Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been worth.
Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing", etc. for the lost sheep.
Ed Poor
On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been worth.
Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing", etc. for the lost sheep.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That's a horrible thing to say, Ed. I don't agree with you for a second.
blankfaze
Ed, that is the most pathetic and selfish thing I have ever read a Wikipedian write. I thought better of you.
Sam
On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been worth.
Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing", etc. for the lost sheep.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just an encyclopedia, get over it already...
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/20/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Ed, that is the most pathetic and selfish thing I have ever read a Wikipedian write. I thought better of you.
Sam
On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been worth.
Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing", etc. for the lost sheep.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Also agree with Ed.
Rick knows the rules - and no-one is above them. So I have no idea why he acted in a manner that would get himself blocked - only he knows. Then he gets upset over it after deliberately brining it on himself - huh?!
And I've never been impressed by these desperately attention-seeking public exits. People join and leave Internet communities all the time. Most don't feel the need to be a prima donna though. Those that do tend to return quite quickly.
Dan
On 20/06/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just an encyclopedia, get over it already...
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/20/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Ed, that is the most pathetic and selfish thing I have ever read a Wikipedian write. I thought better of you.
Sam
On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been worth.
Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing", etc. for the lost sheep.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reverting copyrighted material should not count as 3RR violation. Now I agree that RickK should have refrained from blocking other users in the dispute and waited for a different admin. I for one am sad to see contrarian editors/admins go. There seem to be several editors at the [[GAP Project]] that have done things that were inappropriate - improperly undeleting a page, etc. If you ask me what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If RickK's deserves some type of 24 hour block in the name of treating admin's equally, those that misused the admin tools should also be blocked a minimum of 24 hours.
Jim
On 6/20/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
Also agree with Ed.
Rick knows the rules - and no-one is above them. So I have no idea why he acted in a manner that would get himself blocked - only he knows. Then he gets upset over it after deliberately brining it on himself - huh?!
And I've never been impressed by these desperately attention-seeking public exits. People join and leave Internet communities all the time. Most don't feel the need to be a prima donna though. Those that do tend to return quite quickly.
Dan
On 20/06/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just an encyclopedia, get over it already...
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been worth.
Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing", etc. for the lost sheep.
Ed Poor
On 6/20/05, Jim Trodel trodel@gmail.com wrote:
Reverting copyrighted material should not count as 3RR violation.
Eh, Coolcat says he wrote the text and we have no reason to disbelieve him. He has exhibited substantial personal knowledge on matters related to Turkey in the past.
Rather than RickK responding to Coolcat's claim he outright ignored it as though it had never been said, and continued making the claim all over the wiki that there was no justification for restoring the material.
I encounter substantial difficulty at times getting media removed that is far more likely to be a copyvio and without an editor claiming to be the author than the situation here. The point quite rightly made to me is that it's not the end of the world if it isn't removed today, which is quite valid.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 6/20/05, Jim Trodel trodel@gmail.com wrote:
Reverting copyrighted material should not count as 3RR violation.
Eh, Coolcat says he wrote the text and we have no reason to disbelieve him. He has exhibited substantial personal knowledge on matters related to Turkey in the past.
As has been pointed out on the relevant talk page, having written something (if we choose to believe an unidentified pseudonymous user) is not necessarily sufficient to establish ownership. CoolCat claimed that text was prepared for a large offline (i.e. print) distribution. We have no way of knowing if that was work-for-hire, for example.
When it comes to copyright problems, all one has to do is anonymously claim "I wrote it" when it is found to have been published earier elsewhere? That can't be right.
As has been pointed out on the relevant talk page, having written something (if we choose to believe an unidentified pseudonymous user) is not necessarily sufficient to establish ownership. CoolCat claimed that text was prepared for a large offline (i.e. print) distribution. We have no way of knowing if that was work-for-hire, for example.
True. We have no way of knowing that anything that anyone writes for wikipedia really belongs to them. All we can do is assume that they are telling the truth when they claim it's thier own work.
When it comes to copyright problems, all one has to do is anonymously claim "I wrote it" when it is found to have been published earier elsewhere? That can't be right.
This sort of thing could easily be sorted out though. We could contact the publishers directly "Do you give permission for this material to be on Wikipedia?"
Theresa
Theresa Knott wrote:
This sort of thing could easily be sorted out though. We could contact the publishers directly "Do you give permission for this material to be on Wikipedia?"
This is precisely the problem. CoolCat will not identify himself or the publisher, so we have no way to establish that we have a reasonable belief that we have permission.
Theresa Knott wrote:
This sort of thing could easily be sorted out though. We could contact the publishers directly "Do you give permission for this material to be on Wikipedia?"
This is precisely the problem. CoolCat will not identify himself or the publisher, so we have no way to establish that we have a reasonable belief that we have permission.
I am very much copyright-unparanoid, but in the absence of any credible indication that the entity calling itself CoolCat wrote the material, we must presume the opposite. If CoolCat disagrees with that presumption, the burden of proof is on she/he/it.
On 6/21/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I am very much copyright-unparanoid, but in the absence of any credible indication that the entity calling itself CoolCat wrote the material, we must presume the opposite. If CoolCat disagrees with that presumption, the burden of proof is on she/he/it.
Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 6/21/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I am very much copyright-unparanoid, but in the absence of any credible indication that the entity calling itself CoolCat wrote the material, we must presume the opposite. If CoolCat disagrees with that presumption, the burden of proof is on she/he/it.
Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?
No need to stop doing that. Verifiability also applies. In most situations the contributor's copyright will go unchallenged; that's a presumption of good faith. Anyone can raise a reasonable doubt (as opposed to a random challenge); that's when the contributor's burden of response kicks in. If he says that his work is completely original that shifts the burden, because he cannot be asked to show something that does not exist. If the similarity of his contributions to something else goes beyond coincidence, then he has a need to clarify the situation.
Ec
On 6/21/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I am very much copyright-unparanoid, but in the absence of any credible indication that the entity calling itself CoolCat wrote the material, we must presume the opposite. If CoolCat disagrees with that presumption, the burden of proof is on she/he/it.
Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?
It was overruled by the DMCA.
To put it a little less tersely, what we have here is a user who is presuming too much on our good faith. CoolCat submitted material that is also published elsewhere. When questioned (politely, I assume), CoolCat made the important claim of being the copyright owner, yet refused to supply critical pieces of data to support that claim.
If I were to start uploading Encarta articles, and when challenged on their copyright status, claim to be the sole owner of their copyright, are you going to say "okay, I'm going to assume your claim is made in good faith," or are you going to ask for more information supporting my surprising claim, or are you going to copyvio the appropriate articles and ban me so I'll stop?
As Jimbo so wonderfully put it, this is a game of Calvinball, and the Wikipedia is Calvin. The "assume good faith" rule only applies until the Wikipedia starts losing. Then we realize that Friday the Thirteenth falls on Wednesday next month, which means that all unauthenticated claims of copyright ownership have to leave the playground.
On 6/21/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
CoolCat made the important claim of being the copyright owner, yet refused to supply critical pieces of data to support that claim.
So what do you expect someone to provide to substantiate a claim of original authorship? A copyright regiserted with the copyright office? ... right.
On 6/22/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
CoolCat made the important claim of being the copyright owner, yet refused to supply critical pieces of data to support that claim.
So what do you expect someone to provide to substantiate a claim of original authorship? A copyright regiserted with the copyright office? ... right.
No, nothing that fancy. A real name would be a good start.
-User:Fuzheado
On 6/21/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
CoolCat made the important claim of being the copyright owner, yet refused to supply critical pieces of data to support that claim.
So what do you expect someone to provide to substantiate a claim of original authorship? A copyright regiserted with the copyright office? ... right.
From a quick reading of the article's talk page, CoolCat would not
provide anything except the assertion of authorship, claiming a desire for anonymity precluded anything else. The pointing out that associating yourself with being the author of another site's article could ruin that anonymity anyway didn't produce any results.
The largest reason, I think, why CoolCat's assertion did not help was that this user has been found to have violated copyright before. "Assume good faith until burned", I guess.
-Matt
On 6/21/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
From a quick reading of the article's talk page, CoolCat would not provide anything except the assertion of authorship, claiming a desire for anonymity precluded anything else. The pointing out that associating yourself with being the author of another site's article could ruin that anonymity anyway didn't produce any results.
The largest reason, I think, why CoolCat's assertion did not help was that this user has been found to have violated copyright before. "Assume good faith until burned", I guess.
Well for whatever it's worth, I've had a private conversation with him and I find his story compelling. I don't know if I can really offer any more than that.
I would just like to reiterate that even if I am mistaken this is far from the most likely disputed copyright claim on the project at all... and I'd really like to know where all the 'ohh copyvio are bad' folks are hiding every time I go up against a stuborn user whos feelings are hurt that I want to delete their beloved google image search. :-/
Well for whatever it's worth, I've had a private conversation with him and I find his story compelling. I don't know if I can really offer any more than that.
I would just like to reiterate that even if I am mistaken this is far from the most likely disputed copyright claim on the project at all... and I'd really like to know where all the 'ohh copyvio are bad' folks are hiding every time I go up against a stuborn user whos feelings are hurt that I want to delete their beloved google image search. :-/
It seems that a lot of people have had ''private'' conversations with Coolcat. Some glaring admissions are the administrators processing his copyvios (myself in a couple of cases).
I've been treated very harshly by people who have apperantly heard these stories, and yet these administrators take no action except bashing me (see [[Talk:GAP_Project]]).
I don't reject the possibility that Coolcat is the copyright owner of the stuff he keeps submitting (on the GAP_Project). But I won't accept anonymous licence granting of previously published material when clearing copyright violations. This is the same criteria I applied to all copyvio's I've processed.
Duk
On 6/21/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The largest reason, I think, why CoolCat's assertion did not help was that this user has been found to have violated copyright before. "Assume good faith until burned", I guess.
I've seen CoolCat repeatedly accused of copyright infringement but the ones I've reviewed I've found that those accusations lacked substance. He's involved in one of the more contentious edit wars (Kurd issues in Turkey) that we have running right now and there are some people who will stoop to underhanded techniques to "win". Apparently, alleging copyright infringement is a very effective technique to silence your opponents. And it seems that we're playing right into that strategy.
Kelly
I've seen CoolCat repeatedly accused of copyright infringement but the ones I've reviewed I've found that those accusations lacked substance. He's involved in one of the more contentious edit wars (Kurd issues in Turkey) that we have running right now and there are some people who will stoop to underhanded techniques to "win". Apparently, alleging copyright infringement is a very effective technique to silence your opponents. And it seems that we're playing right into that strategy.
Kelly
Take a look at [[Diagnosis: Murder]]. After copying from two different websites he claims he got permission from one of them, but can't remember which. Based on this he files a request for Undeletion of the copyright violations.
I've yet to see an apology from him for the original plagiarism and copyright violation.
Duk
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 6/21/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The largest reason, I think, why CoolCat's assertion did not help was that this user has been found to have violated copyright before. "Assume good faith until burned", I guess.
I've seen CoolCat repeatedly accused of copyright infringement but the ones I've reviewed I've found that those accusations lacked substance. He's involved in one of the more contentious edit wars (Kurd issues in Turkey) that we have running right now and there are some people who will stoop to underhanded techniques to "win". Apparently, alleging copyright infringement is a very effective technique to silence your opponents. And it seems that we're playing right into that strategy.
Kelly
There's a very simple way to counter such an attack: don't copy and paste verbatim text from websites or other copyright sources and leave them unattributed.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 6/21/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
CoolCat made the important claim of being the copyright owner, yet refused to supply critical pieces of data to support that claim.
So what do you expect someone to provide to substantiate a claim of original authorship? A copyright regiserted with the copyright office? ... right.
ObSimpsonsQuote: Twitchy Police Academy Student: "When do we get the freakin' GUNS!?" Chief Wiggum: "Hey, I told you before, you don't get a gun until you tell me your name."
I'm not involved in this dispute at all, but one of the other emails in this thread mentioned that CoolCat refuses to give his real name or the name of the publisher. This doesn't seem like a particularly onerous request to make.
Theresa Knott wrote:
As has been pointed out on the relevant talk page, having written something (if we choose to believe an unidentified pseudonymous user) is not necessarily sufficient to establish ownership. CoolCat claimed that text was prepared for a large offline (i.e. print) distribution. We have no way of knowing if that was work-for-hire, for example.
True. We have no way of knowing that anything that anyone writes for wikipedia really belongs to them. All we can do is assume that they are telling the truth when they claim it's thier own work.
If I were minded to submit copyvio material, I would not cut and paste from another website. I could use OCR then cut and paste from that. Or I could do my own translation of a copyright protected work. What online searches will reveal will only be a small part of copyvios.
When it comes to copyright problems, all one has to do is anonymously claim "I wrote it" when it is found to have been published earier elsewhere? That can't be right.
This sort of thing could easily be sorted out though. We could contact the publishers directly "Do you give permission for this material to be on Wikipedia?"
That's assuming that the publisher owns the copyright. If it's from an unsigned article that's probably so as a work-for-hire. A signed article is a different matter. We should presume that that author has the right to use what he wrote in any manner that he sees fit. If he has some restrictive licensing arrangement with the publisher he may be in breech of contract, but we are in no position to make that judgement.
Ec
On 6/21/05, Andrew Venier avenier@venier.net wrote:
When it comes to copyright problems, all one has to do is anonymously claim "I wrote it" when it is found to have been published earier elsewhere? That can't be right.
I agree completely, but at the same time we have imposed an even lower standard in the past, especially on images.
It's not appropriate to suddenly 'fix' our behavior for a single user that we have decided we dislike. And that the copyvio claim has been argued with means we should not act with extreme haste.
There was no need to aggressively revert the changes, in fact, such reversions probably do nothing to strengthen our legal standing even if the text is in violation since the copyvio version was still in the history.
If you'd like to assist me in pushing stricter copyright conformance I'd love the help... Can you think of away to educate users that works peformed off of copyrighted score, even if the orignal music was written a zillion years ago, are almost always covered under the copyright of the score? Or how about "this shouldn't deserve copyright" isn't acceptable for photographs of household goods stolen off the Internet?
Which justifies that self-aggrandizing, completely malicious tirade? Methinks not. I was not objecting to Ed's tone and crowing. It is hardly civil.
Sam
On 6/20/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
Also agree with Ed.
Rick knows the rules - and no-one is above them. So I have no idea why he acted in a manner that would get himself blocked - only he knows. Then he gets upset over it after deliberately brining it on himself - huh?!
And I've never been impressed by these desperately attention-seeking public exits. People join and leave Internet communities all the time. Most don't feel the need to be a prima donna though. Those that do tend to return quite quickly.
Dan
On 20/06/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just an encyclopedia, get over it already...
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/20/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Ed, that is the most pathetic and selfish thing I have ever read a Wikipedian write. I thought better of you.
Sam
On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've
been
worth.
Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed
to
soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more
rejoicing",
etc. for the lost sheep.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The rules do not have any innate value. That is to say, the mere fact that something is in the rules does not make it right, any more than its absence from the rules makes it wrong. Sysops are not expected to be mechanical robots in enforcing the 3RR or any other rule. This doesn't mean people are above the rules. It means that sysops are not obliged to block in every case.
One of the things that should always play into a decision about blocking is the good faith of the contributor, the necessity of the block in getting the point across, and the nature of the dispute. Frankly, Rick's block wasn't cut and dry - removing copyvio absolutely should not count as a 3RR revert, and there's no reason to think that Rick did not sincerely see a copyvio problem. And it's important to err on the side of protecting Wikipedia from lawsuit with copyvio - if there's a reasonable suspicion, remove first, then spend the time sorting it out.
Which isn't to say that Rick handled this well. He didn't. it is, however, to say that he did not handle it so badly as to deserve the abject slap in the face that this block was. And he's right to be pissed - I would be.
