Come now, how did Ryulong's actions put people in danger? His block *prevented* them from editing Wikipedia. We still don't know their identities (although as a matter of course, given the similarity of the inflammatory accusations by socks, I hope the checkusers have investigated this affair for possible abusive socking).
I'm not going to do any such thing.
Fred
On 4/20/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Come now, how did Ryulong's actions put people in danger? His block *prevented* them from editing Wikipedia. We still don't know their identities (although as a matter of course, given the similarity of the inflammatory accusations by socks, I hope the checkusers have investigated this affair for possible abusive socking).
I'm not going to do any such thing.
Quite right. Let cowardice die a loveless death, nameless, unmarked.
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Come now, how did Ryulong's actions put people in danger? His block *prevented* them from editing Wikipedia. We still don't know their identities (although as a matter of course, given the similarity of the inflammatory accusations by socks, I hope the checkusers have investigated this affair for possible abusive socking).
I'm not going to do any such thing.
Quite right. Let cowardice die a loveless death, nameless, unmarked.
Um, what? I don't follow the comment about cowardice, whatsoever.
I think there is a consensus, general though not certainly not unanimous, that Ryulong's blocks were unwarranted and that he compounded the mistake by failing to disable autoblock. I think it's also clear that he acted in good faith, that his not having thought through the autoblock issue was inadvertent, that the blocks have all been lifted, that he has not reblocked anyone, and that in fact he has apologized on-wiki for the blocks. With all the other concerns to worry about, I fail to see why that isn't the end of this aspect of the matter.
Newyorkbrad
On 4/21/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
We still don't know their identities (although as a matter of course, given the similarity of the inflammatory accusations by socks, I hope the checkusers have investigated this affair for possible abusive socking).
I'm not going to do any such thing.
Quite right. Let cowardice die a loveless death, nameless, unmarked.
Um, what? I don't follow the comment about cowardice, whatsoever.
Hiding behind anonymity to make intemperate personal attacks, strutting brazen pretensions to represent opinion of the community. That is not acceptable behavior for Wikipedia. Cowardly and craven.
Um, what? I don't follow the comment about cowardice, whatsoever.
Hiding behind anonymity to make intemperate personal attacks, strutting brazen pretensions to represent opinion of the community. That is not acceptable behavior for Wikipedia. Cowardly and craven.
Understandable under all the circumstances, and certainly not block-worthy.
Newyorkbrad
On 4/21/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Um, what? I don't follow the comment about cowardice, whatsoever.
Hiding behind anonymity to make intemperate personal attacks, strutting brazen pretensions to represent opinion of the community. That is not acceptable behavior for Wikipedia. Cowardly and craven.
Understandable under all the circumstances, and certainly not block-worthy.
I haven't suggested that we block them. I've told them that I'd rather they used their normal accounts. I'm assuming they're not simply outside trolls bent on mischief, though this thought pains me.
On 21/04/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is a consensus, general though not certainly not unanimous, that Ryulong's blocks were unwarranted
Perhaps as judged after the fact, but did you look at the log and see the string of names in question? It looked for all the world like blocking a persistent sockpuppet troll nest.
and that he compounded the mistake by failing to disable autoblock.
Again: precisely the right thing to do with a persistent troll nest.
That it turned out not to be a persistent troll nest is why admin actions are reversible.
I think it's also clear that he acted in good faith, that his not having thought through the autoblock issue was inadvertent, that the blocks have all been lifted, that he has not reblocked anyone, and that in fact he has apologized on-wiki for the blocks. With all the other concerns to worry about, I fail to see why that isn't the end of this aspect of the matter.
Because people mistake tolerated behaviour for "rights"?
- d.
From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Ryulong blocked ALL accounts Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:02:39 +0100
On 21/04/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is a consensus, general though not certainly not
unanimous,
that Ryulong's blocks were unwarranted
Perhaps as judged after the fact, but did you look at the log and see the string of names in question? It looked for all the world like blocking a persistent sockpuppet troll nest.
and that he compounded the mistake by failing to disable autoblock.
Again: precisely the right thing to do with a persistent troll nest.
That it turned out not to be a persistent troll nest is why admin actions are reversible.
I think it's also clear that he acted in good faith, that his not having thought through the autoblock issue was inadvertent, that the blocks have all been lifted, that he has not
reblocked
anyone, and that in fact he has apologized on-wiki for the blocks. With
all
the other concerns to worry about, I fail to see why that isn't the end
of
this aspect of the matter.
Because people mistake tolerated behaviour for "rights"?
- d.
David: do we, in fact, know for certain that it was not a sockpuppet trollfest one-man show?
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Could you be the guest MSN Movies presenter? Click Here to Audition http://www.lightscameraaudition.co.uk
On 21/04/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com
Perhaps as judged after the fact, but did you look at the log and see the string of names in question? It looked for all the world like blocking a persistent sockpuppet troll nest.
