Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman at spamcop.net
<wikien-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20Featured%20editors%…>
* Tue Nov 20 10:54:42 UTC 2007* wrote:
*>I would suggest that you wait until the ban is up and then come to*
*>my talk page and I will see if I can help you.*
*>*
*>I believe that most ArbCom workshop pages should be blanked after*
* >the case closes anyway, since they are very often ill-tempered and*
*>tend not to show anyone at their best.*
*>*
*>Guy (JzG)*
**
Thank you Guy, I'll take your advice. This is the last I'll say on the
matter til my ban expires in a month: blanking the workshop pages isn't
helpful, because that is precisely where the exculpatory evidence lies,
including the Complaining parties admission he made false statements to get
ArbCom to accept hearing the case.
I need a Finding of Fact.
Thank you.
Rob Smith
aka Nobs01
**
**
Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman at spamcop.net
<wikien-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20Featured%20editors%…>
* Mon Nov 19 11:58:25 UTC 2007* wrote
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nobs02 shows you
>edited outside of simply requesting review of your ban.
>Slam dunk, I'm afraid.
>Guy (JzG)
True, Guy. I'm not denying that. I've served my ban which expires in one
month. I have not sockpuppetted, and no allegations exist in that regard.
I am asking that the false charge of me being connected with the LaRouche
movement be removed. I did not at the time, nor a year ago, appreciate the
serious problem Wikipedia faced with LaRouchies. I trusted the process, and
always believed I'd be exonerated of the false charge. I am asking
Wikipedia to finally bury this matter once and for all, as I am willing to,
once Wikipedia passes the compromise language of this Motion.
Bottomline: my name ia all I possess in this life, and I'll be damned if I
let anyone other than myself ruin it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio…
Rob Smith
aka Nobs01
I enjoy how, despite the fact that I presented my message as referring to my situation, people continue to refer to "banned users" instead of "Flameviper/PM/Banned User/etc".
Sometimes you have to put aside the umbrella and deal with individual cases.
Every banned user isn't the same, nor do they have the same intent, the same motives, or personality. Just because BadGuy1331 is banned for DDoSing Wikimedia, doesn't make me equally bad because we belong to the group of Banned Users. But it's constantly treated as such.
I laugh at JzG's "appeal to ArbCom" post. I *tried* to appeal to ArbCom when I was banned, and they
1) ignored my request
and
2) reset my ban counter.
There's no arbcom mailing list. It's near-impossible to reach ArbCom when you're an editor in good standing, much less when you're a banned criminal that everyone hates.
And again, I'm anticipating many replies of "troll" and the like.
I invite you to go ahead, Senator McCarthy.
Instead of "trolls" and "trolling", why don't we just say "annoyance" and "annoying"? It's the same thing; a degrading insult that can be thrown around by anyone in power without consequence (because branding someone as a troll magically turns them into one, somehow).
I would go on IRC today to talk about things, but OH SHI- I'm banned on IRC because they think I'm a troll, based not on anything I've done on IRC, but based mainly on my Wikipedia ban. And I would also like to mention the fact that I get constant shit on every IRC channel and forum I've ever entered due to someone screaming that I'm a troll and deserve to be banned forever, thus repeating the cycle everywhere.
Huzzah, Wikipedia. Huzzah.
---------------------------------
Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
>Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman at spamcop.net
<wikien-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20Featured%20editors%…>
* T**hu Nov 15 08:35:07 UTC 2007*
>
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:09:15 -0700, "Rob Smith" <nobs03 at
gmail.com<http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>>
wrote:
>>*Here's the problem, Guy: everybody familiar with the case knows and
admits
>*>*to errors. I've been willing for two years to forgive & forget, but it
*>>*begins with Wikipedia admitting it is fallible, and removing the
slanders
*>>*embalmed in my Arb case.
*
>Rob, I have courtesy blanked some stuff, but you also contributed to
>the problem by registering a sockpuppet and using it for purposes
>other than asking for the restrictions to be lifted, with the result
>the ban was reset.
>
>I'm not without sympathy, but I don't see that you've made a strong
>case for the changes you want either.
