http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Ryulong
That were being used for privacy on the Brandt discussion. Outrageous.
On 19/04/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Ryulong That were being used for privacy on the Brandt discussion. Outrageous.
I see 'Infodmz' in there. You could try pointing out to him that that's your account and you'd like to use it please, and that you're not using it as a deceptive sockpuppet - Ryulong deals with a lot of troll and vandal crap so tends to terns block messages, but is quite approachable and not a bad guy.
- d.
On 4/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I see 'Infodmz' in there. You could try pointing out to him that that's your account and you'd like to use it please, and that you're not using it as a deceptive sockpuppet - Ryulong deals with a lot of troll and vandal crap so tends to terns block messages, but is quite approachable and not a bad guy.
I already requested unblock, I'm more shocked he would do something like this.
On 19/04/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I see 'Infodmz' in there. You could try pointing out to him that that's your account and you'd like to use it please, and that you're not using it as a deceptive sockpuppet - Ryulong deals with a lot of troll and vandal crap so tends to terns block messages, but is quite approachable and not a bad guy.
I already requested unblock, I'm more shocked he would do something like this.
I'm not, per the noted buckets of troll crap - and look at that block log. That said, admins make mistakes and should be prepared to reverse themselves.
Of course, being careful not to partcipate inthe same discussion under both names would be required. And IMO that would go for this list too - faking consensus by discussing the same topic on wikien-l under multiple names would not really be acceptable behaviour.
- d.
On 4/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That said, admins make mistakes and should be prepared to reverse themselves.
Except he appears offline leaving multiple admins (likely) blocked needlessly and against policy, based on the inevitable IP autoblock.
Of course, being careful not to partcipate inthe same discussion under
both names would be required. And IMO that would go for this list too
- faking consensus by discussing the same topic on wikien-l under
multiple names would not really be acceptable behaviour.
And I've not touched my primary account for the past 3-4 days, so no worries there.
On 4/20/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That said, admins make mistakes and should be prepared to reverse themselves.
Except he appears offline leaving multiple admins (likely) blocked needlessly and against policy, based on the inevitable IP autoblock.
You can't block an admin through any type of block to thier IP. You can only block admins by dirrect blocks to the account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Several...
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Ryulong
That were being used for privacy on the Brandt discussion. Outrageous.
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Ryulong
That were being used for privacy on the Brandt discussion. Outrageous.
I have to admit I'd be happier if you'd just use your normal Wikipedia account. This socking isn't helpful.
The SPA's used for the disccussion were acceptable under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, and I will be seeking to make formal complaint against the actions of this administrator in attempting to bring people out of the wood-work who were following policy and protocol with their SPA's. Whether you think people should use their real ID or not is your opinion, those who used and SPA are backed by policy.
-Cascadia.
"Info Control" infodmz@gmail.com wrote in message news:def5f7d40704191538n618e9fe7v7b9ed3ac8ac4806a@mail.gmail.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Ryulong
That were being used for privacy on the Brandt discussion. Outrageous. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Your trolling on this mailing list is also not helping your cause either.
On 4/19/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
The SPA's used for the disccussion were acceptable under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, and I will be seeking to make formal complaint against the actions of this administrator in attempting to bring people out of the wood-work who were following policy and protocol with their SPA's. Whether you think people should use their real ID or not is your opinion, those who used and SPA are backed by policy.
-Cascadia.
"Info Control" infodmz@gmail.com wrote in message news:def5f7d40704191538n618e9fe7v7b9ed3ac8ac4806a@mail.gmail.com ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Ryulong
That were being used for privacy on the Brandt discussion. Outrageous. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Excuse me? Please be very cautious as to who and what you consider trolling.
-Cascadia
"Pilotguy" pilotguy.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote in message news:7e910d160704191558r5c35eae3uc2a2b1b33b503227@mail.gmail.com...
Your trolling on this mailing list is also not helping your cause either.
On 4/19/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
The SPA's used for the disccussion were acceptable under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, and I will be seeking to make formal complaint against the actions of this administrator in attempting to bring people out of the wood-work who were following policy and protocol with their SPA's. Whether you think people should use their real ID or not is your opinion, those who used and SPA are backed by policy.
-Cascadia.