I hope Silsor intends to spend a LOT more time than he has browsing recent changes and dealing with the abject stupidity that Rick was our first line of defense against. Because otherwise, that block just hurt the project a lot.
-Snowspinner
Granted Rick's actions were attempting to keep a possible copyvio out of WP, but revert warring with other respected users was a pretty lame way to go about it. It was not going to resolve the GAP project copyvio problem.
Dan
On 20/06/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
The rules do not have any innate value. That is to say, the mere fact that something is in the rules does not make it right, any more than its absence from the rules makes it wrong. Sysops are not expected to be mechanical robots in enforcing the 3RR or any other rule. This doesn't mean people are above the rules. It means that sysops are not obliged to block in every case.
One of the things that should always play into a decision about blocking is the good faith of the contributor, the necessity of the block in getting the point across, and the nature of the dispute. Frankly, Rick's block wasn't cut and dry - removing copyvio absolutely should not count as a 3RR revert, and there's no reason to think that Rick did not sincerely see a copyvio problem. And it's important to err on the side of protecting Wikipedia from lawsuit with copyvio - if there's a reasonable suspicion, remove first, then spend the time sorting it out.
Which isn't to say that Rick handled this well. He didn't. it is, however, to say that he did not handle it so badly as to deserve the abject slap in the face that this block was. And he's right to be pissed - I would be.
I hope Silsor intends to spend a LOT more time than he has browsing recent changes and dealing with the abject stupidity that Rick was our first line of defense against. Because otherwise, that block just hurt the project a lot.
-Snowspinner _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Lame, yes.
Worth blocking over?
Erm. No.
-Snowspinner On Jun 20, 2005, at 5:41 PM, Dan Grey wrote:
Granted Rick's actions were attempting to keep a possible copyvio out of WP, but revert warring with other respected users was a pretty lame way to go about it. It was not going to resolve the GAP project copyvio problem.
Dan
On 20/06/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
The rules do not have any innate value. That is to say, the mere fact that something is in the rules does not make it right, any more than its absence from the rules makes it wrong. Sysops are not expected to be mechanical robots in enforcing the 3RR or any other rule. This doesn't mean people are above the rules. It means that sysops are not obliged to block in every case.
One of the things that should always play into a decision about blocking is the good faith of the contributor, the necessity of the block in getting the point across, and the nature of the dispute. Frankly, Rick's block wasn't cut and dry - removing copyvio absolutely should not count as a 3RR revert, and there's no reason to think that Rick did not sincerely see a copyvio problem. And it's important to err on the side of protecting Wikipedia from lawsuit with copyvio - if there's a reasonable suspicion, remove first, then spend the time sorting it out.
Which isn't to say that Rick handled this well. He didn't. it is, however, to say that he did not handle it so badly as to deserve the abject slap in the face that this block was. And he's right to be pissed - I would be.
I hope Silsor intends to spend a LOT more time than he has browsing recent changes and dealing with the abject stupidity that Rick was our first line of defense against. Because otherwise, that block just hurt the project a lot.
-Snowspinner _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why not? It's only for 24 hours. The alternative would have been leaving them to edit war on and on, to present certain users as being above the rules, and to generally devalue the 3RR - this is exactly what it's supposed to be used for.
Dan
On 20/06/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Lame, yes.
Worth blocking over?
Erm. No.
Yeah, quitting the project is like a city council member getting a speeding ticket, and reacting by announcing that the local government has broken down, resigning from the council, and selling the car.
Stan
Dan Grey wrote:
Why not? It's only for 24 hours. The alternative would have been leaving them to edit war on and on, to present certain users as being above the rules, and to generally devalue the 3RR - this is exactly what it's supposed to be used for.
Dan
On 20/06/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Lame, yes.
Worth blocking over?
Erm. No.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/20/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I hope Silsor intends to spend a LOT more time than he has browsing recent changes and dealing with the abject stupidity that Rick was our first line of defense against. Because otherwise, that block just hurt the project a lot.
Now hold on -- this is NOT Silsor's fault that RickK is leaving. The only person behind RickK's actions is RickK. He was not forced out. He was not persecuted. If he believed the 3RR was applied incorrectly, there are reasonable channels through which that communication could go through. If he had written to the list, "Silsor has blocked me, but I was reverting copyrighted info, can someone please unblock me?" he'd probably have been unblocked within the hour.
I don't know why RickK wants to leave. But that's his choice. If he wants to give some silly reason -- a single other admin *maybe* made a bad call -- that's his choice as well. But that doesn't mean it's a legitimate reason, and it doesn't mean that we should heap trouble onto the person who allegedly made the bad call.
Worst consequence of a 3RR violation? Blocked for a day. Get some sunshine. Stretch your bones. Call your parents. Cool off.
RickK was a good editor. His tireless work in keeping out nonsense will be missed. It's too bad he decided that something this petty was the last straw. But you know what? I bet if this hadn't happen, there'd have been another last straw. People don't throw a fit and leave over some little thing when they're content as a whole. I have a feeling he was on the way out one way or another anyway -- this is just a convenient excuse.
And in that case, I wish him luck on whatever else he chooses to spend his time on. Fortunately this is a collective project. RickK did a lot of good work, but so do a lot of other people.
Let's not get confused over who made this choice, though. RickK's choice was his own. He had plenty of other options that he knew about -- at best he was the victim of a bad call, at worst he violated a simple and well-known rule. He chose to leave -- an extreme choice, but that's his choice to make. He's welcome to come back if he changes his mind.
FF
On 6/21/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just an encyclopedia, get over it already...
Referring to the 3RR blocking as "law" or "near automatic" is flawed, which is why the treatment of RickK is a disappointment, and the potential loss of a very valuable individual. If you read the text of the WP:3RR page, it would not qualify as anything like "law" as we understand it:
"If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours."
Emphasis on the "may" part.
For a good system of law you need pre-knowledge of the rules, fair application and an independent judiciary. The arbitration committee approaches these ideals, but enforcement of 3RR? Nowhere close, and it's causing lots of problems.
-User:Fuzheado
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/20/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Ed, that is the most pathetic and selfish thing I have ever read a Wikipedian write. I thought better of you.
Sam
On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been worth.
Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing", etc. for the lost sheep.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Andrew Lih wrote:
Referring to the 3RR blocking as "law" or "near automatic" is flawed, which is why the treatment of RickK is a disappointment, and the potential loss of a very valuable individual. If you read the text of the WP:3RR page, it would not qualify as anything like "law" as we understand it:
"If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours."
Emphasis on the "may" part.
Yes, I'm starting to wonder what happened to all the cheerleaders for WP:IAR that showed up on Eequor's RFA...
I happen to agree that the way he's leaving full of righteous indignation is really foolish, and I really don't care who thinks I'm pathetic and selfish just because I don't appreciate other's silly outbursts.
Laurascudder
On Jun 20, 2005, at 1:43 PM, Jack Lynch wrote:
Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just an encyclopedia, get over it already...
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/20/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Ed, that is the most pathetic and selfish thing I have ever read a Wikipedian write. I thought better of you.
Sam
On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been worth.
Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing", etc. for the lost sheep.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi Ed.
I noticed your email address listed as WikiEN-l admin is no longer functioning. Would you like me to change it to reflect your new email address, or just remove it? I understand you don't entirely want to be list admin any more (or you didn't 12 months ago) so I'll leave it to you to decide what to do.
~Mark Ryan
On 6/21/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been worth.
Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing", etc. for the lost sheep.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Errr just ignore that people. Completely off-topic and meant to be private. But so appalling uncontroversial that it puts this list to shame. Why couldn't I accidentally post something amazing like confessions of Wikipedians' sex secrets? At least it would liven up the usual bland "I'm quitting / I'm being stalked! / I will sue Wikipedia" messages.
;-)
~Mark
On 6/21/05, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ed.
I noticed your email address listed as WikiEN-l admin is no longer functioning. Would you like me to change it to reflect your new email address, or just remove it? I understand you don't entirely want to be list admin any more (or you didn't 12 months ago) so I'll leave it to you to decide what to do.
~Mark Ryan
On 6/21/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been worth.
Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing", etc. for the lost sheep.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l