Steve Bennett wrote:
>On 2/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe we need a list of priorities for edits.
>>Number one priority: no copyvio
>>Number two: no vandalism
>>
>>
>Actually number two would be no libel, wouldn't it.
>
>
Actually, no. No libel is #1. No copyright infringement is #1A. But if I
had to prioritize, for both legal and PR reasons I would put eliminating
libel first. No vandalism is a distant #3, assuming the vandalism
doesn't put anyone in legal jeopardy.
--Michael Snow
Let's consider this in context. Your original article text was:
---
A '''Cart00ney''' (usually spelled with two zeroes) is a [[neologism]]
originallly coined in the [[Usenet]] [[newsgroup]]
[[news.admin.net-abuse.email]] to describe both [[spammer]]s who
threaten legal action to prohibit being described as spammers —
for example, being added to [[blacklist]]s — as well as the
threats themselves.
The use of the term is no longer restricted to spammers; it has expanded
from its orignal meaning to include, for example, those who threaten
[[Wikipedia]] administrators for taking action against them.
==External links==
*[http://www.spamfaq.net/terminology.shtml#cartooney Definition at
Spamfaq.net]
*[http://www.cart00ney.org/ a list of cart00neys]
{{compu-stub}}
{{vocab-stub}}
---
Savidan probably didn't recognize your name. The article, as written,
did little to establish notability. We delete dozens of articles on
neologisms every day, most of them by people who misunderstand the
nature of the project. Many of them get speedied.
It's the authors responsibility to establish notability in the first
revision of new articles. We don't have "patrolled edits" or any sort
of queues for RC patrollers to use to check back to see if an article
gets better after 30 minutes.
--
The Uninvited Co., Inc.
(a Delaware Corporation)
Hi all,
Just a thought in the wake of the pedophile thing. Could we agree
not to ever again block people for what they are? No matter how
disgusting, unpleasant, immoral etc. Such things always being at least
somewhat objective, we should stick instead to only blocking people
for actions.
In other words: If someone says, "I'm a pedophile", then by policy
this should not be a reason to block them. If, on the other hand, they
are trolling, and it works, then that becomes a blockable action -
trolling.
I worry that there is a genuine slippery slope where "I am a
pedophile" gets confused with "I am a terrorist", then "I am a member
of Hamas" then "I support Eta" and so on and so forth. Is it not
better to simply say "We do not block people for statements of who
they are or what they believe"?
Steve
The UK media has discovered the US Senate story and today is Media
Batshit Day. I just did a Guardian interview for tomorrow (to be in
both paper and online - the online version is 3x the size of the paper
version, so it's always a good idea to ask!). So look out for it.
There should be TV coverage as well, if Danny can match interviewees
with interviewers fast enough - if everyone could try to record the
assorted TV news tonight, that'd be great, particularly if you have a
DVD recorder and/or can do multiple channels!
We'll probably try to drag in Alison Wheeler as a backup UK media
contact for *special* days like this. (Alison, you're drafted!) Other
suitable UK volunteers who can get away from their desk by day at
short notice might be good too.
- d.
February 10, 2006
Dear Wikipedians:
Would you be bold and update policy? Does it seem bolder to take
administrative action without proper justification? This is what needs
to be addressed.
The foundations of wikipedia are based on (a) discussion, (b)
discussion, and (c) discussion. Somewhere along the way was inserted
others option: (d) block and (c) end of discussion.
There are many reasons to start discussion, and there are some reasons
to block, and there are even better reasons to continue discussion.
Would you rather block and end discussion or attempt to follow the
foundations and allow for discussion?
Let's get to the point and work with that (to avoid a lengthy business
like letter). Sometimes when the block is done, it puts the cart before
the horse. The block is given but no discussion to justify the block is
done until (maybe) some later time. Given that wikipedia is open
content, the only justification that seems applicable for such swift
action is if continual vandalism is in progress, and the block is the
only way to stop it. However, blocks are given out much easier than that.
