don't know the answer to the poster's query (and am
presently glad I don't), but I did post a note
identifying the poster's origin on both threads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:2004_Encyclopedia_topicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedi…
I figure, given that this could be the start of a
bigger conflict, it would be useful to make the
community aware of this inquiry at a high level, so I
am posting here.
-DF
Your argument would be compelling were we talking
about something like first ammendment free speech
rights in the democratic US. But he is not entitled
to a "day in court" because wikipedia is not a
democracy, it is not a social experiment, it is not a
soapbox, a public forum, a commons, a message board,
etc., etc. It is an encyclopedia where such a hateful
and absurd dogma as Nazi-ism has no place.
For the record, yes, I am in support of oppressing
Nazis with every legal means at our disposal, and
perhaps some illegal ones if we get really bored. I
do not find this incompatible with the support for the
free speech rights of Nazis in general, and they can
speech all they want on their own message board and
their Nazipedia, when and if they ever get it working.
And somehow, I manage to sleep at night just fine.
Gamaliel
Sean Barrett sean at epoptic.org:
With all that righteousness on our side, who could
possibly want to
waste time on archaic betises like formal charges, due
process, the
right to confront one's accuser, and similar nonsense?
After all, giving the accused his "day in court" would
distinguish us
from various disgusting people, like, oh, say, the Nazis.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
If I had known we were going to be hairsplitting, I
would have dressed for the occassion.
Let me rephrase for those determined to argue about
this: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where adherents of
such a hateful and absurd dogma as Nazi-ism should
have no place.
I believe in NPOV just as much as the next admin, but
I'm not going to turn it into a religion. NPOV
applies to article content, of course, but in my
discussions of policy and human interactions, I will
rely on what happens in the real world. You may try
to drag NPOV to an absurd extension to say that
perhaps some Nazi somehwhere may be a good, neutral
contributor, but real life experience says that Nazis
are disruptive assholes with an agenda that is
incompatible with our goals.
Gamaliel
Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth at hi.is:
> It is an encyclopedia where such a hateful
> and absurd dogma as Nazi-ism has no place.
Go and VfD [[Nazism]], then. However absurd it may be,
it is an
historically important dogma which needs a careful,
detailed and *neutral*
treatment in a serious encyclopedia.
Stan Shebs shebs at apple.com:
Yellow card! :-) Officially WP has no position on
whether Nazi
dogma is hateful or absurd - that is just another POV.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
I have to be allowed to answer the accuracy of what is
said about me, but think it would be sterile to have
the same argument here as we have had in the talk page
concerned.
I'm still learning how the 3RR rule works in crisis
situations, and it's actually part of Asperger
Syndrome to interpret rules by logic instead of by a
tribal-type social reading of its meaning. Hence, not
"the letter of 3RR is just the way it is,lump it" but
"does 3RR apply to the letter in a situation where it
doesn't serve its intended purpose?" I kept doing
revert edits because (i) the opposition were a group
who could pool their 3RR rights, hence it was common
sense that I couldn't be handicapped unequally as 1
person defending against them, (ii) I was reverting
an arbitrary deletion they were repeating every few
minutes, and they were refusing to make any attempt in
talk to negotiate a consensual wording, so the right
of reversion of simple vandalism logically applied.
Most of my edits were not simple reverts to the past,
they were consensual attempts to find new versions
incorporating other users' points on the issue.
All were done properly logged in except just 1 that
went through as IP accidentally and was still
identifed from my edit summary, so there has never
been any attempt at anonymity and what is Zachary
getting at? As for the edit summariesd Ryan calls
hurtful,they were my defences to the hurtfulness of
the group campaign and gave an ethical case for each
edit.
I have not accused anyone of hurting children, what I
accused was that deletion of the item is an act
against the prevention of hurting children. This is
apparent from the item. I contended logically this
actually made the other side of this edit war illegal.
