On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from editing, and not about the editing per se.
Whoops, there's that conspiracy again. *Which* particular people, and exactly *why* would someone want to prevent them from editing? Which conspiracy theory are we going with at this point?
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call someone on their bad conduct.
This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia. What particular people? Me. Why would they want to prevent me from editing? Well, it was an attempt to shut me up to give a friend a favor they didn't deserve. No one bothered to look at anything, to weigh anything I said, they simply ganged up on me, shut me up at every turn, so that no one would look into what was going on. In this instance it backfired because it was ridiculous. It doesn't usually backfire like this, proof is that it continues, and people who do it feel they can, with impunity, ridicule their targets and continue to do it.
This pat comment to attempt to change the topic and ridicule anyone who has been the target of group bullying on Wikipedia, "giggle," "giggle," "oh conspiracies" has been done too many times to remain effective.
Editors and admins do gang up on other editors who disagree with them. There is no question that the person who brought up the discussion of this event on Wikipedia would be blocked for some length of time. 48 hours for "tenditious editing." The blocking admin didn't even have to pretend to have a real reason for blocking, simply applied some lame essay to the reasoning. And the usual, "giggle," "wink," "giggle," "oh, the conspiracy theories," "the cabal is back."
If you're an admin and you can't treat people with respect, maybe you could at least pretend you do, or stop sanctimoniously demanding that others act up to standards that you don't adhere to. The whole process on Wikipedia is simply creating a stratified society in which it is clear that those with admin powers consider themselves above and beyond reproach from those without admin powers, so much so, that those with admin powers have no shame about ridiculing the concerns of those without admin powers.
"giggle," "giggle," "oh a conspiracy"
We're here to build an encyclopedia, not enthrone people. Somewhere the project seems to have got off track.
KP
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from editing, and not about the editing per se.
Whoops, there's that conspiracy again. *Which* particular people, and exactly *why* would someone want to prevent them from editing? Which conspiracy theory are we going with at this point?
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call someone on their bad conduct.
I'm sorry to have to ask, but who are you, which "well-orchestrated gang" tried to get you to "shut up", and how does this relate to the CharlotteWebb RFA?
This pat comment to attempt to change the topic and ridicule anyone who has been the target of group bullying on Wikipedia, "giggle," "giggle," "oh conspiracies" has been done too many times to remain effective.
Who is trying to get CW to "shut up", and how is he/she being "bullied"?
Editors and admins do gang up on other editors who disagree with them.
Who is disagreeing with CW, and on what topic?
There is no question that the person who brought up the discussion of this event on Wikipedia would be blocked for some length of time. 48 hours for "tenditious editing." The blocking admin didn't even have to pretend to have a real reason for blocking, simply applied some lame essay to the reasoning. And the usual, "giggle," "wink," "giggle," "oh, the conspiracy theories," "the cabal is back."
If you're an admin and you can't treat people with respect, maybe you could at least pretend you do, or stop sanctimoniously demanding that others act up to standards that you don't adhere to. The whole process on Wikipedia is simply creating a stratified society in which it is clear that those with admin powers consider themselves above and beyond reproach from those without admin powers, so much so, that those with admin powers have no shame about ridiculing the concerns of those without admin powers.
"giggle," "giggle," "oh a conspiracy"
We're here to build an encyclopedia, not enthrone people. Somewhere the project seems to have got off track.
I hate to have to be blunt here, but I have no idea what you are ranting about, or how it relates to the CW RFA.
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from editing, and not about the editing per se.
Whoops, there's that conspiracy again. *Which* particular people, and exactly *why* would someone want to prevent them from editing? Which conspiracy theory are we going with at this point?
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call someone on their bad conduct.
I'm sorry to have to ask, but who are you, which "well-orchestrated gang" tried to get you to "shut up", and how does this relate to the CharlotteWebb RFA?
This pat comment to attempt to change the topic and ridicule anyone who has been the target of group bullying on Wikipedia, "giggle," "giggle," "oh conspiracies" has been done too many times to remain effective.
Who is trying to get CW to "shut up", and how is he/she being "bullied"?
Editors and admins do gang up on other editors who disagree with them.
Who is disagreeing with CW, and on what topic?
