So, it seems that this Harry Smith guy has once again gotten himself blocked. Current events, this time.
However, it's also worth noting this guy's record. He's attempted to add POV material and subvert consensus that had taken a long time to work out on numerous articles. Indeed, before his previous block, I believe he'd assaulted not one, not two, but five disputed Middle Eastern articles [[UNRWA]] and [[Tali Hatuel]] being two, causing the former to be re-protected. He doesn't seem to discuss edits, just reverts, or if he does anything, will not give any ground from his (usually hardline) position. Thus, if he's getting blocked, this shouldn't be much of a surprise - and please don't judge it purely on the basis of his latest actions.
Hes going by the name of Lance6wins by the way.
He and I have been working together on how to treat these articles - Ive rewritten Tali Hatuel, and have been trading critiques on the Qurei article.
As long as he makes all his edits logged in as Lance - I dont see a good enough reason for a ban at this time. Pages can and should be protected at the outself of trouble erupting; any case you want to make against Lance should be done on WP:RFAR, where it looks to be accepted.
S
--- Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
So, it seems that this Harry Smith guy has once again gotten himself blocked. Current events, this time.
However, it's also worth noting this guy's record. He's attempted to add POV material and subvert consensus that had taken a long time to work out on numerous articles. Indeed, before his previous block, I believe he'd assaulted not one, not two, but five disputed Middle Eastern articles [[UNRWA]] and [[Tali Hatuel]] being two, causing the former to be re-protected. He doesn't seem to discuss edits, just reverts, or if he does anything, will not give any ground from his (usually hardline) position. Thus, if he's getting blocked, this shouldn't be much of a surprise - and please don't judge it purely on the basis of his latest actions.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On 07/27/04 20:39, S. Vertigo wrote:
As long as he makes all his edits logged in as Lance - I dont see a good enough reason for a ban at this time. Pages can and should be protected at the outself of trouble erupting; any case you want to make against Lance should be done on WP:RFAR, where it looks to be accepted.
Protecting [[Current events]] is hardly workable ...
If he keeps to one login, that's a much better idea and at least then you're dealing with a single identity. Using anon IPs for sockpuppetry is distinctly bad behaviour.
- d.
Frankly, given how the rate of RC is going by, I dont see how we can do with the current protection policy - page protections should be typical and used as necessary; bans on users should not.
Some pages are well known to attract controversy, and therefore protection/ abstrated edits by a mediator that addresses comments on the talk.
The trick is to find editors that actually write well in addition to listen and address the concerns; with Ed out of the loop, WP will be shorthanded.
S
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
On 07/27/04 20:39, S. Vertigo wrote:
As long as he makes all his edits logged in as
Lance -
I dont see a good enough reason for a ban at this time. Pages can and should be protected at the
outself
of trouble erupting; any case you want to make
against
Lance should be done on WP:RFAR, where it looks to
be
accepted.
Protecting [[Current events]] is hardly workable ...
If he keeps to one login, that's a much better idea and at least then you're dealing with a single identity. Using anon IPs for sockpuppetry is distinctly bad behaviour.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On 07/27/04 19:32, Rebecca wrote:
So, it seems that this Harry Smith guy has once again gotten himself blocked. Current events, this time. However, it's also worth noting this guy's record. He's attempted to add POV material and subvert consensus that had taken a long time to work out on numerous articles. Indeed, before his previous block, I believe he'd assaulted not one, not two, but five disputed Middle Eastern articles [[UNRWA]] and [[Tali Hatuel]] being two, causing the former to be re-protected. He doesn't seem to discuss edits, just reverts, or if he does anything, will not give any ground from his (usually hardline) position. Thus, if he's getting blocked, this shouldn't be much of a surprise - and please don't judge it purely on the basis of his latest actions.
The User Formerly Known As OneVoice is on [[Current events]] as a propagandist. He keeps putting in stories from INN (a partisan news source whose reports tend not to faintly resemble mainstream press even when one makes it that far. But don't take my word for it, read http://israelnn.com/ - at least with Slashdot it's just kept out as having a ridiculously small ambit). I suggest it's nothing like news unless it hits the mainstream press, or what passes for mainstream in specialist areas. Middle-east politics is part of the ambit of the mainstream press, so if it's on INN and nowhere else then it's deeply suspect.
(I have also been accused of bias for cutting completely crappy stories slanted against Israel, so I must therefore, by the comments on my actions, be an anti-Semitic Jew.)
[[Current events]] has some sort of vague criteria of newsworthiness. While not *everything* will be caught by the mainstream newsfeeds, nor are they certain indicators of worthiness, they do make a handy rough guide. The INN feed really doesn't cut the mustard.
- d.
Quoting Amy Goodman: "But for the media to name their coverage what the Pentagon calls it; everyday seeing "Operation Iraqi Freedom," you have to ask: "If this were state [controlled] media, how would it be any different?"