"Info Control" infodmz@gmail.com wrote in message news:def5f7d40704191538n618e9fe7v7b9ed3ac8ac4806a@mail.gmail.com ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Ryulong
That were being used for privacy on the Brandt discussion. Outrageous. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Pilotguy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy -- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by a Wikimedia contributor, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the site operators at http://www.wikimediafoundation.org. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hardly trolling methinks. Badly worded, yes, but the accounts are allowable and legit. Should not have been blocked.
-Brock
On 4/19/07, Pilotguy pilotguy.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Your trolling on this mailing list is also not helping your cause either.
On 4/19/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
The SPA's used for the disccussion were acceptable under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, and I
will
be seeking to make formal complaint against the actions of this
administrator
in attempting to bring people out of the wood-work who were following policy and protocol with their SPA's. Whether you think people should use their real ID or not is your opinion, those who used and SPA are backed by policy.
-Cascadia.
"Info Control" infodmz@gmail.com wrote in message news:def5f7d40704191538n618e9fe7v7b9ed3ac8ac4806a@mail.gmail.com ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Ryulong
That were being used for privacy on the Brandt discussion. Outrageous. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Pilotguy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy -- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by a Wikimedia contributor, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the site operators at http://www.wikimediafoundation.org. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ryulong appears to have gone offline, and no one has unblocked. So, for trying to protect their privacy further, at least a half-dozen admins are currently unblocked. And, perhaps unwilling to now ask for direct unblock, to avoid exposing who they were...
...while the person they were hiding from is free to edit. Charming. :)
Anyway, would someone be willing to review these blocks? Ryulong's action appears to be violating the block policy as there is vio by using SPAs as pointed out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Notice
On 4/19/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
Hardly trolling methinks. Badly worded, yes, but the accounts are allowable and legit. Should not have been blocked.
-Brock
On 20/04/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, would someone be willing to review these blocks? Ryulong's action appears to be violating the block policy as there is vio by using SPAs as pointed out:
# 23:30, 19 April 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Infodmz (contribs) (second account taking care of not breaking sock rules; blocking admin away, asked nicely)
I'll leave a note for Ryulong as well.
- d.
On 4/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
# 23:30, 19 April 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Infodmz (contribs) (second account taking care of not breaking sock rules; blocking admin away, asked nicely)
I'll leave a note for Ryulong as well.
Thanks David!
On 4/20/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
So, for trying to protect their privacy further, at least a half-dozen admins are currently [blocked]. And, perhaps unwilling to now ask for direct unblock, to avoid exposing who they were...
Presumably they can still edit under their existing usernames.
Actually, Tony. That would be wrong. Autoblocks on the IPs have also been enacted.
-Cascadia
"Tony Sidaway" tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote in message news:bf0d8ee70704191634i6e46380x859c0aa564a31ced@mail.gmail.com...
On 4/20/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
So, for trying to protect their privacy further, at least a half-dozen admins are currently [blocked]. And, perhaps unwilling to now ask for direct unblock, to avoid exposing who they were...
Presumably they can still edit under their existing usernames.
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 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Presumably they can still edit under their existing usernames.
And dealing with the issue under the main account exposes who you are, in violation of our rights under the sock policy. ;)
On 4/20/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Presumably they can still edit under their existing usernames.
And dealing with the issue under the main account exposes who you are, in violation of our rights under the sock policy. ;)
Users have no right to sock. Multiple accounts are tolerated.
And dealing with the issue under the main account exposes who you are, in violation of our rights under the sock policy. ;)
Users have no right to sock. Multiple accounts are tolerated.
Indeed. Some people seem to mistake the lack of a rule against something as being a right to do it. There is a difference.
In correct, the policy explicitly allows multiple accounts, permitted sockpuppets in certain areas, so long as they arent used to game 3RR or create the illusion of broader consensus. We aren't talking about just a 'lack of a rule' here, its spelled out what you can and can't do.
On 4/19/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
And dealing with the issue under the main account exposes who you are,
in
violation of our rights under the sock policy. ;)
Users have no right to sock. Multiple accounts are tolerated.
Indeed. Some people seem to mistake the lack of a rule against something as being a right to do it. There is a difference.