There is no question that the person who brought up the discussion of this event on Wikipedia would be blocked for some length of time. 48 hours for "tenditious editing." The blocking admin didn't even have to pretend to have a real reason for blocking, simply applied some lame essay to the reasoning. And the usual, "giggle," "wink," "giggle," "oh, the conspiracy theories," "the cabal is back."
If you're an admin and you can't treat people with respect, maybe you could at least pretend you do, or stop sanctimoniously demanding that others act up to standards that you don't adhere to. The whole process on Wikipedia is simply creating a stratified society in which it is clear that those with admin powers consider themselves above and beyond reproach from those without admin powers, so much so, that those with admin powers have no shame about ridiculing the concerns of those without admin powers.
"giggle," "giggle," "oh a conspiracy"
We're here to build an encyclopedia, not enthrone people. Somewhere the project seems to have got off track.
I hate to have to be blunt here, but I have no idea what you are ranting about, or how it relates to the CW RFA.
It has to do with the discussion about cliques of people ganging up on other cliques of people on Wikipedia. It has to do with the various comments on the list whereby people's arguments are dismissed by claims of their crying conspiracy.
You and Slim Virgin have been attacking people for discussing the issue of CW's RFA without answering any questions, attacking people's ability to think (although if you seriously question someone's ability to think and you discuss an issue with them...), people's evoking conspiracy theories in response to the discussion.
If you don't know me, just assume I'm not talking to you.
And if you think I'm ranting, why not treat it like a rant and ignore it? After all, the burden wouldn't logically be on the ranter to ignore it.
KP
On 6/17/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from editing, and not about the editing per se.
Whoops, there's that conspiracy again. *Which* particular people, and exactly *why* would someone want to prevent them from editing? Which conspiracy theory are we going with at this point?
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call someone on their bad conduct.
I'm sorry to have to ask, but who are you, which "well-orchestrated gang" tried to get you to "shut up", and how does this relate to the CharlotteWebb RFA?
This pat comment to attempt to change the topic and ridicule anyone who has been the target of group bullying on Wikipedia, "giggle," "giggle," "oh conspiracies" has been done too many times to remain effective.
Who is trying to get CW to "shut up", and how is he/she being "bullied"?
Editors and admins do gang up on other editors who disagree with them.
Who is disagreeing with CW, and on what topic?
There is no question that the person who brought up the discussion of this event on Wikipedia would be blocked for some length of time. 48 hours for "tenditious editing." The blocking admin didn't even have to pretend to have a real reason for blocking, simply applied some lame essay to the reasoning. And the usual, "giggle," "wink," "giggle," "oh, the conspiracy theories," "the cabal is back."
If you're an admin and you can't treat people with respect, maybe you could at least pretend you do, or stop sanctimoniously demanding that others act up to standards that you don't adhere to. The whole process on Wikipedia is simply creating a stratified society in which it is clear that those with admin powers consider themselves above and beyond reproach from those without admin powers, so much so, that those with admin powers have no shame about ridiculing the concerns of those without admin powers.
"giggle," "giggle," "oh a conspiracy"
We're here to build an encyclopedia, not enthrone people. Somewhere the project seems to have got off track.
I hate to have to be blunt here, but I have no idea what you are ranting about, or how it relates to the CW RFA.
It has to do with the discussion about cliques of people ganging up on other cliques of people on Wikipedia. It has to do with the various comments on the list whereby people's arguments are dismissed by claims of their crying conspiracy.
You and Slim Virgin have been attacking people for discussing the issue of CW's RFA without answering any questions, attacking people's ability to think (although if you seriously question someone's ability to think and you discuss an issue with them...), people's evoking conspiracy theories in response to the discussion.
If you don't know me, just assume I'm not talking to you.
And if you think I'm ranting, why not treat it like a rant and ignore it? After all, the burden wouldn't logically be on the ranter to ignore it.
KP
Oh, but I'm not surprised to learn you didn't actually read anyone's questions on the issues, other than to rant back at the guy you accused of conpiring against and attacking you. For all you said, that you didn't actually read anyone's questions doesn't surprise me at all.