We have examples of where blocks are given out that are not based on
technicalities of policy, and I'll provide evidence below:
It took about 10 minutes for a user to make a 3RR report and for the
block to be instated. Reason: "Blocked for 24h for 3RR on the Template.
Not technically 3RR on the Talk because the first edit wasn't a revert,
just a total waste of everyones time. Dzontas: please learn to get along
with people. D's complaints about personal attack I judge totally
unfounded. William M. Connolley
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley> 22:21, 9
February 2006 (UTC)." [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN/3RR#User:Dzonatas ]
Further discussion with wikipedians on #wikipedia led to the belief
where the block was almost entirely undone. The block for the template
was found as not valid since the first edit was not a revert, so both
technically were not 3RR.
Discussion continued on the #wikipedia to justify a block. It took about
a half hour to find any decent justification. It took about an hour to
pinpoint justification, which isn't explicitly stated in the Three
Revert Rule policy.
I agreed to a block on the basis that once one person contests an edit
then discussion must follow on the talk page about the edit, like to
find consensus before another edit. This is the policy change to make
that would make this much clearer. The 3RR has implied such but it
doesn't explicitly state it; although, a 3RR block has been used
regularly on this basis. "The point is," it wasn't obvious.
The policy change would make it obvious.
Also realize in the case above, the user that made the 3RR report never
did discuss the reason for his revert. Discussion did happen on the talk
page, but none of the discussion specifically addressed the edit summary
of the revert. The question about the reason for the revert was avoided
and a block handed out instead. This needs also to be covered in policy
to make sure that relevant discussion on the talk page justifies any
revert; otherwise, they are subject to count towards a 3RR rule block on
the person that doesn't answer the questions to justify that person's
revert.
I know by this process I have actually exploited a common tactical
revert-war technique. That is to revert, not discuss the revert, and let
the other user edit again until there is enough edits to make a 3RR
report. An admin might block upon it, as in the above case proves it
happens. Also, in the above case, the edit summary stated "gr" and later
"grammar" but the user never stated the point of exactly where he
thought the grammar was wrong enough to justify a revert - it is a
personal attack to just comment without reason on someone's grammar,
otherwise.
Thanks for you time to read this. I plan to post diffs on this activity,
but not on this mail-list.
The block is the cart while the horse is the discussion. The horse needs
to pull the cart -- it doesn't seem right other way around.
I also expect mutual application of such policy. To continually apply it
to some wikipedians while it is not equally applied to others implies
seditious activity against wikipedia and wikipedians.
Concerned,
Jonathan
On 2/9/06, Phil Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Exactly. I'm not really sure what my point is here, but perhaps we
> > should make a token effort to impress upon people that there *are*
> > policies, and as long as they edit in ignorance of such policies, they
> > should not claim any particular rights or presume anything in
> > particular about the project.
> Step #1 - Make the policies readable and intelligible.
We should note that Steve has been working on just that, with the
project to put a one-line description at the top of each policy or
guideline.
Now we need to hack away at the guidelines removing everything that's
aimed at the clueless or at bad-faith editors, because they're the two
groups that don't or can't read the guidelines, and writing aimed at
them is the #1 source of instruction creep.
Then we can get to work on making sense of badly-written policies ...
- d.
Fastfission wrote:
>As for the project itself, I don't see it adding "process"; it seems
>like a way to centralize certain resources and participation, which I
>don't think is negative in any way.
I think the CVU is a clear win for Wikipedia and holding back the
masses (and I do mean *masses*) of vandalism. Curps in particular has
done some amazing work with bot-based detection of vandalism, needed
to counter the bot-based vandalism that is fashionable amongst the
kiddies these days. You really would not believe the mountains of crap
the CVU holds back.
If the name is the real issue, I don't see anything wrong with calling
it "WikiProject Counter Vandalism Project", which after all is what it
is.
- d.
I know I'm coming late to the party, but Willy on Wheels is hilarious,
as is the Wikipedia tribute page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Willy_on_Wheels
And I remember when LMS threw a hissy fit because I was preserving
home page vandalism, out of fear it would only encourage them. People
these days are doing a better job than I ever could.
Shouldn't this be in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense?