On 21 Nov 2007 19:19:02 -0500, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
> In seriousness, I think the moderators should consider putting
> jayjg and Joshua on moderation for 36 hours or so, so that they
> -- and the rest of us -- can enjoy the holiday in peace, without
> feeling compelled to respond to every minute twist in this
> tendentious and unstoppable argument with ever-more-tedious
> ripostes...
Moderate/ban/block everybody whose username starts with "J"! That should take care of a
good deal of the problem, even if there'd be a little bit of collateral damage.
Dan
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 15 Nov 2007 at 21:31, Christiano Moreschi
<moreschiwikiman(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> The other issue is this - so much of this mailing list is clogged
> up by incredibly tedious and repetitive arguments over the same
> bloody topic: attack sites. Could we perhaps declare a moratorium?
> Create a separate mailing list? Please, before the sanity of those
> of us who don't care collapses?
As the one responsible for a good deal of that, I'd honestly love to
be able to drop the subject myself and go on to something more
productive. Unfortunately, like the monster in a bad horror movie,
BADSITES in some form or other keeps coming back from the dead every
time it seems to be completely defeated. Just now, some editors have
been trying yet again to add language back into the NPA policy
designed specifically to ban all links to certain sites under any
circumstances, after everybody else thought that full agreement had
been reached on a version that simply included the common-sense
provision that links shouldn't be added for the purpose of attacking.
As long as this silly idea refuses to die, neither can my fervent
opposition to it.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Well, I've been following the recent firethread of [Wikien-l] Featured Editors.
And I have to say, I'm rather interested in the discussion.
It seems that everyone's talking about banned users lately, and also that I am one myself.
So I'd like to say a few words about my situation.
I created an account circa May 2005. At the time, I was something of an immature asshole.
I freely admit to having done stupid, impulsive things, although at the time they seemed mature. I remained somewhat immature for a while. I'd like to think that I've grown up somewhat from then to now, although my judgement is clouded due to the fact that I'm judging myself. So I'll probably look back at my posts to this mailing list, in forums, etc in a couple years and say to myself "Good Lord, what a douchebag!"
But I digress once more.
I was banned indefinitely once. Removed. Banned for other reasons. Removed.
This bullshit continues for about a year (2 years? 3, even?).
And so, on 22 September 2006, I was unblocked.
At this point (although my memory is fuzzy), I was mostly like I am today.
However, since I had a history of asshattery, I was pretty closely watched. Very closely.
After a gigantic shitstorm (I seem to cause a lot of those ;_;), I was blocked again.
So I edited with an alternate account. Consensus formed to unblock my main account, and so it was unblocked.
A day after I finally got a fresh start and things were looking up, Jpgordon did a checkuser and then blocked both accounts indefinitely.
So now I'm back in the bottomless pit where all banned users are kept.
And this is a bad thing indeed.
Now, I recently read this on the mailing list.
> Not all banned user edits are bad ones-- they're smart enough to make
>good ones from time to time, just to mix it up.
This disturbs me. Why? Because it is the most garishly obvious assumption of bad faith which is possible. It assumes that since someone is banned, they must have been a mortal enemy to the project since the day they joined and that their only intent is to destroy.
Is it possible, perhaps, that a good editor did something bad IN ADDITION to his good editing, and was banned for that? Hell no. At least not in the world of Trolls.
And I'm not trying to destroy the Project. Honestly, I'm not.
I just want another chance. A chance to edit Wikipedia, a chance to do something good.
A chance to champion the causes of the other users who got fucked by the system, a chance to show everyone that I can do good.
I don't know why I have to be banned still. It makes me sad that there are thousands of things to do and causes to represent, and that there are blocked users who I can't support because of a bureaucratic trainwreck and a long history of shit.
And I know this will garner responses of "you're a troll and doing this on purpose to get attention", and "rules are rules".
If I wanted attention, I wouldn't waste 3 years of my life trying to edit an encyclopedia. I'd annoy people in real life, which is far more satisfying.
Remember WP:IAR? Does that apply only to sysops and the puppetmasters of bureaucracy who can do whatever they want, at any time, without being punished?
I'm sick of jumping through hoops.
I just want a chance.
I won't let you down.
---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
> I find it interesting, and a little distressing, that there seems to be a
> "groupthink" phenomenon on this list (and also sometimes on Wikipedia
> itself).
I don't think "Wikipedia" and "groupthink" belong in the same sentence. The only common ground you could find on WP is "there is work to do"; and that doesn't count as common ground on wikien.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Been catching up. Gee you guys are busy.
If someone got booted just because of a goof of mine that I retracted, then
I'd have no objection to bringing them back. Let's be fair.
On the other hand, if the same person had a history of problems and the list
moderation is tightening up (which I agree ought to happen), then let things
stand.
I have too much else going on to check up the whole history on this matter.
I read perhaps 10% of the posts to this list and I haven't been on it a long
time. Hadn't realized who had been booted when I replied earlier. This
list is very low priority stuff for me, but I appreciate it could be
important to other people.
Hope that clears the air.
-Durova
That doesn't qualify as harassment I'm afraid.
****
No it doesn't, but by the fourth message the exchange did qualify as
harassment. After the second I requested no further contact.
Perhaps you inhabit a universe where it's socially acceptable for a stranger
to address a woman by her name without identifying himself, and to continue
sending her messages late into the night after she's insisted that he stop.
Perhaps you also live in a universe that does not recognize the elementary
courtesy of asking her permission before reposting part of an unwanted
conversation to a public list, devoid of context, and attempting to pass
judgement on it.
You owe me an apology. A big one.
-Durova
> On 20/11/2007, Durova <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-dark-side-of-wikipedia
>
> > And I nominated Rand's biography for deletion...
> > I've left a comment over at the blog. Now, anyone care to chip in with
> the
> > work at WP:COIN?
>
>
> I must say, I was most impressed by the creativity of the
> "spamfighter" who found his own sockpuppets ...
>
The use of trojan accounts for both internet abuse and abuse fighting has a
long and storied history.
Female account names and IRC nicks 18 years ago were a world-class hacker
honeypot method.
******
So I'm a hacker honeypot?
Seriously, if anyone doubts why I admin coach sleuths, or spend time at
COIN, or do outreach to the SEO world - I think that one blog explains the
reason.
A lot of these people underestimate the downside when they try back door
methods and overestimate their own skills at evading scrutiny. Basically
they're risking their client list for a very small payout. Wikipedia's
administrators aren't their real worry; the press is. And their
competitors. There are some sharky ways they could feed on each other;
these people haven't figured them out yet. And heaven help me, I've charted
the scenarios. Sooner or later someone else who's less nice than I am will
follow the same logical steps independently and eat their colleagues for
lunch.
I just want to reach the ones who are honest enough that they're reachable,
and save a lot of volunteer time by bringing them away from the dark side.
-Durova
> Does anyone have a problem with kicking off people just here to be
> crappy to others? This is a working list, after all.
>
I, for one, don't have any problem with it. Good move, David.
Marc Riddell
******
I agree. Several times I've nearly left this list because of the griefers.
Bravo.
-Durova