>
>Guy (JzG)
Let's no get sidetracked, Guy, the sock was done with
permission<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assist…>.
This whole problem started when Complainant came to this list and sought to
circumvent WP proscribed dispute resolution, with "I freely confess I have a
vested interest in this
matter<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-November/032066.html>
".
He got sympathy from the ArbCom Chairman. Trouble is, the Category they
tried to delete then still exists two years later, and without my help or
intervention.
And yourself, Guy, not to be critical, but you told editor Pravknight a few
months later, "people with a vested
interest<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pravknight#Paul_Weyrich>in
the content of an article should not edit it" and he got a Community
ban. My case is simple, a twelve your old can understand the facts. I was
libeled by exercising Good Faith in Dispute Resolution. ArbCom has had
three opportunities to remedy the mistakes, the Trustee's two, and Jimbo
two. Serious questions are arising now about all of WP's internal
self-regulation.
Rob Smith
aka Nobs01
Durova nadezhda.durova at gmail.com
<wikien-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20Assume%20bad%20faith%2C%20for%20banned%20users.&In-Reply-To=>
* Fri Nov 16 16:53:21 UTC 2007* *wrote*
*> Most of the time what banned users present is cherry picked evidence and
half truths. *
*>*
*>-Durova*
**
**
I stand by anything & everything I ever posted (except that which I have
apologized for & paid my debt to society). I dare challenge anyone to
produce one single diff alleging any of the false claims about me, to wit
(1) that I am in anyway connected with the LaRouche movement, (2) that I had
any history of personal attacks, (3) that I had any history of vandalism.
If you wish to cherry pick, cherry pick this diff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arb…
"jossi fresco" wrote
> About time WP:RS is merged into WP:V....
>
> See
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VPP#Merging_RS_and_V
>
> and
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WT:RS#The_Death_of_WP:RS.3F
I spy a dangerous fallacy. It may be that you can't _define_ Verifiability without defining "reliable source". But we can certainly _agree_ to Veriability without defining "reliable source". And in fact we have.
(One can agree that food served in a restaurant should be edible, without defining "edible".)
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
http://original-research.blogspot.com/2007/11/wikien-l.html
Others have been saying this and I'm increasingly convinced. Time to
write some harsher content rules, then start over with no-one joined
until they expressly join.
Thoughts?
- d.
"David Gerard" wrote
> On 15/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote
> > OK, so now let's make a proposal and see if it gains support.
> > Who's good at writing such stuff?
> Charles would be a good one.
Well thanks <s> a bunch </s> for the vote of confidence.
What is the actual issue? I think it is that inappropriate speedy nominations are proportionately more of a serious issue than "speedy keeps" at AfD; and certainly more a problem than inappropriate PROD nominations (PROD seems to be applied in a much more reaonable, even way). Of the three processes, the "triage" is at its most serious in CSD. When AfD gets it wrong it is at least after more eyeballs than two, possibly bloodshot.
Nominations under G1, G11, A1 and A7 all can be problematic. Careless use of terms "nonsense", "promotion", "no context", "non-notable" should be deprecated. These are not synonyms with "hard to read", "informative", "obscure topic", "out-of-the-way or annoying to me" (respectively). Basically we need to formulate something that isolates a bit better where things fall down the cracks in the system.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 12 Nov 2007 at 12:01:35 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> * Links to advocacy by banned or blocked users, in content debates.
> This is completely consistent with existing policy for handling
> banned users: banned is banned, we ban people because they can't
> contribute neutrally, taking it offsite does not fix that problem.
I have a fundamental philosophical problem with extending the "banned
is banned" concept to the extent that anything originating with a
banned user must be suppressed from being linked, quoted, or
mentioned anywhere, even by an editor in good standing. Are we
really like the party of Orwell's 1984 that made disfavored people
into "Unpersons", or like the Church of Scientology which has the
concept of "Suppressive Persons"? Such concepts fit better with
authoritarian regimes and mind-control cults than with communities
devoted to gathering and sharing information.
--
== 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/