In a message dated 3/1/2007 9:58:20 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com writes:
Yeah, sad people have to get bashed.
This has nothing to do with fraud, he didn't try to get a teaching position
with his "invented persona". Apparently people think his contributions are
worth less if he's not a professor, which is utter nonsense.
Mgm
It's not that his contributions are less, it's that he knows less about the
subject than an expert, hence authority. Granted, if someone points a loaded
gun at you, it's not authority, but neither is a rape gang or a riot. When
is Wikipedia going to read the Riot Act?!?
Vincent Bartning
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
Keith:
Thanks for the post! I guess I'll exercise my First Amendment right
defensively. After recent experiences from Wikipedia, I wonder if they remember all
their donations, as it seems it's corrupt from the inside too - rotten
outside as well as in. It does nothing except show that encyclopedias I read and
had as a kid still have value, not this new anti-elitist, "consensus over
credentials" problem with Wikipedia. However, I don't know if I can or want to
get a job with Britannica :), unlike some Wikipedia admins and editors.
Vincent Bartning
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
In Jimbo's 2005 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" post, he described the
purpose of the project:
Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a
free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single
person on the planet in their own language.
Does this still hold true? There have been a lot of major changes in
policy in the months since, which, we all hope, are supportive of our
fundamental goals. I think almost everyone who contributes to the
project agrees completely with this mission and wants to maintain it.
But if you think about it, the statement actually contains several
goals:
* free
* (create an) encyclopedia
* of the highest possible quality
* (distribute) to every single person on the planet
* in their own language
In fact, these goals occasionally conflict. For instance, machine
translations are considered "worse than nothing" because of their poor
quality, so it would seem that "of the highest possible quality" is
more important than "in their own language".
If Jimbo's statement is still valid, which objectives override the
others? Can they be arranged (preferably by Jimbo) in order of
priority?
Can this statement or the principles it represents ever be repealed or
changed? Who has the power to change it? Is this simply a top-down
authoritarian mandate that can't be challenged, or do regular
Wikipedians have a say when changes are made to the ultimate goals and
priorities of the project?
I can't help thinking morerover that
the lisrt administrator of "unvlock-en-l", Essjay and Mindspillage have
had many sockpuppets beyond "Luna" and "Predego"
and abused admin's power.
What can you do for people(Wikipedians) besides listen to them?
On 02 Mar 2007, unblock-en-l-owner wrote:
>You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has
>been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are
>being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at
>unblock-en-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org.
By what reasons?
"Luna", who is suspected strongly the sockpuppet of the list administrator
of "Unblock-en-l",
said, "You can request to re-join the list at any time".
So, I have already requested it to the list administrators and the trustees.
Therefore, I have no need to be ordered by Lunacy-like persons.
Please don't reject my message "automatically", Essjay and Mindspillage.
>From: "Christoper Russel" <criticize_antijapanese_racism(a)msn.com>
>To: lunasantin(a)gmail.com, foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
>wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, unblock-en-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
>wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, unblock-en-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>CC: info(a)wikimedia.org, board(a)wikimedia.org
>Subject: RE: Important notice -- please confirm your unblock-en-l
>subscription
>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:08:31 -0500
>I have to suspect strongly:
>Luna = Prodego = Essjay = "Ryan Jordan" = other many admin's sockpuppet's
>accounts
>= inappropriate admin's accounts group abusing sockpuppets and amin's power
>= Chinese and/or Korean group with anti-Japanese racism and facism.
>
>Why can't they allow IP address contributers to read "Unblock-en-l"?
(It is very useful!)
>Can "Luna"'s personal email below be actually valid?
>
>>From: Luna <lunasantin(a)gmail.com>
>>Subject: Important notice -- please confirm your unblock-en-l subscription
>>Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:52:37 -0800
>>
>>Dear unblock-en-l subscriber,
>>
>>We've recently decided to establish some membership criteria for this
>>mailing list,
>
>When?
>Where?
>what kind of "membership criteria"?
>
>>and are in the process of removing subscriptions which do not meet those
>>criteria.
>
>Why is there necessity to remove subscriptions of Unblock-en-l?
>Admins already admitted too many unfair blockings enforced by crazy admins?
>
>If so. you only have to unblock all the victims of the crazy admins
>and stop all the crazy persons' adminship.
>
>>In particular, we need to associate your email address with a particular
>>Wikipedia account or identity.
>
>I had not a Wikipedia account and Wikipedia's admins apparently have
>blocked
>too many IP address users with no understandable reason.
>
>This means, admins themselves have been forcing many IP address
>contributors
>to have to subscribe "Unblock-en-l".
>
>Of course, anyone have freedom not to log in Wikipedia
>and all Wikipedias have allowed IP address contributors to edit Wikipedias'
>articles
>since the beginning.
>
>I myself don't want to talk with crazy facism(and racism) admins of
>Wikipedia.
>Apparently Chinese, Koreans, etc. have occupied and controlled Wikipedia
>very unfairly.
>
>I have to think:
>Luna = Prodego = Essjay = "Ryan Jordan" = other many admin's sockpuppet's
>accounts
>are Chinese, Koreans, Mexican, etc.
>who have never understood the value to respect democratic procedures and
>human rights.
>
>
>?In order to do that, please click on this link:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Prodego
>
>"Prodego"?
>Essjay, Mindspillage, Luna, Prodego, and any other admins have never
>explained
>the necessity to click on this link.
>They have been only showing their stupid contradiction and their being evil
>sockpuppeters.
>
>>PLEASE use "unblock-en-l identification" as your subject heading, to allow
>>faster processing of your email.
>
>"Identification"?
>If you want people to reveal their identification, you should do it first.
>but,
>even "Essjay"("Ryan Jordan"?), the admin of "unblock-en-l", have been only
>lying
>about his identity and apparently abusing sockpuppets.
>
>It is Essjay, Mindspillage, Luna, Prodego, and any other admins of
>Wikipedia
>to make public their real "identification" and only them.
>
>
>>Do not email the user directly
>
>Why?
>Because "Luna" is just the sockpuppet of "Essjay"?
>
>>-- you MUST use the Special:Emailuser feature, or your identity will not
>>be confirmed.
>
>Why does "Luna" say "MUST"?
>I don't know "Predego" at all. And "Predego" is not the list administrator
>of "Unvlock-en-l".
>And Luna" is one of the crazy (anti-Japanese-racism-)facism admins.
>Like this:
>>If you have not replied to this message within one week, your subscription
>>will be cancelled. You can request to re-join the list at any time.
>
>"You can request to re-join the list at any time"?
>Now, I request it.
>
>I have already requested it to the list administrators and the trustees.
>So, I have no need to be ordered by Lunacy-like persons.
>
>>We apologize for this inconvenience, but hope that you understand the need
>>for privacy and security, given the sensitive personal information that is
>>sometimes discussed on this mailing list.
>
>"the need for privacy and security"?
>If you say such a decent thing, never send such a crazy emai to people
>and never compel them to do such dangerous things for their "privacy and
>security".
>
>All admins should do is to make all admins reveal their real identity,
>esp. Essjay, Mindspillage, Luna, Prodego.
>
>
>>Thank you,
>>-Luna
>
>Why "Luna"?
>Why "Prodego"?
>Why not "Essjay"?
>Why not "Mindspillage"?
>
>I couldn't believe my eyes.
>
>The admin's term should be expired every year or every six months.
>
>Sincerly,
>"Mileshand"(Christopher A. J. Russel)
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Find what you need at prices youll love. Compare products and save at MSN®
>Shopping.
>http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN…
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
With tax season right around the corner, make sure to follow these few
simple tips.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.…
I have to suspect strongly:
Luna = Prodego = Essjay = "Ryan Jordan" = other many admin's sockpuppet's
accounts
= inappropriate admin's accounts group abusing sockpuppets and amin's power
= Chinese and/or Korean group with anti-Japanese racism and facism
Why can't they allow IP address contributers to read "Unblock-en-l"?
Can "Luna"'s personal email below be actually valid?
>From: Luna <lunasantin(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Important notice -- please confirm your unblock-en-l subscription
>Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:52:37 -0800
>
>Dear unblock-en-l subscriber,
>
>We've recently decided to establish some membership criteria for this
>mailing list,
When?
Where?
what kind of "membership criteria"?
>and are in the process of removing subscriptions which do not meet those
>criteria.
Why is there necessity to remove subscriptions of Unblock-en-l?
Admins already admitted too many unfair blockings enforced by crazy admins?
If so. you only have to unblock all the victims of the crazy admins
and stop all the crazy persons' adminship.
>In particular, we need to associate your email address with a particular
>Wikipedia account or identity.
I had not a Wikipedia account and Wikipedia's admins apparently have blocked
too many IP address users with no understandable reason.
This means, admins themselves have been forcing many IP address contributors
to have to subscribe "Unblock-en-l".
Of course, anyone have freedom not to log in Wikipedia
and all Wikipedias have allowed IP address contributors to edit Wikipedias'
articles
since the beginning.
I myself don't want to talk with crazy facism(and racism) admins of
Wikipedia.
Apparently Chinese, Koreans, etc. have occupied and controlled Wikipedia
very unfairly.
I have to think:
Luna = Prodego = Essjay = "Ryan Jordan" = other many admin's sockpuppet's
accounts
are Chinese, Koreans, Mexican, etc.
who have never understood the value to respect democratic procedures and
human rights.
?In order to do that, please click on this link:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Prodego
"Prodego"?
Essjay, Mindspillage, Luna, Prodego, and any other admins have never
explained
the necessity to click on this link.
They have been only showing their stupid contradiction and their being evil
sockpuppeters.
>PLEASE use "unblock-en-l identification" as your subject heading, to allow
>faster processing of your email.
"Identification"?
If you want people to reveal their identification, you should do it first.
but,
even "Essjay"("Ryan Jordan"?), the admin of "unblock-en-l", have been only
lying
about his identity and apparently abusing sockpuppets.
It is Essjay, Mindspillage, Luna, Prodego, and any other admins of Wikipedia
to make public their real "identification" and only them.
>Do not email the user directly
Why?
Because "Luna" is just the sockpuppet of "Essjay"?
>-- you MUST use the Special:Emailuser feature, or your identity will not be
>confirmed.
Why does "Luna" say "MUST"?
I don't know "Predego" at all. And "Predego" is not the list administrator
of "Unvlock-en-l".
And Luna" is one of the crazy (anti-Japanese-racism-)facism admins.
Like this:
>If you have not replied to this message within one week, your subscription
>will be cancelled. You can request to re-join the list at any time.
"You can request to re-join the list at any time"?
Now, I request it.
I have already requested it to the list administrators and the trustees.
So, I have no need to be ordered by Lunacy-like persons.
>We apologize for this inconvenience, but hope that you understand the need
>for privacy and security, given the sensitive personal information that is
>sometimes discussed on this mailing list.
"the need for privacy and security"?
If you say such a decent thing, never send such a crazy emai to people
and never compel them to do such dangerous things for their "privacy and
security".
All admins should do is to make all admins reveal their real identity,
esp. Essjay, Mindspillage, Luna, Prodego.
>Thank you,
>-Luna
Why "Luna"?
Why "Prodego"?
Why not "Essjay"?
Why not "Mindspillage"?
I couldn't believe my eyes.
The admin's term should be expired every year or every six months.
Sincerly,
"Mileshand"(Christopher A. J. Russel)
_________________________________________________________________
Find what you need at prices youll love. Compare products and save at MSN®
Shopping.
http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN…
Weird, WP:OR (No original research) and WP:V (Verifiability) have been
merged into WP:ATT (Attribution). When exactly did this happen? I'm
surprised there wasn't any discussion on this list.
Steve
I created the User:UBX account solely to host userboxes migrated via the
Userbox Migration (formerly called The German Solution). I have been using
my bot, User:MetsBot, to migrate many useboxes to a subpage of User:UBX. I
started by migrating only clearly controversial userboxes, but then moved
into userboxes about interests, etc, which was met by opposition from some.
Just to be clear, isn't the consensus that we're migrating basically all
userboxes which cannot directly help the project, and keeping ones such as
languages, education level and expertise, WikiProject affiliations, time
zones, locations, and a few others? Should a userbox like "This user was a
boy scout" really not be migrated?
Thanks.
--Mets501
I don't like Jimbo saying "it's just a pseudonym."
Anonymity is OK. Lying is bad.
When I was a kid my mom told me that what makes a lie a lie is not its literal truth or falsehood, but whether there is an intention to deceive.
Now, pseudonyms e.g. of authors are sometimes mildly deceptive, as when a pulp magazine wants its readers to think that they have an "exclusive" on an author, when in fact the stories are the production of a prolific writer who churns out content for all of them. Or when an author wants to maintain a separation between his serious work and his mystery novels.
But if a flyleaf says that, say, that "Lewis Carroll is the pseudonym of a lecturer in mathematics at Christchurch, Oxford. In his leisure time, he is a serious amateur photographer," well then he darn well _better_ be a lecturer in mathematics at Christchurch, Oxford and a serious amateur photographer.
(Descriptions, like Lemony Snicket's, which are clearly tongue-in-cheek are OK. Readers are supposed to get the joke, so they are not intended to deceive).
When it comes to pseudonyms, there's no need to disclose anything... but you can't say something true, don't say anything at all.
I say Essjay's self-description is a lie.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: wikipedia2006(a)dpbsmith.com [mailto:wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 11:25 AM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Hypothetical question about how certain admin behavior would be handled on Wikipedia
>
>An... interesting... situation has arisen on another Wiki. (Yesyesyes some of you can guess but never mind). Mind you, it _is not Wikipedia_ and it is young, small, and its policies far from codified. It involves a sysop (they call them sysops there) who was given sysop privileges for the purposes of editing a protected page. (I told you, it's not Wikipedia!).
>
>The sysop is arguably aligned with the Wiki's official point of view (yes, it has one).
>
>The sysop is an active editor of a different page, one that is not protected.
>
>The page also has an active non-sysop editor who is arguably not as well aligned, perhaps detectably opposed, to the site's official point of view. But I don't think he is perceived as a problem editor by most users there. He is civil, his changes are well supported by sources, he adds a lot of uncontroversial content, etc. There was a lot of back-and-forth editing, but neither of them would have even been close to being violation of Wikipedia's 3RR. (This site doesn't have any such rule).
>
>In order to prevail in the dispute, the sysop blocked the non-sysop.
>
>For three months.
>
>(No, the non-sysop in question is _not_ me).
>
>What I want here is: which of our policies here would such an admin be violating, and what is people's best and most realistic judgement of what, in practice, would be the likely course of events if a Wikipedia admin did that. (I'm thinking: an RFC, an overwhelming yelling-at by other admins, and perhaps a warning. I'm thinking that a _pattern_ of such behavior really could get someone de-adminned eventually... but how many actual incidents do you think it would take for that to happen?)
One, but as you say, its not Wikipedia.
Fred