The issue of actually listening and conversing with people just wasn't that important when you've already got power. Nope, that you didn't read any of the questions or concerns raised by people, in between the dismissive giggling exclamations of conspiracies is not surprising at all. It's all pretty solidly established behaviour to get away from an issue raised by someone who has no voice to raise an issue. Well done.
KP
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from editing, and not about the editing per se.
Whoops, there's that conspiracy again. *Which* particular people, and exactly *why* would someone want to prevent them from editing? Which conspiracy theory are we going with at this point?
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call someone on their bad conduct.
I'm sorry to have to ask, but who are you, which "well-orchestrated gang" tried to get you to "shut up", and how does this relate to the CharlotteWebb RFA?
This pat comment to attempt to change the topic and ridicule anyone who has been the target of group bullying on Wikipedia, "giggle," "giggle," "oh conspiracies" has been done too many times to remain effective.
Who is trying to get CW to "shut up", and how is he/she being "bullied"?
Editors and admins do gang up on other editors who disagree with them.
Who is disagreeing with CW, and on what topic?
There is no question that the person who brought up the discussion of this event on Wikipedia would be blocked for some length of time. 48 hours for "tenditious editing." The blocking admin didn't even have to pretend to have a real reason for blocking, simply applied some lame essay to the reasoning. And the usual, "giggle," "wink," "giggle," "oh, the conspiracy theories," "the cabal is back."
If you're an admin and you can't treat people with respect, maybe you could at least pretend you do, or stop sanctimoniously demanding that others act up to standards that you don't adhere to. The whole process on Wikipedia is simply creating a stratified society in which it is clear that those with admin powers consider themselves above and beyond reproach from those without admin powers, so much so, that those with admin powers have no shame about ridiculing the concerns of those without admin powers.
"giggle," "giggle," "oh a conspiracy"
We're here to build an encyclopedia, not enthrone people. Somewhere the project seems to have got off track.
I hate to have to be blunt here, but I have no idea what you are ranting about, or how it relates to the CW RFA.
It has to do with the discussion about cliques of people ganging up on other cliques of people on Wikipedia. It has to do with the various comments on the list whereby people's arguments are dismissed by claims of their crying conspiracy.
You and Slim Virgin have been attacking people for discussing the issue of CW's RFA without answering any questions, attacking people's ability to think (although if you seriously question someone's ability to think and you discuss an issue with them...), people's evoking conspiracy theories in response to the discussion.
If you don't know me, just assume I'm not talking to you.
And if you think I'm ranting, why not treat it like a rant and ignore it? After all, the burden wouldn't logically be on the ranter to ignore it.
KP
Oh, but I'm not surprised to learn you didn't actually read anyone's questions on the issues, other than to rant back at the guy you accused of conpiring against and attacking you. For all you said, that you didn't actually read anyone's questions doesn't surprise me at all.
Huh? I read the questions. I even read your statement that "Well, common sense and the willingness of one lone wolf admin to spend 5 hours or reading vitriole and whining came to my defense rather well when I was being attacked by one of these cliques just this week. In the end, these cliques tend to be their own worse enemies."
It's just that it wasn't a question, and I had no idea what you were talking about.
The issue of actually listening and conversing with people just wasn't that important when you've already got power. Nope, that you didn't read any of the questions or concerns raised by people, in between the dismissive giggling exclamations of conspiracies is not surprising at all. It's all pretty solidly established behaviour to get away from an issue raised by someone who has no voice to raise an issue. Well done.
Um, huh? I read the questions, and responded. I dismissed the conspiracy theories, of course, because they were idiotic. Can you explain what you are talking about?
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from editing, and not about the editing per se.
Whoops, there's that conspiracy again. *Which* particular people, and exactly *why* would someone want to prevent them from editing? Which conspiracy theory are we going with at this point?
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call someone on their bad conduct.
I'm sorry to have to ask, but who are you, which "well-orchestrated gang" tried to get you to "shut up", and how does this relate to the CharlotteWebb RFA?
This pat comment to attempt to change the topic and ridicule anyone who has been the target of group bullying on Wikipedia, "giggle," "giggle," "oh conspiracies" has been done too many times to remain effective.
Who is trying to get CW to "shut up", and how is he/she being "bullied"?
Editors and admins do gang up on other editors who disagree with them.
Who is disagreeing with CW, and on what topic?
There is no question that the person who brought up the discussion of this event on Wikipedia would be blocked for some length of time. 48 hours for "tenditious editing." The blocking admin didn't even have to pretend to have a real reason for blocking, simply applied some lame essay to the reasoning. And the usual, "giggle," "wink," "giggle," "oh, the conspiracy theories," "the cabal is back."
If you're an admin and you can't treat people with respect, maybe you could at least pretend you do, or stop sanctimoniously demanding that others act up to standards that you don't adhere to. The whole process on Wikipedia is simply creating a stratified society in which it is clear that those with admin powers consider themselves above and beyond reproach from those without admin powers, so much so, that those with admin powers have no shame about ridiculing the concerns of those without admin powers.
"giggle," "giggle," "oh a conspiracy"
We're here to build an encyclopedia, not enthrone people. Somewhere the project seems to have got off track.
I hate to have to be blunt here, but I have no idea what you are ranting about, or how it relates to the CW RFA.
It has to do with the discussion about cliques of people ganging up on other cliques of people on Wikipedia. It has to do with the various comments on the list whereby people's arguments are dismissed by claims of their crying conspiracy.
Huh? Who is involved in the "clique" who "ganged up" on your "clique"?
You and Slim Virgin have been attacking people for discussing the issue of CW's RFA without answering any questions,
No, I've just been dumbfounded at the bizarre conspiracy theories being bandied about.
If you don't know me, just assume I'm not talking to you.
Then why are you responding in this thread, on this topic?
And if you think I'm ranting, why not treat it like a rant and ignore it? After all, the burden wouldn't logically be on the ranter to ignore it.
Maybe I can encourage you to be more coherent, and actually make some sort of comprehensible point or comment.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
And if you think I'm ranting, why not treat it like a rant and ignore it? After all, the burden wouldn't logically be on the ranter to ignore it.
Maybe I can encourage you to be more coherent, and actually make some sort of comprehensible point or comment.
KP made perfect sense to me. I think this is precisely wat was meant: you ridiculing the messenger and pretending not to understand. I've had some experience being bullied in school, and the way you seem to be behaving reminds me very much of school bullies.
Up to and including the "what? *me* bullying? oh *please*! you're seeing ghosts, is all".
Michel
On 6/18/07, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
And if you think I'm ranting, why not treat it like a rant and ignore it? After all, the burden wouldn't logically be on the ranter to ignore it.
Maybe I can encourage you to be more coherent, and actually make some sort of comprehensible point or comment.
KP made perfect sense to me. I think this is precisely wat was meant: you ridiculing the messenger and pretending not to understand.
I'm not "pretending" anything. I have no idea whatsoever what K P is talking about. I don't know what K P thinks was done to her, and I have no idea how it relates to the CW situation.
I've had some experience being bullied in school, and the way you seem to be behaving reminds me very much of school bullies.
And I've seen whining conspiracy-mongers blathering on wikien-l, and the way you seem to be behaving reminds me very much of them.
Up to and including the "what? *me* bullying? oh *please*! you're seeing ghosts, is all".
Up to and including "what? *me* conspiracy-mongering? oh *please*! you're such a bully, that's all.
Now, rather than meaningless rhetoric, maybe *you* can explain exactly what "cliques" and incidents K P was referring to.
You know Jayjg, when you use phrases like "whining conspiracy-mongers blathering on wikien-l", you present me with a choice between thinking that you don't understand how abusive your language is-- or that you do understand.
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
You know Jayjg, when you use phrases like "whining conspiracy-mongers blathering on wikien-l", you present me with a choice between thinking that you don't understand how abusive your language is-- or that you do understand.
Mangoe/Papaya, I'm tired of being abused; tired of you and your WR crew spinning ever more fanciful conspiracy theories with me at the center, or near-center, of some vast web of nefarious deeds, all designed to forward some hideous outcome. It's bad enough that it goes on on WR, but I shouldn't have to put up with it on the wikien-l list.