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 20/04/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
In correct, the policy explicitly allows multiple accounts, permitted sockpuppets in certain areas, so long as they arent used to game 3RR or create the illusion of broader consensus. We aren't talking about just a 'lack of a rule' here, its spelled out what you can and can't do.
It's expressly discouraged (unless some well-meaning person has removed that from a recent version) - calling it a "right" is as incorrect as saying that 3RR gives you a "right" to three reverts a day. It's a fine but important point.
- d.
I don't consider it a right, my statement of 'incorrect' was directed at the 'lack of a rule' part of the quote, I'll be a little clearer next time :)
On 4/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/04/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
In correct, the policy explicitly allows multiple accounts, permitted sockpuppets in certain areas, so long as they arent used to game 3RR or create the illusion of broader consensus. We aren't talking about just a 'lack of a rule' here, its spelled out what you can and can't do.
It's expressly discouraged (unless some well-meaning person has removed that from a recent version) - calling it a "right" is as incorrect as saying that 3RR gives you a "right" to three reverts a day. It's a fine but important point.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
when someone says that the process is abused because theres no rule against it, the implication is that its not addressed. It's akin to me saying 'Theres no rule that says you have to put POV into articles'.
On 4/19/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't consider it a right, my statement of 'incorrect' was directed at
the
'lack of a rule' part of the quote, I'll be a little clearer next time
:)
If it's explicitly allowed, then there is no rule against it, is there? What's incorrect?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
when someone says that the process is abused because theres no rule against it, the implication is that its not addressed. It's akin to me saying 'Theres no rule that says you have to put POV into articles'.
I disagree with that implication. "No rule against" means "No rule against". No more, no less. The policy only says what you are allowed to do in order to avoid possible confusion with people assuming that you aren't allowed to do it. Removing the positive parts of the policy would not make any substantial difference.
Feel free to disagree.
On 4/19/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
when someone says that the process is abused because theres no rule
against
it, the implication is that its not addressed. It's akin to me saying 'Theres no rule that says you have to put POV into articles'.
I disagree with that implication. "No rule against" means "No rule against". No more, no less. The policy only says what you are allowed to do in order to avoid possible confusion with people assuming that you aren't allowed to do it. Removing the positive parts of the policy would not make any substantial difference.
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 4/20/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
In correct, the policy explicitly allows multiple accounts, permitted sockpuppets in certain areas, so long as they arent used to game 3RR or create the illusion of broader consensus. We aren't talking about just a 'lack of a rule' here, its spelled out what you can and can't do.
Don't make a fetish out of written policy on Wikipedia. It is not something to rely on. The conduct of socks on that thread was not our finest hour, and if these socks become more disruptive they will be blocked.
Im not making a fetish out of anything. I agree with the unblock, but there are several users and admins who justifiably feel at danger in discussing that. I believe the lack of professionalism is due not to increased freedom with the socks, but understandably high emotions.
On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
In correct, the policy explicitly allows multiple accounts, permitted sockpuppets in certain areas, so long as they arent used to game 3RR or create the illusion of broader consensus. We aren't talking about just a 'lack of a rule' here, its spelled out what you can and can't do.
Don't make a fetish out of written policy on Wikipedia. It is not something to rely on. The conduct of socks on that thread was not our finest hour, and if these socks become more disruptive they will be blocked.
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,
Could you be more specific as to which socks were being 'disruptive'. I saw editors who felt they did not want to have their ID known yet comment on this situation, enganging in discussion.
And as far as your comment of "not making a fetish out of written policy on Wikipedia", I believe that comment is not only uncalled for, but completely void of good faith. Furthermore, if someone is acting within the bounds of policy at the time the policy was in effect, then whether you LIKE it or not is really a moot point. No need to accuse others of trolling, or having a Policy Fetish.
-Cascadia. "Tony Sidaway" tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote in message news:bf0d8ee70704191655n3be758eekf5a852e09fea2350@mail.gmail.com...
On 4/20/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
In correct, the policy explicitly allows multiple accounts, permitted sockpuppets in certain areas, so long as they arent used to game 3RR or create the illusion of broader consensus. We aren't talking about just a 'lack of a rule' here, its spelled out what you can and can't do.
