On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:19:51 -0500, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:03:20 -0800, Ray Saintonge
> <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
>
> >That seems to be in proportion to the amount of fuss over the site.
> >Without the drama I'm sure there would be fewer such links.
>
> With fewer such links there would be less drama.
The drama doesn't generally begin until somebody throws a hissy-fit
about the links and tries to remove them.
"Sites don't attack people; people attack people!"
--
== 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/
The italic lightweight notes at the top of articles are "hatnotes" (per Wikipedia:Hatnote, in the Manual of Style). Anyone ready with the background of this term?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 29 Nov 2007 at 11:14:18 -0500, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Your summary of the discussion regarding this seems reasonable, but
> unfortunately doesn't jibe with the facts. For days now several
> individuals have been insisting that the cyberstalking list was used
> to discuss and co-ordinate a block of !!, along with various other
> wild accusations (e.g. "stealth canvassing", whatever that means).
The idea that something along the lines of canvassing occurs on that
list is far from being farfetched. In fact, even if the people on
that list are careful to avoid overt canvassing (blatantly telling
people to vote a certain way in a certain place), there's a certain
amount of almost inevitable, even if not necessarily intentional,
vote stacking that is likely to result from the activity on the list.
Given that the list is composed of like-minded individuals (at least
on certain topics relating to their conception of "cyberstalking" and
"harassment"), the mere mention on the list (even in a totally
neutral way) of things like "A discussion just started on AN/I about
the block of User:SomeDumbTroll", or "A straw poll is in progress
over a new policy on attack-site links" is likely to bring a number
of people all on the same side of the issue. Given that, in fact,
there have been a number of instances of seeming gangups of this
nature, and that the infamous Durova message actually referred to the
"enemy" not knowing about the list in the context of linking to a
comment by a user expressing concern that one such gangup might have
been organized off-wiki, this is not an empty concern.
When other sites and forums do very similar things -- mention the
existence of a Wikipedia discussion / vote / etc. to an audience of
like-minded individuals, such as talking about an AFD on a webcomic
article on a forum of fans of webcomics -- this brings about
accusations of canvassing. The same seems to be true of that list.
If a bunch of people who feel they are being harassed and stalked
online want to have an online group therapy session about it, that's
their right. But if they start acting as a pressure group to get
Wikipedia policy in their direction, one can expect that those of
differing viewpoints will have some objection to their activity.
--
== 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/
This thread is hueger than Xbox.
Can someone please summarize it into a short, easy-to-read version?
In fact, someone should do that for every thread: make a short, concise summary of what each person said, so that the layman (like me) can see what was said without busting his back to read 500 replies.
---------------------------------
Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
On 11/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> Sorry, but I absolutely do not accept that lack of an article on ED
> is any kind of a problem at all.
>
> Not only is it a site of no obvious significance, anyone who wants
> to find out about it can do so at the only place that actually gives
> a shit, which is ED itself.
Well, I'm not saying it's deletion was wrong-- I wasn't involved in
it, so I'm totally going to accept that it was the appropriate
response at the time. If it's not notable, it's not notable, what can
ya do? Our content policies are our content policies-- we can't bend
them just to combat the false impression that we're being suppressive.
I'm just saying, the project will come off looking a whole lot better
when or if ED is mentioned in enough reliable sources that we are able
to write an article about it. Having an article would be one more
piece of ammunition we can steal from the critics and turn to an
advantage. Anyone who showed up accusing of us of suppressing our
critics would have a giant shiny article we could point to where we
could say "Oh yea?? well what is THAT article doing here then?"
But, as good as that would look, the decision to have or not have
such an article should be made completely independent from
"Wikipolitical" concerns-- which is why I haven't nominated a deletion
review, or indeed, even made up my mind whether a reasonable article
could have been written about ED. I've never been to closely involved
in deletion debates, if I started the recreation myself, it'd be
guilty of "improving wikipedia to prove a point" which itself is a
problem.
I'm just saying-- the day when an ED article can exist here while
complyign with WP:V will be one that is very very good for Wikipedia,
and I'll be happy when or if that time comes, as one more sign that
our strength as an encyclopedia that we can neurtally cover
EVERYTHING-- even those who attack us. Writing the fairest, most
objective article possible on ED would be the Wiki equivalent of
turning the other cheek.
Alec
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:34:41 -0500 Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> >I don't think there is really a cabal, in spite of what we have heard
> >about the "sooper seekrit" mailing list. But there obviously is a
> >group of people who aren't going to let BADSITES die
>
> One person, anyway. Dan Tobias. Some of us have moved on.
You write nine out of the ten messages in the latest digest of this
list (and the tenth is not by me), and I'm still the one to blame?
--
== 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/
On 11/29/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> What I would like to know (and I'm not going to bother digging through
> hundreds of emails on this topic to see if it's already been asked) is
> which arbitrators are members of that private/secret mailing list, and
> if some arbitrators are members of that list or, further, participated
> in discussions, then which of those arbitrators have recused
> themselves from this case.
If I am correct (somebody speak up if I'm not) I believe both Flonight
and Morven are confirmed to have participated in both secret lists
(cyberstalking and investigations). They therefore would have
received Durova's evidence posted to cyberstalking, but merely
receiving the email is not proof of having read it. Morven has said
he did not participate in any discussions of it.
Despite participating in the lists and receiving the "evidence" email,
no arbiter has agreed yet agreed to recuse themselves. Flonight and
Morven are currently the deciding votes in a split-decision at the
Arbcom case proposing to ban Giano for 90 days for revealing the
evidence that exonerated !!.
Alec