Hello,
This is my first mail to the list; I've been a contributor to Wikipedia for only five days. However, I've taken part in a wide range of discussion fora on the Internet over the last 9 years or so.
But I was amazed to read a long-winded and detailed reply to a comment I'd made in a vote for deletion page (for the "Division_Street" article). In it, its author, who doesn't appear to be a member but uses the IP address 65.182.172.95, alleges that I am engaged in "wilful incomprehension" and "dirty net politics, a petty act of revenge that has come in response to the fact that I made a few of your friends look foolish elsewhere on this site, and did so without being apologetic about it". He goes on to say: "This is a power play on your faction's part, a brave little shoveback to reclaim a little online turf and make yourselves look like big men". He ends by commenting "rest assured, buddy, I will never let this one go", and signs himself "the noneditor".
The comment which to which this was a response was a fairly innocuous and genuinely sincere remark on my part, to the effect that I was unable to establish the notability of the subject of his article. It's perfectly true that the author represents in the piece that it is notable, but I'm afraid I have already seen more than one article which makes this claim falsely; I just don't have the cultural background to judge this. My comment was not even a vote for deletion, only a note to say that the article should be rewritten if it was indeed notable, otherwise it should be deleted.
In fact, contrary to the author's claim, I have no idea who he is and have no knowlege whatever of anything he might have been involved in at Wikipedia or anywhere else. I cannot claim to have established any friends in the brief time I've taken part, and I certainly do not belong to a "faction". I have no knowledge of any event which might prompt an "act of revenge". I find the idea of turf wars between rival gangs at an online encyclopaedia pretty unedifying, and would not wish to take part in one.
Anyway the VfD page is obviously still there for anyone who's interested to see it. When the software upgrade is complete and the page is unlocked, I will respond as calmly and unemotionally as possible.
A couple of questions, then: can anyone tell me who this person is? Does he have a history of this sort of thing? It does smell more than faintly of paranoia, I have to say. Is this sort of behaviour common in general at Wikipedia?
It's been a bit of an eye-opener!
Thanks and regards from the middle of England, James
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
James Gibbon wrote:
A couple of questions, then: can anyone tell me who this person is? Does he have a history of this sort of thing? It does smell more than faintly of paranoia, I have to say. Is this sort of behaviour common in general at Wikipedia?
We can't tell you who it is, because they have no username. This is why we encourage people to register - so that they are not confused with whatever other random idiots have been allocated the same IP.
Beware of smelly creatures lurking under bridges.
- -- Alphax OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
James Gibbon wrote:
When the software upgrade is complete and the page is unlocked, I will respond as calmly and unemotionally as possible.
It sounds like you'll make a great Wikipedians.
Especially from anonymous ip numbers, well, you never know what they are going to say. The Internet is a big place and there are rather a large number of wingnuts out there.
--Jimbo
James Gibbon wrote:
When the software upgrade is complete and the page is unlocked, I will respond as calmly and unemotionally as possible.
It sounds like you'll make a great Wikipedian.
Especially from anonymous ip numbers, well, you never know what they are going to say. The Internet is a big place and there are rather a large number of wingnuts out there.
--Jimbo
Such behavior is not rare nor is it common. People on the Arbitration Committee see more than their share of it and it often results in the user being banned. Without being familiar with the article and its supporters ( I don't think you shared the name of the article ) I can't say if it is any regular editor with an account.
I hope you are not permanently put off by this incident, but learn to effectively resist the energy it represents.
Fred
On Jun 27, 2005, at 7:18 AM, James Gibbon wrote:
A couple of questions, then: can anyone tell me who this person is? Does he have a history of this sort of thing? It does smell more than faintly of paranoia, I have to say. Is this sort of behaviour common in general at Wikipedia?
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 07:52:24AM -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
Such behavior is not rare nor is it common. People on the Arbitration Committee see more than their share of it and it often results in the user being banned. Without being familiar with the article and its supporters ( I don't think you shared the name of the article ) I can't say if it is any regular editor with an account.