Go admonish your WR buddies for their unrelenting and horrific abuse, and stop acting the pious hypocrite on this list.
jayjg wrote:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
You know Jayjg, when you use phrases like "whining conspiracy-mongers blathering on wikien-l", you present me with a choice between thinking that you don't understand how abusive your language is-- or that you do understand.
Mangoe/Papaya, I'm tired of being abused; tired of you and your WR crew spinning ever more fanciful conspiracy theories with me at the center, or near-center, of some vast web of nefarious deeds, all designed to forward some hideous outcome. It's bad enough that it goes on on WR, but I shouldn't have to put up with it on the wikien-l list.
Go admonish your WR buddies for their unrelenting and horrific abuse, and stop acting the pious hypocrite on this list.
Jay, it sounds like you believe they should put down the stick first, as you are the true aggrieved party here. Has it occurred to you that they might believe the same thing?
Note that I'm not saying any particular person is right here, any more than I've looked into who started the Hatfield-McCoy thing. I'm just saying that without at least one side deciding to take the high road, these things can go on forever.
William
On 6/18/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
You know Jayjg, when you use phrases like "whining conspiracy-mongers blathering on wikien-l", you present me with a choice between thinking that you don't understand how abusive your language is-- or that you do understand.
Mangoe/Papaya, I'm tired of being abused; tired of you and your WR crew spinning ever more fanciful conspiracy theories with me at the center, or near-center, of some vast web of nefarious deeds, all designed to forward some hideous outcome. It's bad enough that it goes on on WR, but I shouldn't have to put up with it on the wikien-l list.
Go admonish your WR buddies for their unrelenting and horrific abuse, and stop acting the pious hypocrite on this list.
Jay, it sounds like you believe they should put down the stick first, as you are the true aggrieved party here. Has it occurred to you that they might believe the same thing?
Note that I'm not saying any particular person is right here, any more than I've looked into who started the Hatfield-McCoy thing. I'm just saying that without at least one side deciding to take the high road, these things can go on forever.
William
I'm not sure that Jay's in the wrong here, with his actions, in spite of his and Slim giving off an attitude that their position is completely indefensible. I'm more interested in the issues about using check user to gain information about users, then revealing the information at specific times, but not at other times.
If open proxies are bad, editors should be stopped when it is first discovered they are using them--registered editors. And, they should not be selectively revealed in political circumstances.
Also, if this is being revealed under these circumstance, when Charlotte was never investigated for sock puppetry as a check user, what other information about other users is subject to being revealed when it is obtained by those with check user powers?
KP
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
If open proxies are bad, editors should be stopped when it is first discovered they are using them--registered editors. And, they should not be selectively revealed in political circumstances.
"In political circumstances" is a meaningless phrase attempting to somehow tie this incident to both Wikipedia policy, and to various absurd conspiracy theories. *Every* circumstance on Wikipedia is "political" when you view it through the lens of conspiracy and cabal.
Also, if this is being revealed under these circumstance, when Charlotte was never investigated for sock puppetry as a check user, what other information about other users is subject to being revealed when it is obtained by those with check user powers?
Well, I've actually quite often seen CheckUsers mention the ISP an editor is using, which is something that I, of course, have not done here. Revealing *actual* information about editors is covered by the CheckUser policy.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
If open proxies are bad, editors should be stopped when it is first discovered they are using them--registered editors. And, they should not be selectively revealed in political circumstances.
"In political circumstances" is a meaningless phrase attempting to somehow tie this incident to both Wikipedia policy, and to various absurd conspiracy theories. *Every* circumstance on Wikipedia is "political" when you view it through the lens of conspiracy and cabal.
But I don't view it through the lens of conspiracy and cabal. I think most peopls are far too lazy and interested only in themselves to effectively secure a cabal in the first place.
And, adminship is a more powerful position on Wikipedia, it requires candidacy, community approval, questioning and voting:it's more political than regular editing. Regulara editing requires nothing much at all.
Also, if this is being revealed under these circumstance, when Charlotte was never investigated for sock puppetry as a check user, what other information about other users is subject to being revealed when it is obtained by those with check user powers?
Well, I've actually quite often seen CheckUsers mention the ISP an editor is using, which is something that I, of course, have not done here. Revealing *actual* information about editors is covered by the CheckUser policy.