David: do we, in fact, know for certain that it was not a sockpuppet trollfest one-man show?
If you mean has someone looked, not that I know of - but the writing styles do look different to me. FWIW.
- d.
On 21/04/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is a consensus, general though not certainly not unanimous, that Ryulong's blocks were unwarranted
David Gerard wrote: Perhaps as judged after the fact, but did you look at the log and see the
string of names in question? It looked for all the world like >blocking a persistent sockpuppet troll nest.
Only if you didn't read the discussion and ignored the context it was happening in. The rough consensus that the blocks were not warranted formed very quickly, and certainly before any new information came out that would have even created a "after the fact"....
Brian
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Tony,
You have accused people of trolling the discussion on this thread, and now you stand here and call those who chose to remain annonymous "cowards".
Tony, I believe the saying goes "People in glass houses should not throw stones."
Some food for thought. -Cascadia
"Tony Sidaway" tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote in message news:bf0d8ee70704201419r4403ba8cwdb117f213aac3cb4@mail.gmail.com...
On 4/20/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Come now, how did Ryulong's actions put people in danger? His block *prevented* them from editing Wikipedia. We still don't know their identities (although as a matter of course, given the similarity of the inflammatory accusations by socks, I hope the checkusers have investigated this affair for possible abusive socking).
I'm not going to do any such thing.
Quite right. Let cowardice die a loveless death, nameless, unmarked.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/21/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
Tony,
You have accused people of trolling the discussion on this thread, and now you stand here and call those who chose to remain annonymous "cowards".
Yes, I'm happy that you noticed that.
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
Tony,
You have accused people of trolling the discussion on this thread, and
now
you stand here and call those who chose to remain anonymous "cowards".
Yes, I'm happy that you noticed that.
Tony, once again, despite having been asked to stop, you feel compelled to emphasize the completely gratuitous insult you have made against a number of Wikipedians acting for what they, at least, consider rational and well-justified reasons. Is there no way at all that you could be induced to stop doing this?
Newyorkbrad
On 4/20/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
Tony,
You have accused people of trolling the discussion on this thread, and
now
you stand here and call those who chose to remain anonymous "cowards".
Yes, I'm happy that you noticed that.
Tony, once again, despite having been asked to stop, you feel compelled to emphasize the completely gratuitous insult you have made against a number of Wikipedians acting for what they, at least, consider rational and well-justified reasons. Is there no way at all that you could be induced to stop doing this?
Newyorkbrad
Personally, I think Tony is right, but instead of throwing around insults, can we get back tot he matter at hand?
I, personally, don't see why you would not perform a checkuser on the anonymous accounts. ~~~~
On Apr 20, 2007, at 21:59, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/21/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
Tony,
You have accused people of trolling the discussion on this thread, and now you stand here and call those who chose to remain annonymous "cowards".
Yes, I'm happy that you noticed that.
I'm not quite sure if this is relevant to the text I've quoted, but I think I've deleted any other relevant messages...
I think people using anonymity to participate in a discussion can use it in both productive and detrimental ways. The problem I think is that the authority which established users have is conferred by their track record. Anonymous accounts do not have this authority and should not try to infer it. Insisting that their normal account has a lot of influence and demanding that influence transfer to the new account is groundless and inflammatory. It could even be seen as trolling.
A bit of disclaimer: I've been inactive since February and have not read this debate on wiki. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to state that people trying to infer authority from other accounts can lean to the trolling side. Certainly it can have the effects of trolling, if not the intentions (this is then called "disruptive editing" and not trolling? Both are grounds for a block anyhow). Not that this is what happened, seeing as I don't know what happened. But going after Tony for making observations in his opinion seems to be missing the point.
I can also see how trying to use one's authority without connecting it to oneself could be cowardice. The connection between a self and what that self does is where the authority comes from. They're therefore unwilling to take the fall for their actions, and hiding behind a consequence-less mask, while the consequences are everything when it comes to who people are on-wiki. Again, not saying it was cowardice which drove their actions, but it could seem/be this way and people who believe this could very well be acting in good faith (and probably are), not trolling.
Anyhow, not that privacy isn't a concern and people shouldn't try to protect themselves. They just shouldn't expect the same respect they had (lacking track record) and people who do insist on this respect ought to be aware that their actions can be seen as trolling.
Cheers --keitei
On 4/21/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
Tony,
You have accused people of trolling the discussion on this thread, and now you stand here and call those who chose to remain annonymous "cowards".
Yes, I'm happy that you noticed that.
Tony, I agree with you on the issue, but you're behaving in a terrible manner. Tone down your language, and stop insulting your fellow wikipedians. In cases such as this, civility is of utmost importance.
Currently, you are bringing more heat than light to the discussion.
--Oskar