Don't make a fetish out of written policy on Wikipedia. It is not something to rely on. The conduct of socks on that thread was not our finest hour, and if these socks become more disruptive they will be blocked.
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 4/20/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
Tony,
Could you be more specific as to which socks were being 'disruptive'. I saw editors who felt they did not want to have their ID known yet comment on this situation, enganging in discussion.
There has been no substantive disruption as yet, but there has been a series of rather inflammatory statements. One brave soul with the username of "Throwaway account 111" described Jimbo's action as "an affront to the community." Disposibleusername said the same action felt like "a slap in the face". A third user (or it could be the third instance of the same person) called "Iamnotmyself" made all kinds of predictions of any serious attempt to oppose the unblock, stating "Take a stand if you want, but it won't change anything; it's Jimbo's way or the highway." A fellow called "Onlyjustthisonetime" called Jimbo's action "an affront to every member of this community"
Amid all the fuss and the trolling, however, some valid points were made, and I wouldn't want to give the impression that it was all just rabble-rousing.
And as far as your comment of "not making a fetish out of written policy on Wikipedia", I believe that comment is not only uncalled for, but completely void of good faith.
I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all. There is no implication of bad faith, just an unfortunate tendency to treat written policy as holy scripture.
Furthermore, if someone is acting within the bounds of policy at the time the policy was in effect, then whether you LIKE it or not is really a moot point.
The point I was making was that written policy is not Wikipedia policy.
Tony, my voice doesn't matter so much here, but I felt the making a fetish comment was fine. I wasn't offended, you just called it as you saw it, I'd do the same thing. Meh, NPA doesnt equal 'say nothing bad'.
On 4/19/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
Tony,
Could you be more specific as to which socks were being 'disruptive'. I
saw
editors who felt they did not want to have their ID known yet comment on this situation, enganging in discussion.
There has been no substantive disruption as yet, but there has been a series of rather inflammatory statements. One brave soul with the username of "Throwaway account 111" described Jimbo's action as "an affront to the community." Disposibleusername said the same action felt like "a slap in the face". A third user (or it could be the third instance of the same person) called "Iamnotmyself" made all kinds of predictions of any serious attempt to oppose the unblock, stating "Take a stand if you want, but it won't change anything; it's Jimbo's way or the highway." A fellow called "Onlyjustthisonetime" called Jimbo's action "an affront to every member of this community"
Amid all the fuss and the trolling, however, some valid points were made, and I wouldn't want to give the impression that it was all just rabble-rousing.
And as far as your comment of "not making a fetish out of written policy
on
Wikipedia", I believe that comment is not only uncalled for, but
completely
void of good faith.
I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all. There is no implication of bad faith, just an unfortunate tendency to treat written policy as holy scripture.
Furthermore, if someone is acting within the bounds of policy at the time the policy was in effect, then whether you LIKE it or
not
is really a moot point.
The point I was making was that written policy is not Wikipedia policy.
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 4/20/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
Tony, my voice doesn't matter so much here, but I felt the making a fetish comment was fine. I wasn't offended, you just called it as you saw it, I'd do the same thing. Meh, NPA doesnt equal 'say nothing bad'.
It occurs to me that, on this mixed nationality mailing list containing people whose first language is not English, it is conceivable that use of the term "fetish" was seen by some readers as a bizarre allegation of sexual impropriety. It was not. For those who are still in the dark, see this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetishism
"Making a fetish" out of something is a phrase meaning to treat it as if it had unseen powers.
"Tony Sidaway" tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote in message news:bf0d8ee70704191733x4afcdbc4y4d8235e04d2d6e6b@mail.gmail.com...
There has been no substantive disruption as yet, but there has been a series of rather inflammatory statements. One brave soul with the username of "Throwaway account 111" described Jimbo's action as "an affront to the community." Disposibleusername said the same action felt like "a slap in the face". A third user (or it could be the third instance of the same person) called "Iamnotmyself" made all kinds of predictions of any serious attempt to oppose the unblock, stating "Take a stand if you want, but it won't change anything; it's Jimbo's way or the highway." A fellow called "Onlyjustthisonetime" called Jimbo's action "an affront to every member of this community"
Amid all the fuss and the trolling, however, some valid points were made, and I wouldn't want to give the impression that it was all just rabble-rousing.