As can be seen in talk, the edit war was started by a
user called 24.19.0.114, now called ManekiNeko, who
came there out of nowhere and arbitrarily posted a
personal attack on my character, drawn from his own
unsubstantiated prejudice that an issue he knows I
care about does not matter, and from believing some
lies - which he repeated - that are spread by the
Aspies For Freedom site that I and many other aspies
have had serious ethical problems with that are
documented in other places. This user also exposed my
name without consent. This was supposed to justify
deleting a 1-sentence item just because it was by me:
i.e. personal prejudice, and arguing that the sentence
was dangerous to Wikipedia's reputation just because
it was by me! The only issue around Wikipedia's
reputation is that users can't treat each other like
that!
The discussion on it has consisted of personal attacks
ever since. The only arguments given against the item
have been personal attacks or assertions that it is
not important without saying why. and since whe has
thinking an item not important, which another user
thinks is deeply important concerning how children are
treated, been a reason for making such an
out-of-control fuss, not for editing it but for
totally excluding any mention of it? and for a group
vendetta to that effect?
Ryan has shown here too that he is letting personal
dislike cause careless errors in what he says about
me. I'm not a 14-year old who can't get a book
published, at all! I'm 37! and was in the ''early
eighties'' a victim of schoolwork pressures and
long-drawn-out traumas with the school system that
unfairly ruined my chance to complete writing a book
at that age.
The site that Ryan and a couple of others are trying
to tar as a "hate site", has on its front page a legal
commitment to the right to reply for anyone commented
about on it. It is in fact an anti-hate site for
sticking up for personal fairness on other sites.
Getting listed on it is no worse than getting listed
on the blocks page here! - unless of course because
you demonstrably have done something really mean you
haven't got a reply. It is an issue of balance that if
this site, Spectrum Fairness, is not linked to, then
neither are Aspies For Freedom and its offshoot
Autistic Pride Day.
Anyway, I have sent in to this section a new separate
topic, Ethical Need To Reform the 3RR Rule For
Even-Handedness, to make a case to the whole of
Wikipedia for reform of the 3RR rule to pin it down to
work 2-sidedly, as it has not in this case where all
my opponents should have been given blocks on equal
terms alongside me.
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Hi, I'm Tern and 83.65.67.99. This is an overall
questioning of how the 3RR block rule can work, that
leads to a reform proposal. It's more than just about
a present row.
The 3RR rule can be abused if a page comes under group
targetting that outnumbers the defence or targets one
person. Wikipedia's ethicality needs to be protected
by modifying the 3RR rule to prevent this.
This issue is presented on the evidence of the chaos
presently overwhelming the article [[Asperger's
Syndrome]], where an outbreak of really spiteful
personally targetted bullying can be read on the talk
page since Aug 18. I don't mind the 3RR block being
used to see if it cools the situation. But - if 1
person gets a block and the group organised against
him don't get a block, because no single one of them
has committed 3RR, then bullies are rewarded and their
attack on the page gets protected and encouraged. This
has just happened to me.
The case involves an issue of child cruelty related to
the medical subject of Asperger Syndrome, which the
attackers want to veto any mention of at all. The
record of the argument had been of them solidly
refusing either to add a converse view to the page or
to attempt to find any mutually neutral wording. I
kept asking them to do both, and my edits were not
simple reversions but new adaptations but because I
did not lie down and accept them attacking the page
every few minutes by organised force of numbers it was
me who ended up with a 2-day block under 3RR. You see
how the balance of power was unbalanced?
The admin who made the block said it was on higher
instructions and he wasn't personally even in favour
of it. Yet I can see the point of trying to bring some
calm to the situation by trying to see if some
reasoned discussion takes place (it isn't) while the
contenders are silenced. So, I told him, I am
''actually not contesting my block'' provided all the
opponents I had during the preceding day have been
blocked as well. Only if they have not been, am I
contesting my block, on grounds of one-sidedness
towards a person already being victimised concertedly
- and if they get a block put on them now, belatedly,
I won't claim that mine is wrong. My edits were not
simple reversions but attempts at constructive new
edits incorporating others' feelings, and only the
opponents' POV gets favoured by them each having a
personal right to 3RR which they can pool.