If the issue is the biased source, then we need to deal with that policy-wise for all sources; judging and rating them in terms of bias, accross all articles. Being pov is not a crime - writing POV is a typical symptom of most writing in need of correction - harrassment, insults, and threats - these are the reasons for a hard ban. Hes not the most unreasonable person in the world; he's representing a particular view. What matters is how he and I and others conduct themselves. Frustration is no excuse.
S
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
On 07/27/04 19:32, Rebecca wrote:
So, it seems that this Harry Smith guy has once
again gotten himself
blocked. Current events, this time. However, it's also worth noting this guy's record.
He's attempted to
add POV material and subvert consensus that had
taken a long time to
work out on numerous articles. Indeed, before his
previous block, I
believe he'd assaulted not one, not two, but five
disputed Middle
Eastern articles [[UNRWA]] and [[Tali Hatuel]]
being two, causing the
former to be re-protected. He doesn't seem to
discuss edits, just
reverts, or if he does anything, will not give any
ground from his
(usually hardline) position. Thus, if he's getting
blocked, this
shouldn't be much of a surprise - and please don't
judge it purely on
the basis of his latest actions.
The User Formerly Known As OneVoice is on [[Current events]] as a propagandist. He keeps putting in stories from INN (a partisan news source whose reports tend not to faintly resemble mainstream press even when one makes it that far. But don't take my word for it, read http://israelnn.com/
- at least with Slashdot it's just kept out as
having a ridiculously small ambit). I suggest it's nothing like news unless it hits the mainstream press, or what passes for mainstream in specialist areas. Middle-east politics is part of the ambit of the mainstream press, so if it's on INN and nowhere else then it's deeply suspect.
(I have also been accused of bias for cutting completely crappy stories slanted against Israel, so I must therefore, by the comments on my actions, be an anti-Semitic Jew.)
[[Current events]] has some sort of vague criteria of newsworthiness. While not *everything* will be caught by the mainstream newsfeeds, nor are they certain indicators of worthiness, they do make a handy rough guide. The INN feed really doesn't cut the mustard.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Why does the Arbitration page list only one party to arbitration issue. It would seem that it should list both (all) parties. No?
Lance6Wins
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
The title of the arbitration is chosen by whoever makes the request. It could probably be changed later by either one of the other parties or one of the arbitrators to more clearly reflect the parties and issues involved, but it is probably seen by the arbitrators as an arbitrary choice that the filer of the initial complaint made.
However your point is well taken and perhaps some of the arbitrators will begin editing that title a bit.
Fred
From: Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:50:01 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration
Why does the Arbitration page list only one party to arbitration issue. It would seem that it should list both (all) parties. No?
Lance6Wins
Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred,
I am glad that you appreciate the appearance or the suggestion that the current page makes on those that read it.
You you mind if I went through and changed to each title to contain the parties...something like
George W Bush and John Kerry
The names can be added in alphabetically order for the sake of non-discriminatory appearence.
Lance6Wins
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The title of the arbitration is chosen by whoever makes the request. It could probably be changed later by either one of the other parties or one of the arbitrators to more clearly reflect the parties and issues involved, but it is probably seen by the arbitrators as an arbitrary choice that the filer of the initial complaint made.
However your point is well taken and perhaps some of the arbitrators will begin editing that title a bit.
Fred
From: Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:50:01 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration
Why does the Arbitration page list only one party
to
arbitration issue. It would seem that it should
list
both (all) parties. No?
Lance6Wins
Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Jul 30, 2004, at 4:23 PM, Harry Smith wrote:
Fred,
I am glad that you appreciate the appearance or the suggestion that the current page makes on those that read it.
You you mind if I went through and changed to each title to contain the parties...something like
George W Bush and John Kerry
The names can be added in alphabetically order for the sake of non-discriminatory appearence.
I'd let the arbcom make the changes, personally - some of the cases really don't involve the user who submitted the case, and are not in any meaningful way about a personal conflict between the users, and I don't think, in those cases, that it would be appropriate to add the user who submitted the case. I think two usernames are really only needed when some sort of counterclaim has been made, or when the actions of the second username are also in some way under consideration. Alternatively, if what has been referred is a dispute between two users that was brought to the arbcom by a third party (Something that happened with the case between VeryVerily and 172, since withdrawn), the submitter would not be the right name to add.
My point being that naming of the cases should probably be left to the arbitrators to decide, as they're the ones who get to determine the scope of a given case.
-Snowspinner
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote: <snip>
My point being that naming of the cases should probably be left to the arbitrators to decide, as they're the ones who get to determine the scope of a given case.
-Snowspinner
That is good as far as it goes.
But the Arbitrators do not decide. The complaintant (complainer?) chooses a name and no one bothers to rename it.
Lance6Wins
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com