Oh, and is this not allowed to be given, ISPs? And did you confront the person revealing the ISP in those circumstances? IS this supposed to make me feel safer? It seems like a morras of irresponsibility.
KP
On 6/18/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
You know Jayjg, when you use phrases like "whining conspiracy-mongers blathering on wikien-l", you present me with a choice between thinking that you don't understand how abusive your language is-- or that you do understand.
Mangoe/Papaya, I'm tired of being abused; tired of you and your WR crew spinning ever more fanciful conspiracy theories with me at the center, or near-center, of some vast web of nefarious deeds, all designed to forward some hideous outcome. It's bad enough that it goes on on WR, but I shouldn't have to put up with it on the wikien-l list.
Go admonish your WR buddies for their unrelenting and horrific abuse, and stop acting the pious hypocrite on this list.
Jay, it sounds like you believe they should put down the stick first, as you are the true aggrieved party here. Has it occurred to you that they might believe the same thing?
I never picked up a stick, William. The sordid history of the creation of WR has little to do with any real actions on Wikipedia.
jayjg wrote:
Jay, it sounds like you believe they should put down the stick first, as you are the true aggrieved party here. Has it occurred to you that they might believe the same thing?
I never picked up a stick, William. The sordid history of the creation of WR has little to do with any real actions on Wikipedia.
I was speaking metaphorically, Jay. I was referring to the tone of discussion. In the part of my post you snipped, you were replying to someone who took offense at what you said, and I think you'd agree that your comments weren't particularly cordial. I'm sure that was in response to some equally unfriendly things said to you. And I'm sure they feel their statements were justified by some previous offense.
I'm not taking sides in this. I'm just saying that whatever the rightness or wrongness, that no matter who started it, you have the power to stop these long acrimonious exchanges.
William
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
You know Jayjg, when you use phrases like "whining conspiracy-mongers blathering on wikien-l", you present me with a choice between thinking that you don't understand how abusive your language is-- or that you do understand.
Mangoe/Papaya, I'm tired of being abused; tired of you and your WR crew spinning ever more fanciful conspiracy theories with me at the center, or near-center, of some vast web of nefarious deeds, all designed to forward some hideous outcome. It's bad enough that it goes on on WR, but I shouldn't have to put up with it on the wikien-l list.
Go admonish your WR buddies for their unrelenting and horrific abuse, and stop acting the pious hypocrite on this list.
Jayjg: Even if you're in the right, you sure don't sound very good when you talk like this.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
You know Jayjg, when you use phrases like "whining conspiracy-mongers blathering on wikien-l", you present me with a choice between thinking that you don't understand how abusive your language is-- or that you do understand.
Mangoe/Papaya, I'm tired of being abused; tired of you and your WR crew spinning ever more fanciful conspiracy theories with me at the center, or near-center, of some vast web of nefarious deeds, all designed to forward some hideous outcome. It's bad enough that it goes on on WR, but I shouldn't have to put up with it on the wikien-l list.
And you aren't having to put up with it, as far as I can tell, unless someone else here uses a different name on WR that I don't know about, which is certainly possible. Part of the problem here is that you persist in inflating a naggling concern about privacy and power, coupled with questions about something you did, into a vendetta on the part of your favorite villains. As best I can tell, they aren't important here except as someone you need to be able to ban should they reappear.
Your exaggerations here simply point back to the same thing: you aren't acting like someone whom I would trust, so I can see why CW would have preferred to edit through TOR. Part of me makes me think I ought to abandom my own user name, except I suspect there would be an attempt to try to ferret out the various IPs I would then use and tie them together into a single user, to be exposed publicly in some admin action.
Taking privacy seriously means not delving into someone's reasons for that privacy too much. Right now the only substantial rationale is that of identifying sockpuppets, which I sort of understand, but also think is probably not as necessary as is being claimed. For an admin with a named account, I just don't see the risk. The powers are attached to the name, so taking away the powers has nothing to do with the IP.
on 6/18/07 8:45 AM, The Mangoe at the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
You know Jayjg, when you use phrases like "whining conspiracy-mongers blathering on wikien-l", you present me with a choice between thinking that you don't understand how abusive your language is-- or that you do understand.
