This fellow was banned as User:Amorrow for vicious personal attacks and threats against other users, and again as User:Pinktulip. His personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other editors' employers. Fairly obviously, he's *remarkably* unwelcome on anything to do with Wikipedia.
I'm trying to build up a pattern for a strong complaint, and I'm also rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please email me or leave a note on my talk page.
- d.
On 2/15/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please
Why? Not questioning you, but I haven't heard of doing this before.
Steve
Because he is a vicious troll who has forfeited the privilege of contributing with his threats, stalking and intimidation, IMO.
k
On 2/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/15/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please
Why? Not questioning you, but I haven't heard of doing this before.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/15/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please
Why? Not questioning you, but I haven't heard of doing this before.
The point is to make editing Wikipedia difficult for banned editors, without making doing so difficult for legitimate editors.
Jay.
On 2/15/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please
Why? Not questioning you, but I haven't heard of doing this before.
The point is to make editing Wikipedia difficult for banned editors, without making doing so difficult for legitimate editors.
My mistake, I had thought David was rolling back edits he had made prior to being banned.
Steve
On 2/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/15/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please
Why? Not questioning you, but I haven't heard of doing this before.
The point is to make editing Wikipedia difficult for banned editors, without making doing so difficult for legitimate editors.
My mistake, I had thought David was rolling back edits he had made prior to being banned.
Steve
Amorrow was indef blocked last august so I suspect most of his edits will have in turn been edited.
-- geni
This is the latest in the on-again, off-again history of Brian Peppers on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Peppers_%...
Peppers is a fad on YTMND and Fark, for reasons which are obvious from this link:
http://pepperstruth.ytmnd.com/
The problem is, he is notable *solely* because a number of people on the net have chosen to laugh at his freakish appearance, apparently the result of a congential deformity.
No, even that's not the problem, the *real* problem is that a lot of people are determined that we should have an article on him, but the sources for the fact that he is disabled, lives in a n ursing home, poses no threat to the community and appears only to be on the offenders' register as a result of an inappropriate contact with a nurse/carer, is from a source which is less reliable than Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp).
So it seems unavoidable that we will participate in the memtic process, because we can't say what a lot of us want to say (that Peppers is a disabled man, suffers from a congenital deformity, was convicted of a technical offence and is known almost exclusively because his photograph became an In ternet freak-sho exhibit).
People insist on the article, clamour for the picture, and revert edits which emphasise Peppers' status as a big-time loser in the lottery of life - possibly because I can't write these edits in a way whihc adequately coneals my absolute contempt for those who exploit Peppers' picture ad an object of derision.
Should I just forget it? Or ar we (either me or those who want the article restored) missing some vital point of policy?
Guy
On 2/15/06, Guy Chapman guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
This is the latest in the on-again, off-again history of Brian Peppers on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Peppers_%...
Peppers is a fad on YTMND and Fark, for reasons which are obvious from this link:
http://pepperstruth.ytmnd.com/
The problem is, he is notable *solely* because a number of people on the net have chosen to laugh at his freakish appearance, apparently the result of a congential deformity.
No, even that's not the problem, the *real* problem is that a lot of people are determined that we should have an article on him, but the sources for the fact that he is disabled, lives in a n ursing home, poses no threat to the community and appears only to be on the offenders' register as a result of an inappropriate contact with a nurse/carer, is from a source which is less reliable than Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp).
So it seems unavoidable that we will participate in the memtic process, because we can't say what a lot of us want to say (that Peppers is a disabled man, suffers from a congenital deformity, was convicted of a technical offence and is known almost exclusively because his photograph became an In ternet freak-sho exhibit).
People insist on the article, clamour for the picture, and revert edits which emphasise Peppers' status as a big-time loser in the lottery of life - possibly because I can't write these edits in a way whihc adequately coneals my absolute contempt for those who exploit Peppers' picture ad an object of derision.
