On 5 Jul 2007 at 03:42:01 +0000, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Part of the ban is posturing
So it's kind of like the "security theatre" we have to endure every time we travel by air... lots of silly rules, enforced in an arbitrary, draconian way, with all sorts of inconvenience to innocent people, which probably doesn't do much or anything at all to prevent actual terrorism, but which show everybody that the authorities are Doing Something.
So it is very much a matter of saying and meaning:
We will make every effort to support our contributors and to defeat attempts to harass them.
...and we don't care how many contributors we need to harrass in order to accomplish this!
KamrynMatika seems possibly to have been run off in this way now.. at least, she's blanked out her user and talk pages and hasn't made any appearance in a couple of days, after getting into conflict with the "draconian-link-ban" people.
Dan Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Daniel R. Tobias schrieb:
On 5 Jul 2007 at 03:42:01 +0000, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Part of the ban is posturing
So it's kind of like the "security theatre" we have to endure every time we travel by air... lots of silly rules, enforced in an arbitrary, draconian way, with all sorts of inconvenience to innocent people, which probably doesn't do much or anything at all to prevent actual terrorism, but which show everybody that the authorities are Doing Something.
So it is very much a matter of saying and meaning:
We will make every effort to support our contributors and to defeat attempts to harass them.
...and we don't care how many contributors we need to harrass in order to accomplish this!
KamrynMatika seems possibly to have been run off in this way now.. at least, she's blanked out her user and talk pages and hasn't made any appearance in a couple of days, after getting into conflict with the "draconian-link-ban" people.
Dan Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Dan, please don't take this the wrong way, but KamrynMatika's 245 mainspace edits are rather negligible compared to the tens of thousands of edits the most attacked Wikipedians have contributed. If protecting several of our more prolific editors from attacks means that some fairly new users get disgruntled (which I do not quite understand in the first place), then, well, that's an acceptable price to pay.
On 7/6/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias schrieb:
On 5 Jul 2007 at 03:42:01 +0000, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@waterwiki.info
wrote:
Part of the ban is posturing
So it's kind of like the "security theatre" we have to endure every time
we travel by air... lots of
silly rules, enforced in an arbitrary, draconian way, with all sorts of
inconvenience to innocent
people, which probably doesn't do much or anything at all to prevent
actual terrorism, but
which show everybody that the authorities are Doing Something.
So it is very much a matter of saying and meaning:
We will make every effort to support our contributors and to defeat
attempts to harass them.
...and we don't care how many contributors we need to harrass in order
to accomplish this!
KamrynMatika seems possibly to have been run off in this way now.. at
least, she's blanked
out her user and talk pages and hasn't made any appearance in a couple
of days, after
getting into conflict with the "draconian-link-ban" people.
Dan Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Dan, please don't take this the wrong way, but KamrynMatika's 245 mainspace edits are rather negligible compared to the tens of thousands of edits the most attacked Wikipedians have contributed. If protecting several of our more prolific editors from attacks means that some fairly new users get disgruntled (which I do not quite understand in the first place), then, well, that's an acceptable price to pay.
I'm not quite sure how blocking KamrynMatika for citing a page which most sensible people would think could constitute a reliable source (given the situation) resulted in "protecting several of our more prolific editors from attacks".
Johnleemk
On 7/5/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias schrieb:
On 5 Jul 2007 at 03:42:01 +0000, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@waterwiki.info
wrote:
Part of the ban is posturing
So it's kind of like the "security theatre" we have to endure every time
we travel by air... lots of
silly rules, enforced in an arbitrary, draconian way, with all sorts of
inconvenience to innocent
people, which probably doesn't do much or anything at all to prevent
actual terrorism, but
which show everybody that the authorities are Doing Something.
So it is very much a matter of saying and meaning:
We will make every effort to support our contributors and to defeat
attempts to harass them.
...and we don't care how many contributors we need to harrass in order
to accomplish this!
KamrynMatika seems possibly to have been run off in this way now.. at
least, she's blanked
out her user and talk pages and hasn't made any appearance in a couple
of days, after
getting into conflict with the "draconian-link-ban" people.
Dan Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Dan, please don't take this the wrong way, but KamrynMatika's 245 mainspace edits are rather negligible compared to the tens of thousands of edits the most attacked Wikipedians have contributed. If protecting several of our more prolific editors from attacks means that some fairly new users get disgruntled (which I do not quite understand in the first place), then, well, that's an acceptable price to pay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thanks.
Unless I am mistake, hasn't it been stated above that the ruling only applied to ED, but yet KM was apparently blocked for linking to WR.
KM's edit summary n inserting the links was "vague ArbCom statements from 8 months ago aren't policy. that ArbCom case pertained to ED and the links were being used for harassment. this link is genuinely informative." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&a... and on examining what was inserted, no confidential or abusive material was linked to.
DGG
On 7/5/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias schrieb:
On 5 Jul 2007 at 03:42:01 +0000, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@waterwiki.info
wrote:
Part of the ban is posturing
So it's kind of like the "security theatre" we have to endure every time
we travel by air... lots of
silly rules, enforced in an arbitrary, draconian way, with all sorts of
inconvenience to innocent
people, which probably doesn't do much or anything at all to prevent
actual terrorism, but
which show everybody that the authorities are Doing Something.
So it is very much a matter of saying and meaning:
We will make every effort to support our contributors and to defeat
attempts to harass them.
...and we don't care how many contributors we need to harrass in order
to accomplish this!
KamrynMatika seems possibly to have been run off in this way now.. at
least, she's blanked
out her user and talk pages and hasn't made any appearance in a couple
of days, after
getting into conflict with the "draconian-link-ban" people.
Dan Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Dan, please don't take this the wrong way, but KamrynMatika's 245 mainspace edits are rather negligible compared to the tens of thousands of edits the most attacked Wikipedians have contributed. If protecting several of our more prolific editors from attacks means that some fairly new users get disgruntled (which I do not quite understand in the first place), then, well, that's an acceptable price to pay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thanks. _______________________________________________ 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 05/07/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Unless I am mistake, hasn't it been stated above that the ruling only applied to ED, but yet KM was apparently blocked for linking to WR. KM's edit summary n inserting the links was "vague ArbCom statements from 8 months ago aren't policy. that ArbCom case pertained to ED and the links were being used for harassment. this link is genuinely informative." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&a... and on examining what was inserted, no confidential or abusive material was linked to.
I predict you will see no substantive answer to this - the edit has been retrospectively declared a "breaching experiment", much as the person who edited WP:BADSITES to read *as it is now being applied* has been retrospectively declared to have been trolling to sabotage it.
- d.
On 7/5/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&a... and on examining what was inserted, no confidential or abusive material was linked to.
Reading the entire thread, some of the comments there certainly aren't nice...
Not that I personally think that justifies blocking anyone inserting a link to the thread, but some others seem to think it does.
On 7/5/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
KM's edit summary n inserting the links was "vague ArbCom statements from 8 months ago aren't policy. that ArbCom case pertained to ED and the links were being used for harassment. this link is genuinely informative." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&a... and on examining what was inserted, no confidential or abusive material was linked to.
Well, it's convenient that they could find another source without having to link to the WR thread, but it also seems that the thread is a better source, in spite of the snarky commentary within it. Those with any strength of stomach would find it an excellent transcript of the issue, and it really ought to be linked to, particularly since it most closely documents Brandt's inquiries.
On 7/5/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
KM's edit summary n inserting the links was "vague ArbCom statements from 8 months ago aren't policy. that ArbCom case pertained to ED and the links were being used for harassment. this link is genuinely informative." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&a... and on examining what was inserted, no confidential or abusive material was linked to.
Well, it's convenient that they could find another source without having to link to the WR thread, but it also seems that the thread is a better source, in spite of the snarky commentary within it.
It can't possibly be a "better source", as none of it is reliable.
On 7/5/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's convenient that they could find another source without having to link to the WR thread, but it also seems that the thread is a better source, in spite of the snarky commentary within it.
It can't possibly be a "better source", as none of it is reliable.
Not even the almost blow-by-blow transcript from Brandt of his communications with the various parties?
On 7/6/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's convenient that they could find another source without having to link to the WR thread, but it also seems that the thread is a better source, in spite of the snarky commentary within it.
It can't possibly be a "better source", as none of it is reliable.
Not even the almost blow-by-blow transcript from Brandt of his communications with the various parties?
Of course not.
On 06/07/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's convenient that they could find another source without having to link to the WR thread, but it also seems that the thread is a better source, in spite of the snarky commentary within it.
It can't possibly be a "better source", as none of it is reliable.
Not even the almost blow-by-blow transcript from Brandt of his communications with the various parties?
No, because it's an attack site, and hence per se unreliable...
On 7/6/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/07/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's convenient that they could find another source without having to link to the WR thread, but it also seems that the thread is a better source, in spite of the snarky commentary within it.
It can't possibly be a "better source", as none of it is reliable.
Not even the almost blow-by-blow transcript from Brandt of his communications with the various parties?
No, because it's an attack site, and hence per se unreliable...
No, because it's a message board with no editorial oversight, run and contributed to by various anonymous individuals. Even worse, it is filled with fantastic tales of conspiracies and intrigues, 90% of them without any factual basis whatsoever, and the other 10% extremely slanted views with typically only a vague connection with reality.
And by the way, James, your straw man arguments must come to an end at some point; can we agree that this will be the last one?
On 06/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
And by the way, James, your straw man arguments must come to an end at some point; can we agree that this will be the last one?
You really need to learn to understand sarcasm. And not to be so bloody patronising.
On 7/6/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
And by the way, James, your straw man arguments must come to an end at some point; can we agree that this will be the last one?
You really need to learn to understand sarcasm. And not to be so bloody patronising.
James, if you're going to use the list for sniping/sarcasm, rather than engaging in an honest discussion, then you really need to expect a strong, and often negative, response.
On 06/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/6/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
And by the way, James, your straw man arguments must come to an end at some point; can we agree that this will be the last one?
You really need to learn to understand sarcasm. And not to be so bloody patronising.
James, if you're going to use the list for sniping/sarcasm, rather than engaging in an honest discussion, then you really need to expect a strong, and often negative, response.
Anyone who dares disagree with you learns very quickly to expect a strong negative response.
You're impossible to take seriously.
Jay.
On 06/07/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone who dares disagree with you learns very quickly to expect a strong negative response. You're impossible to take seriously.
Jay has been asked to cool it. I hope others can refrain from rising to the bait and being derailed from the topic.
- d.
On 06/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
And by the way, James, your straw man arguments must come to an end at some point; can we agree that this will be the last one?
Jay, learn to behave or stop posting. You've spent two threads posting little but attacks on other posters. Stop it.
- d.
On 7/6/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
No, because it's a message board with no editorial oversight, run and contributed to by various anonymous individuals. Even worse, it is filled with fantastic tales of conspiracies and intrigues, 90% of them without any factual basis whatsoever, and the other 10% extremely slanted views with typically only a vague connection with reality.
So you're saying that Brandt's posts in that thread are falsifications?
I am not going to defend the general level of quality of that forum.But in the case of that thread, you exaggerate. It seems to me entirely reasonable to take at face value that it represents Brandt's reports of what he was doing and the responses he was getting.
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 19:15:39 -0400, "The Mangoe" the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
So you're saying that Brandt's posts in that thread are falsifications?
Prove they aren't. The onus is on the person proposing content to demonstrate its reliability. Here, I don't see that. Brandt's website would be a different matter, in that he could correct content he later realises is wrong, and it does not get a pile-on of disgruntled banned trolls.
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:28:37 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
No, because it's a message board with no editorial oversight, run and contributed to by various anonymous individuals. Even worse, it is filled with fantastic tales of conspiracies and intrigues, 90% of them without any factual basis whatsoever, and the other 10% extremely slanted views with typically only a vague connection with reality.
Yes, exactly that. WR is a bad cite. Not a WP:BADSITE, a really /bad/ cite. That's why it should not be included. No editorial oversight, not even a token attempt to be neutral.
Guy (JzG)
G'day Guy,
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:28:37 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
No, because it's a message board with no editorial oversight, run and contributed to by various anonymous individuals. Even worse, it is filled with fantastic tales of conspiracies and intrigues, 90% of them without any factual basis whatsoever, and the other 10% extremely slanted views with typically only a vague connection with reality.
Yes, exactly that. WR is a bad cite. Not a WP:BADSITE, a really /bad/ cite. That's why it should not be included. No editorial oversight, not even a token attempt to be neutral.
So is my weblog.
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 22:01:38 -0400, "The Mangoe" the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's convenient that they could find another source without having to link to the WR thread, but it also seems that the thread is a better source, in spite of the snarky commentary within it. Those with any strength of stomach would find it an excellent transcript of the issue, and it really ought to be linked to, particularly since it most closely documents Brandt's inquiries.
No, it is not a "better source". It is a thread contributed to by a group of banned trolls, vanity spammers and other malcontents, all bearing substantial chips on their shoulders and harbouring enormous grudges. I fail to see under what circumstances it could be considered a reliable source. Let Brandt lay out his line of reasoning on his own website, without the additional bile and hatefulness.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
No, it is not a "better source". It is a thread contributed to by a group of banned trolls, vanity spammers and other malcontents, all bearing substantial chips on their shoulders and harbouring enormous grudges. I fail to see under what circumstances it could be considered a reliable source. Let Brandt lay out his line of reasoning on his own website, without the additional bile and hatefulness.
Well, that's a flagrant ad hominem argument, but in any case we don't get the sources we wish but the ones that people actually write. And whatever other contributions lie within that thread, it does contain Brandt's transcript of his actions. There is no real reason to believe otherwise.
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:32:59 -0400, "The Mangoe" the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
No, it is not a "better source". It is a thread contributed to by a group of banned trolls, vanity spammers and other malcontents, all bearing substantial chips on their shoulders and harbouring enormous grudges. I fail to see under what circumstances it could be considered a reliable source. Let Brandt lay out his line of reasoning on his own website, without the additional bile and hatefulness.
Well, that's a flagrant ad hominem argument, but in any case we don't get the sources we wish but the ones that people actually write. And whatever other contributions lie within that thread, it does contain Brandt's transcript of his actions. There is no real reason to believe otherwise.
No, it's not an ad-hominem. I didn't say that Brandt is evil, for example, I simply pointed out the known and documented fact that WR is dominated by banned trolls, POV pushers and vanity spammers (like Looch, aka Jonathan Barber, aka JB196). Its user base makes it worthless as a source. If Brandt wants to post the transcript on his website then fine, but a post to a forum can't easily be edited afterwards to correct errors and omissions, for example, and followup from gleeful banned trolls makes the thread a cesspit, so as a source even this WR post is worthless. There is no rational definition of a reliable source which covers this site.
Guy (JzG)
G'day Adrian,
Daniel R. Tobias schrieb:
KamrynMatika seems possibly to have been run off in this way now.. at least, she's blanked out her user and talk pages and hasn't made any appearance in a couple of days, after getting into conflict with the "draconian-link-ban" people.
Dan, please don't take this the wrong way, but KamrynMatika's 245 mainspace edits are rather negligible compared to the tens of thousands of edits the most attacked Wikipedians have contributed. If protecting several of our more prolific editors from attacks means that some fairly new users get disgruntled (which I do not quite understand in the first place), then, well, that's an acceptable price to pay.
As one of the more prolific editors[0], and someone who has commented repeatedly on the phenomenon of uppity newbies, I feel quite well-qualified to say: that's a load of bollocks, Adrian.
Being around for a long time, contributing, proving dedication to the project, attaining Clue, all gain you a certain status. There is, however, a difference between respecting old-timers and using that respect as an obstacle against new-timers.
So Kamryn's a newbie (apparently). Heck, she may even be utterly Clueless and someone who would innocently irk me several times a day if the opportunity arose. So what?
Since when did treating her fairly stop being important?
[0] Well, only 9 000 edits. But given that I'm not a goldfarmer, I'm sure my 9 000 required more hard work and dedication than many newer editors' 40 000 did ...