How then is Wikipedia to guard against having its
ethic of neutral content destroyed by the 3RR rule
working in favour of bullying campaigns and organised
frequent attacks on pages? An ethical concern for the
entire nature of Wikipedia and reform proposal to
solve the anomaly, arises from this case.It should be
circulated to the entire list of contactable users for
comment, so it can be put into practice straight away.
Proposal: simply enact
(i) the 3RR rule also to apply when different people
make the same revert, exactly the same as when 1
person does. Hence a group of users all editing on the
same side of an argument will be subject to the rule,
collectively, on equal terms to an individual.
(ii) When a 2-sided high-frequency edit war is
happening, if a 3RR block is made it must be made
simultaneously on every person on both sides who took
part during the preceding day. Admins at all levels
with discretion whether to apply a 3RR block, shall
not have discretion to apply one to only 1 side of
such a dispute.
(iii) ''Except'' as part of such a 2-sided parity, a
reverter who does not make simple reverts to the past
but writes new adaptations can't be given a 3RR block,
unless - There is a constructive editorial discussion
in progress, that is about content not personal
attacks towards that person's side, and about
factuality not an insistence on simply deleting an
item on grounds of not thinking it important.
Studying this case, do you see that without these rule
changes, Wikipedia can be dragged into giving
non-neutral positions with content censored by the
agenda of a group who keep editing the same way? and
on serious issues of how children are treated? On the
basis of this case that has just happened, I contend
that Wikipedia visibly owes to its members to make
this rule change.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Is it really? This is one of the main things I'm
concerned about, and I've done a poor job of
articulating my concern. It's quite easy to make edits
which seem legitimate, accurate, and NPOV, but are
actually nothing of the sort. Cite sources which
don't exist, or don't say what you claim they do, or
simply cite a source which turns out to be someone
making things up out of whole cloth. I've dealt with
all of these things from editors who aren't even Nazis
and I have no doubt that the Nazis won't hesitate to
employ such methods. For some reason, I found it
nearly impossible to find editors to help combat this
sort of stuff in an article about a Nobel Prize
winner; how many editors are willing to wade through
obscure footnotes in the life of Eustace Mullins or
William Pierce to fight a persistent POV warrior? I
can't imagine a more stubborn and intractible POV
warrior than a person whose entire worldview revolves
around fighting the Elders of Zion.
Jimmy Wales jwales at wikia.com
But my response to this particular argument is that
*at least in this
particular case*, the odds of him doing anything which
is 'unnoticed and
uncorrected' is close to zero *in this account*.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
The advantage to banning him now is that it prevents
subtle skewing of articles or skewing of articles on
obscure topics, both which may go unnoticed and
uncorrected. It also saves a lot of stress and sweat
for those editors who have to deal with him until he
inevitably gets banned for something. Neither of
these will be that detrimental to the project as a
whole in the long run, but they are not negligible
effects.
Gamaliel
Theresa Knott theresaknott at gmail.com
Tue Aug 23 01:57:07 UTC 2005
We could ban him then. Is there any particular hurry?
Why don't we
wait until he does something wrong and then ban him?
(Note that I'm playing devils advocate here. I'm not
concerned enough
to go and unblock him)
Theresa
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
This has to stop. There is now a Wikipedians against censorship
wikiproject, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_cens…
. How is any of this going to get us anywhere? Isn't [[WP:NOT]]
censored already? Do we really need wikiprojects to oppose the basic
foundation of the project, and vfds, and vfds of vfds, and opposing
wikiprojects against them?
It looks like this is all a big ForestFire that needs to be stopped
immediately. VFD should never touch Wikipedia: namespace, VFDs should
never be VFD'd, WikiProjects should never be created to wage war with
other WikiProjects. What do we do now? :(
--
signature