Should I just forget it? Or ar we (either me or those who want the article restored) missing some vital point of policy?
As with most controversial topics, the way out is to absolutely insist on sourcing. And sourcing means *quality* sourcing. Not every fact needs to be footnoted in the article; a talk page subpage would be excellent. If there are no reliable sources, the information (such as it is) gets deleted.
If anyone questions this, it is supported by all three strands of the project: policy (WP:V), process (WP:CITE) and the good of the encyclopaedia (aka common sense).
And if there's no information left, the article must be deleted.
-- Sam
Here's the content of the article on Wikinfo:
Protected due to privacy considerations.
Fred
On Feb 15, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Guy Chapman wrote:
This is the latest in the on-again, off-again history of Brian Peppers on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ Brian_Peppers_%286th_nomination%29
Peppers is a fad on YTMND and Fark, for reasons which are obvious from this link:
http://pepperstruth.ytmnd.com/
The problem is, he is notable *solely* because a number of people on the net have chosen to laugh at his freakish appearance, apparently the result of a congential deformity.
No, even that's not the problem, the *real* problem is that a lot of people are determined that we should have an article on him, but the sources for the fact that he is disabled, lives in a n ursing home, poses no threat to the community and appears only to be on the offenders' register as a result of an inappropriate contact with a nurse/carer, is from a source which is less reliable than Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/ peppers.asp).
So it seems unavoidable that we will participate in the memtic process, because we can't say what a lot of us want to say (that Peppers is a disabled man, suffers from a congenital deformity, was convicted of a technical offence and is known almost exclusively because his photograph became an In ternet freak-sho exhibit).
People insist on the article, clamour for the picture, and revert edits which emphasise Peppers' status as a big-time loser in the lottery of life - possibly because I can't write these edits in a way whihc adequately coneals my absolute contempt for those who exploit Peppers' picture ad an object of derision.
Should I just forget it? Or ar we (either me or those who want the article restored) missing some vital point of policy?
Guy
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/15/06, Guy Chapman guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Should I just forget it? Or ar we (either me or those who want the article restored) missing some vital point of policy?
Guy
The problem is that there are at least three different arguments going on. The should it exist or not argument. The "if it exists what should it contain aregument" and it is a current battle ground for the heavily pro-process vs the not so heavily pro-process groups. All in all a fun day for all the family.
Just wait for the fight over Haley to begin. Those wishing to do their pre reading would be advised to cheack US privicy laws with regards to minors and the mechanics of the YTMND/Myspace relationship.
-- geni
"Guy Chapman" guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote in message news:001a01c63285$a62e01f0$030010ac@internal.sungard.corp...
This is the latest in the on-again, off-again history of Brian Peppers on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Peppers_%... Peppers is a fad on YTMND and Fark, for reasons which are obvious from this link: http://pepperstruth.ytmnd.com/ No, even that's not the problem, the *real* problem is that a lot of people are determined that we should have an article on him, but the sources for the fact that he is disabled, lives in a nursing home, poses no threat to the community and appears only to be on the offenders' register as a result of an inappropriate contact with a nurse/carer, is from a source which is less reliable than Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp). Should I just forget it? Or ar we (either me or those who want the article restored) missing some vital point of policy?
So why are those facts not the mainstay of the article?
The YTMND feature seems to quote some reasonably sources, which can surely be checked.
So check them, use them to lock down the article to solidly-referenced facts, and repel all boarders who want to add anything extra without proper references. Using the photograph in some form seems to be unavoidable, since that is one of the main reasons for which he has become known: even Snopes displays it.
Simply attempting to have no article on a subject which has caused so much bother is against the principle of having a free encyclopedia. People will want to come to Wikipedia to get the straight facts (bit of a Friday moment on a Thursday :-) and if we don't have anything they are likely to add it themselves, in the spirit of the place.
Having "jackbooted thugs" suddenly stomping all over them for creating an article "which everybody knows is stoopid" will not make good PR.