I believe it was noted that the battleground in question was on the "Division_Street" VfD.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
On 27/06/05, James Gibbon wikipedia@jamesgibbon.com wrote:
But I was amazed to read a long-winded and detailed reply to a comment I'd made in a vote for deletion page (for the "Division_Street" article). In it, its author, who doesn't appear to be a member but uses the IP address 65.182.172.95, alleges that I am engaged in "wilful incomprehension" and "dirty net politics, a petty
I was reading 1980s Usenet posts yesterday. I'd just like to say how wonderfully retro the phrase "net politics" seems... ;-)
The comment which to which this was a response was a fairly innocuous and genuinely sincere remark on my part, to the effect that I was unable to establish the notability of the subject of his article. It's perfectly true that the author represents in the piece that it is notable, but I'm afraid I have already seen more than one article which makes this claim falsely; I just don't have the cultural background to judge this. My comment was not even a vote for deletion, only a note to say that the article should be rewritten if it was indeed notable, otherwise it should be deleted.
Fairly standard VfD comment, by the looks of it. I think you took his ire through being the last commentor on the page.
Anyway the VfD page is obviously still there for anyone who's interested to see it. When the software upgrade is complete and the page is unlocked, I will respond as calmly and unemotionally as possible.
Just remember; he's the one being a prat. You've no dog in this fight; if you want to ignore it, the only person disappointed in you will be him...
A couple of questions, then: can anyone tell me who this person is? Does he have a history of this sort of thing?
The IP address tells you nothing beyond "well, he's probably in Chicago". The writing style says "irritable American male", but this only narrows it down to one and a half million suspects if I know Chicago ;-)
For history; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=6... - edits to a few Chicago-related articles, confrontational style, no history beyond the last day. He also seems to have been User:65.182.172.86, and before that 65.182.172.89... hmm. There's some evident disputes in that history, but damned if I know why he was on your case. Doesn't seem to like the idea of policy, much, and has an odd idea of cleanup tags, which are clearly the product of a "bruised ego" (!)
Goodness, poking around conflicts is like getting your very own soap opera sometimes. Impossible to stop.
I honestly think your best bet is to shrug and ignore it. These things happen. VfD and the more contentious talk pages can be quite daunting when you're new to the system (and indeed even when you're not; I stopped regularly reading VfD months ago, it was just irritating me)
It does smell more than faintly of paranoia, I have to say. Is this sort of behaviour common in general at Wikipedia?
People will often get very... enthusiastic in defending pages on VfD; they created it, so *of course* it's notable! I have no idea why he fixed on you, though; perhaps he has history with a user of a similar name? A lot of Jameses about.
Note that he tries to make VfD into a cause celebré; by deleting his article we'll show the world what foul childish censors we are, and he'll... he'll... send a copy to people who don't like the project, so they can not like us *more*! That'll show 'em! ...of course it will.
Any questions in future, feel free to drop me a message on my talk page, and I'll see if I can be of assistance.
It's been a bit of an eye-opener!
Thanks and regards from the middle of England,
Enjoy your seasonal rains...
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 03:02:43PM +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 27/06/05, James Gibbon wikipedia@jamesgibbon.com wrote:
But I was amazed to read a long-winded and detailed reply to a comment I'd made in a vote for deletion page (for the "Division_Street" article). In it, its author, who doesn't appear to be a member but uses the IP address 65.182.172.95, alleges that I am engaged in "wilful incomprehension" and "dirty net politics, a petty
I was reading 1980s Usenet posts yesterday. I'd just like to say how wonderfully retro the phrase "net politics" seems... ;-)
That's "retro"? Way to make a guy feel old. I didn't even blink at it.
Just remember; he's the one being a prat. You've no dog in this fight; if you want to ignore it, the only person disappointed in you will be him...
That is excellent advice, and well-phrased. I second the sentiment.
Goodness, poking around conflicts is like getting your very own soap opera sometimes. Impossible to stop.
More like a train-wreck in slow motion, for me. Horrifying, but difficult to look away.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]