Tony, again... you keep calling discussion, although a bit heated, "trolling". //
The point I was making was that written policy is not Wikipedia policy.
That's an intersting statement. Considering one of the first things at WP:SOCK is:
"This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."
I appologize if I sound obtuse or overly confused... but when does "official Policy on the English Wikipedia" not be Wikipedia policy??
-Cascadia
Cascadia: Written policy isn't the only policy on wiki. Jimbo enjoys whats gently poked at as God-Kingship because he owns the site, its his, we do what he says when he pulls that card in his subtle way. Not because its really codified, but as convention. Many countries, including the UK, have constitutional rights that aren't in the constitution, they evolved as convention over hundreds of years. This is one of the reasons we have the WP:BITE policy, new users dont know all the unwritten rules yet.
On 4/19/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
"Tony Sidaway" tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote in message news:bf0d8ee70704191733x4afcdbc4y4d8235e04d2d6e6b@mail.gmail.com...
There has been no substantive disruption as yet, but there has been a series of rather inflammatory statements. One brave soul with the username of "Throwaway account 111" described Jimbo's action as "an affront to the community." Disposibleusername said the same action felt like "a slap in the face". A third user (or it could be the third instance of the same person) called "Iamnotmyself" made all kinds of predictions of any serious attempt to oppose the unblock, stating "Take a stand if you want, but it won't change anything; it's Jimbo's way or the highway." A fellow called "Onlyjustthisonetime" called Jimbo's action "an affront to every member of this community"
Amid all the fuss and the trolling, however, some valid points were made, and I wouldn't want to give the impression that it was all just rabble-rousing.
Tony, again... you keep calling discussion, although a bit heated, "trolling". //
The point I was making was that written policy is not Wikipedia policy.
That's an intersting statement. Considering one of the first things at WP:SOCK is:
"This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."
I appologize if I sound obtuse or overly confused... but when does "official Policy on the English Wikipedia" not be Wikipedia policy??
-Cascadia
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 4/20/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
Cascadia: Written policy isn't the only policy on wiki. Jimbo enjoys whats gently poked at as God-Kingship because he owns the site,
Nope
its his,
Nope
we do what he says when he pulls that card in his subtle way.
subtle?
Not because its really codified, but as convention. Many countries, including the UK, have constitutional rights that aren't in the constitution,
No. UK's constitutional stuff only deals with rights in a limit manner (because constitutionally there is nothing Parliament can't do). The few that are in it are firmly codified.
As Australia found out in 1975 unwritten conventions are exactly that. The final decider is what is written down.
they evolved as convention over hundreds of years.
Conventions are written down.
On 4/20/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
Tony, again... you keep calling discussion, although a bit heated, "trolling".
I think that this kind of rabble-rousing injected into a discussion is precisely that, and I think it's reasonable to assume that the people or person who chose to use anonymous accounts to do that had the intention of inflaming opinion against Jimbo Wales.
I appologize if I sound obtuse or overly confused... but when does "official Policy on the English Wikipedia" not be Wikipedia policy??
I haven't said that "official policy on the English Wikipedia" isn't Wikipedia policy. If anything, I've asserted the reverse. Written policy tends to lag behind the curve. There are several arbitration committee cases in which this principle has featured. Relying on written policy as if it asserted "rights" and the like is usually described as "wiki-lawyering", and is strongly discouraged.
On 4/19/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
I appologize if I sound obtuse or overly confused... but when does "official Policy on the English Wikipedia" not be Wikipedia policy??
Written policy tends to lag actual practise. More importantly here is that, just like constitutional principles, when differing principles overlap, the actual policy in-practice may not be exactly as described in only one policy page.
In general, using multiple accounts is tolerated but not actually wholly approved of *provided it does not disrupt*. It's at least being argued that in this case it is being disruptive at least in the case of some of the users doing it.
-Matt
For some people, I've noticed, the definition of disruption takes either the form of "Doing something I don't like" or "Making heated discussion". Disruption though, is more along the lines of being POINTed, page moves, etc.
Far too many people, in my opinion, simply look at something that they don't themeselves like as disruption. The comments cited by Tony show less disruption and more of "I don't like their comments, so they are disruptive and trolling". Have we all forgotten about assuming good faith, or does that take a back seat depending on whom is making the assessment.
I'm not trying to rile things up, I have serious disagreements with the definitions of "disruption" and "trolling" that have been used today.
-Cascadia.
"Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote in message news:42f90dc00704192029i772e26cfr4b8f97df226774f7@mail.gmail.com...
On 4/19/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
I appologize if I sound obtuse or overly confused... but when does "official Policy on the English Wikipedia" not be Wikipedia policy??
Written policy tends to lag actual practise. More importantly here is that, just like constitutional principles, when differing principles overlap, the actual policy in-practice may not be exactly as described in only one policy page.
In general, using multiple accounts is tolerated but not actually wholly approved of *provided it does not disrupt*. It's at least being argued that in this case it is being disruptive at least in the case of some of the users doing it.
-Matt
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 4/19/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
I'm not trying to rile things up, I have serious disagreements with the definitions of "disruption" and "trolling" that have been used today.
'Trolling', IMO, is thrown around rather too often on Wikipedia. The definition of a troll is someone who's intentionally inciting argument by tossing out argument-bait, by saying things not because they sincerely believe them but because they want to push hot buttons.
Someone whose beliefs are sincerely and genuinely held is not a troll - even if they're many other things.
-Matt
On 4/20/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
'Trolling', IMO, is thrown around rather too often on Wikipedia. The definition of a troll is someone who's intentionally inciting argument by tossing out argument-bait, by saying things not because they sincerely believe them but because they want to push hot buttons.
Someone whose beliefs are sincerely and genuinely held is not a troll
- even if they're many other things.
Traditionally, a "troll" who actually believes what he is saying is called a "kook". What separates a "kook" from somebody who is just different might be summed up in these two pages..
[[wp:dick]] http://ritzwiki.wiki-site.com/index.php/Fsckhead
On 4/20/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
The comments cited by Tony show less disruption and more of "I don't like their comments, so they are disruptive and trolling".
Firstly those statements I cite are inflammatory. They use graphic imagery to describe a controversial act by a Wikipedian in terms of a physical assault on other Wikipedians. This is not a case of "I don't like it", it's about the intended effect of the comments on the reader: to inflame his emotions.
I specifically state that they are not substantive disruption. Not yet. Others may disagree; it's a matter of the degree to which anonymity is being abused with the intention of provocation, and I'm not sure where we should draw the line. It's certainly dancing on the edge of legitimate anonymous expression, however. If these people truthfully use anonymity to protect themselves from action by Brandt, why is their principal target Jimbo Wales?
"Tony Sidaway" tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote in message news:bf0d8ee70704200417s6e055daeh26399aa39211a714@mail.gmail.com...
If these people truthfully use anonymity to protect themselves from action by Brandt, why is their principal target Jimbo Wales?
Well... let's see. Jimbo Wales made the decision to unblock Daniel Brandt. The whole discussion is whether or not he had the authority to do that. I think that accurately describes the situation.
-Cascadia
On 4/20/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
"Tony Sidaway" tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote in message news:bf0d8ee70704200417s6e055daeh26399aa39211a714@mail.gmail.com...
If these people truthfully use anonymity to protect themselves from action by Brandt, why is their principal target Jimbo Wales?
Well... let's see. Jimbo Wales made the decision to unblock Daniel Brandt. The whole discussion is whether or not he had the authority to do that. I think that accurately describes the situation.
Yes, if I look at it from that angle I suppose the inflammatory statements can be read as strong expression of genuinely held opinion. Admittedly it was only yesterday that anyone ever seriously expressed doubt that Wikipedia administrators possess authority to unblock blocked editors. But it is *just* plausible that a number of editors, who have been made administrators despite their ignorance, simultaneously entertained this doubt.
In correct, the policy explicitly allows multiple accounts, permitted sockpuppets in certain areas, so long as they arent used to game 3RR or create the illusion of broader consensus. We aren't talking about just a 'lack of a rule' here, its spelled out what you can and can't do.
That still doesn't make it a "right".