HTH HAND
Guy Chapman wrote:
People insist on the article, clamour for the picture, and revert edits which emphasise Peppers' status as a big-time loser in the lottery of life - possibly because I can't write these edits in a way whihc adequately coneals my absolute contempt for those who exploit Peppers' picture ad an object of derision.
I think it would be a very bad precedent to start deleting (or avoiding creating) articles on people who are semi-famous against their wishes, or even exclusively as the result of mean-spirited internet denizens. The most well-known of such unfortunate victims of internet derision is the [[en:Star Wars kid]], who even went so far as to sue the people who leaked the now-famous but previously private video onto the internet. I don't think that means we ought to delete his article, though.
Mr. Peppers appears to be less well known than the Star Wars kid, of course, but having a Snopes entry seems to rise to the level of being semi-notable IMO.
We *do* have to be careful not to allow Wikipedia to be used as a place to start new fads, or propagate very weak/minor ones, but I'm wary of taking an ideological stance that we will refuse henceforth to write articles on people who would prefer to be less known than they are.
-Mark
On 2/16/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The most well-known of such unfortunate victims of internet derision is the [[en:Star Wars kid]], who even went so far as to sue the people who leaked the now-famous but previously private video onto the internet. I don't think that means we ought to delete his article, though.
He didn't like the iMac, eh?
We *do* have to be careful not to allow Wikipedia to be used as a place to start new fads, or propagate very weak/minor ones, but I'm wary of taking an ideological stance that we will refuse henceforth to write articles on people who would prefer to be less known than they are.
Hmm. We're agreed to not publishing certain salacious details of famous people on [[WP:LIVING]]. Perhaps we should avoid publishing anything personal about "famous despite themselves" people - so the Peppers article could be simply about the internet phenomenon, with almost nothing (if anything) on the poor chap himself. Unless of course he actually does anything notable, like sue someone.
Steve
On 2/16/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. We're agreed to not publishing certain salacious details of famous people on [[WP:LIVING]]. Perhaps we should avoid publishing anything personal about "famous despite themselves" people - so the Peppers article could be simply about the internet phenomenon, with almost nothing (if anything) on the poor chap himself. Unless of course he actually does anything notable, like sue someone.
Steve
We don't really know anything about brain peppers himself beyond what is in the database.
-- geni
David Gerard wrote:
This fellow was banned as User:Amorrow for vicious personal attacks and threats against other users, and again as User:Pinktulip. His personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other editors' employers. Fairly obviously, he's *remarkably* unwelcome on anything to do with Wikipedia.
In this particular case, we have escalated it to legal. And, yes, if we have different levels of unwelcome (and we do), David's characterization as him being "remarkably" unwelcome is remarkably apt.
Block on sight, revert on sight.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
This fellow was banned as User:Amorrow for vicious personal attacks and threats against other users, and again as User:Pinktulip. His personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other editors' employers. Fairly obviously, he's *remarkably* unwelcome on anything to do with Wikipedia.
In this particular case, we have escalated it to legal. And, yes, if we have different levels of unwelcome (and we do), David's characterization as him being "remarkably" unwelcome is remarkably apt.
Block on sight, revert on sight.
That has appeared to be the interim solution.
Is it possible to still allow access? Perhaps, there is a vague idea I can share. I don't side either way, but I do see a desire to preserve a pure open content environment.
Wikipedia obviously tests how pure it can stay as an open content structure. It has, unfortunately, by the nature of blocks shimmered away from being pure. Can we change this so it can stay purely open content?
Do you wonder if some users test Wikipedia's ability to stay open content as an advertisement plot to toss mud. If someone builds a system that can support a greater purity in open content, what does that do to Wikipedia?
The escalated attempts may also not be an advertisement, but it may be a way to encourage censorship beyond Wikipedia's control. I look on the news, and I see how there are stories about censorship of individuals in certain countries, and this particular idea strikes me to have reason beyond doubt.
It seems applicable that an encyclopedia could include this behavior. The encyclopedia is about knowledge, so is there a limit on what knowledge the encyclopedia includes? In particular, this is directed at the knowledge on human behavior. This is where I intended to leave the idea vague. It was just substantially important to be aware of such issues, as I sent this message.
Respectfully, Jonathan
On 2/17/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
Wikipedia obviously tests how pure it can stay as an open content structure. It has, unfortunately, by the nature of blocks shimmered away from being pure. Can we change this so it can stay purely open content?
Without presuming to speak for Wikipedia, it specifically disclaims being any kind of experiment in anarchy, idealism etc (see [[WP:NOT]]). Afaik, it's exactly as open as is useful for building an encyclopaedia.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/17/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
Wikipedia obviously tests how pure it can stay as an open content structure. It has, unfortunately, by the nature of blocks shimmered away from being pure. Can we change this so it can stay purely open content?
Without presuming to speak for Wikipedia, it specifically disclaims being any kind of experiment in anarchy, idealism etc (see [[WP:NOT]]). Afaik, it's exactly as open as is useful for building an encyclopaedia.
Steve
Let me clarify "tests." Wikipedia is highly ranked within Alexa, so it is undoubtedly very popular. It provides a popular medium of communication. That medium is tested -- not the rules (i.e. anarchy, idealism, etc). It is obvious that medium is provided to build an encyclopedia, which is about knowledge. Knowledge is power. Would you want to see such power to be used as a social weapon. I don't want to "test" that.
On 2/17/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/17/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
Wikipedia obviously tests how pure it can stay as an open content structure. It has, unfortunately, by the nature of blocks shimmered away from being pure. Can we change this so it can stay purely open content?
Without presuming to speak for Wikipedia, it specifically disclaims being any kind of experiment in anarchy, idealism etc (see [[WP:NOT]]). Afaik, it's exactly as open as is useful for building an encyclopaedia.
Steve
Let me clarify "tests." Wikipedia is highly ranked within Alexa, so it is undoubtedly very popular. It provides a popular medium of communication. That medium is tested -- not the rules (i.e. anarchy, idealism, etc). It is obvious that medium is provided to build an encyclopedia, which is about knowledge. Knowledge is power. Would you want to see such power to be used as a social weapon. I don't want to "test" that.
Fairly safe to say that isn't true in this case. I blocked ammrow quite a while ago. -- geni
On 2/15/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This fellow was banned as User:Amorrow for vicious personal attacks and threats against other users, and again as User:Pinktulip. His personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other editors' employers. Fairly obviously, he's *remarkably* unwelcome on anything to do with Wikipedia.
I'm trying to build up a pattern for a strong complaint, and I'm also rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please email me or leave a note on my talk page.
David, is there some kind of "Wanted" poster for this guy? What is his modus operandi on the wiki, what are his core interests and so on?
Terri Schiavo and related articles, and pestering certain users who he's been stalking, basically.
On 2/16/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/15/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This fellow was banned as User:Amorrow for vicious personal attacks and threats against other users, and again as User:Pinktulip. His personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other editors' employers. Fairly obviously, he's *remarkably* unwelcome on anything to do with Wikipedia.
I'm trying to build up a pattern for a strong complaint, and I'm also rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please email me or leave a note on my talk page.
David, is there some kind of "Wanted" poster for this guy? What is his modus operandi on the wiki, what are his core interests and so on? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/17/06, Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Terri Schiavo and related articles, and pestering certain users who he's been stalking, basically.
Originaly Linda Lovelace as well
Rather obsesive can come in from multiple IPs (although I suspect he is still from earthlink). Has a very noticble writeing style that tends to deal heavily in conflict methaphores and simli. A classic example can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linda_Lovelace#Lovelace_as_warfare
As far as I can tell he is more likely to stalk those he views as female. In fact his whole attidude to those he thinks are female is rather worrying. -- geni