Those accounts were being used to demean the rest of us by their farcical participation in the Brandt discussion, and possibly they all belonged to the same person anyway. Is Brandt going to eat you? Are the Wikipedia Reviewers? Whisper it, but Ryulong did the right thing.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile. http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
Moreschi,
Brandt has a history of off wiki harassment. Anyone who has encountered such harassment from people know not to walk into a situation and ask for it again.
Your comment that the participation of privacy socks was demeaning others just by their participation alone. Well I'm sorry that it is demeaning to others that people would actually NOT have to consider such things as contacting ISPs, the FBI, etc., to deal with a loose cannon that decides that they can do anything and everything they want.
I'm sorry if it is demeaning to others that there were those that did not want to run the risk of Brandt getting a bee up his butt and calling our employers, digging up family and Significant Others. I don't know about you, but I don't have thousands of dollars in savings sitting around in a savings account for such a situation.
Ryulong did not do the right thing. He senselessly put people in danger and essentially did exactly what the topic of the discussion had been known to do: out people.
-Cascadia
"Christiano Moreschi" moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote in message news:BAY103-F13A774B2EEAF311A92F7C4E8560@phx.gbl...
Those accounts were being used to demean the rest of us by their farcical participation in the Brandt discussion, and possibly they all belonged to the same person anyway. Is Brandt going to eat you? Are the Wikipedia Reviewers? Whisper it, but Ryulong did the right thing.
Moreschi
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile. http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It is demeaning because it is foolish. It's ridiculous because the sight of what are, apparently, eminent Wikipedians, getting into a such a panic that the sock drawer splits open is roughly on a par with the proverbial headless chickens. How can we possibly make any progress in this matter of Brandt when people fail to AGF on such a spectacular scale? Yes, he has unquestionably done some evil things in the past but he has promised to behave, he's only one man, there are more of us than him, and, no, he is not frigging Lucifer. No reason to panic.
Provided, of course, they weren't all socks of the same person aiming to disrupt. How the hell am I meant to know that's not the case? That's why the blocks were good ones, and it's irksome that they were reversed.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile. https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/
On 4/20/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
Moreschi,
Brandt has a history of off wiki harassment. Anyone who has encountered such harassment from people know not to walk into a situation and ask for it again.
Your comment that the participation of privacy socks was demeaning others just by their participation alone.
I don't think there is a problem with editors occasionally making a comment from a position of anonymity. The nature of the comment, however, is important. If there are administrators for whom I hold otherwise high regard, who choose to use anonymity to make inflammatory comments about the actions of other administrators, I think that's an abuse of anonymity. Again, the target of the inflammatory statements was *not* Brandt.
Ryulong did not do the right thing. He senselessly put people in danger
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).
Tony Sidaway 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 hope they are not, this is a shocking disregard for fellow editors. Socks used this in this manner is fully supported by policy and even more importantly allowing them in this context is the right thing to do. High profile, long term editors/admins are routinely allowed to be much more inflammatory on-wiki then these guys were over the one night they were active....we give users who write the word poop all over an article more leeway then this....
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
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I hope the checkusers have investigated this affair for possible abusive socking).
I hope that any checkusers abusing the privacy of their peers with undocumented, out of policy, out of bounds, and wrong use of the tool would be hauled in front of ArbCom and/or desysopped/banned.
On 20/04/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I hope the checkusers have investigated this affair for possible abusive socking).
I hope that any checkusers abusing the privacy of their peers with undocumented, out of policy, out of bounds, and wrong use of the tool would be hauled in front of ArbCom and/or desysopped/banned.
i.e., if they told.
(Checking isn't a privacy violation. Revealing results in ways not per the privacy policy would be. Revealing that you have checked is discouraged.)
- d.
On 4/20/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
Ryulong did not do the right thing. He senselessly put people in danger and essentially did exactly what the topic of the discussion had been known to do: out people.
This is excessive hyperbole; he did nothing of the sort.
-Matt
Ray?
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Ryulong
That were being used for privacy on the Brandt discussion. Outrageous. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Anthony wrote:
Ray?
On 4/19/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Ryulong
That were being used for privacy on the Brandt discussion. Outrageous.
Sorry, but this has nothing to do with me. Are you referring to another Ray? I'm confused by your reference.
Ec