Yes to both: A very noisy, aggressive offense can mask a truly weak defense.
Marc
On 6/18/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 6/18/07 8:45 AM, The Mangoe at the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
You know Jayjg, when you use phrases like "whining conspiracy-mongers blathering on wikien-l", you present me with a choice between thinking that you don't understand how abusive your language is-- or that you do understand.
Yes to both: A very noisy, aggressive offense can mask a truly weak defense.
Marc
Yes, and sometimes simply no defense.
KP
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
KP made perfect sense to me. I think this is precisely wat was meant:
you
ridiculing the messenger and pretending not to understand.
I'm not "pretending" anything. I have no idea whatsoever what K P is talking about. I don't know what K P thinks was done to her, and I have no idea how it relates to the CW situation.
I've had some experience being bullied in school, and the way you seem
to be
behaving reminds me very much of school bullies.
And I've seen whining conspiracy-mongers blathering on wikien-l, and the way you seem to be behaving reminds me very much of them.
...and here is where I bow out.
Which is, incidentally, exactly what I'd advise my kids to do if confronted with similar behaviour in school.
Cheers,
Michel Vuijlsteke
Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I've had some experience being bullied in school, and the way you seem to be
behaving reminds me very much of school bullies.
And I've seen whining conspiracy-mongers blathering on wikien-l, and the way you seem to be behaving reminds me very much of them.
...and here is where I bow out.
Which is, incidentally, exactly what I'd advise my kids to do if confronted with similar behaviour in school.
One of the problems with school bullying is not just the bully and his supporting associates. It's also those who just hang around for the entertainment value. The bullies love having an audience; it doesn't matter if the audience sympathizes with the victim as long as they allow it to happen.
Ec
2007/6/18, K P kpbotany@gmail.com:
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call someone on their bad conduct.
This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia.
Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his own opinion about it?
greetings, elian
On 6/18/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
2007/6/18, K P kpbotany@gmail.com:
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call someone on their bad conduct.
This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia.
Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his own opinion about it?
greetings, elian
It's on my talk page, links galore. However, let's discuss it there if you want to discuss it, but it's done and over with, other than it was another case where people asked questions and were ganged up on in response with their questions and concerns raised being ignored in the ensuing fracas--a typical Wikipedia situation when admins behave badly and they're supported by the rest of their clique.
Wikipedia has a huge audience, it's time it was run with a bit of responsiblity. And no part of that include people raising legitimate concerns about how Wikipedia is run and by whom, and being met with mobbing behaviour (great little new article).
It makes us look silly. It looses issues. It creates new ones and reactionary stances that may not be so well thought out. Simpy treating issues that raise legitimate concerns with respect and dealing with the issues instead of resorting to ganging up on those raising the issues would go a long way.
The issues raised about Jay were concerning his access to tools that gave him information (and Slim Virgin it appears) that others do not have access to. Both Slim and Jay revealed this information in RfAs, a politically charged and unpolite process currently on Wikipedia. Both revealed this information in RfAs, while now claiming that using open proxies is harmful to Wikipedia. But neither brought this up to editors in good standing, editors who make valuable contributions to Wikipedia (and vandal fighting is necessary, therefore valuable, so please don't disparage the work other editors do), outside the RfAs. If it is so harmful to use open proxies on Wikipedia, editors in good standing should be explicitly warned against using them, then blocked should they continue using them.
If the policy is going to be enforced, don't enforce it at politically charged times only. Enforce it all of the time. Especially if it is as harmful to Wikipedia as Slim has said it is.
KP Botany
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
2007/6/18, K P kpbotany@gmail.com:
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call someone on their bad conduct.
This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia.
Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his own opinion about it?
greetings, elian
It's on my talk page, links galore.
But what is your editing name????? Where is your Talk: page?????
The issues raised about Jay were concerning his access to tools that gave him information (and Slim Virgin it appears) that others do not have access to.
Evidence?
Both Slim and Jay revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
Both revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
If the policy is going to be enforced, don't enforce it at politically charged times only. Enforce it all of the time.
I do enforce it all the time. As I said, I block every open proxy I come across. I've blocked dozens, perhaps hundreds. And *every* time is politically charge on Wikipedia; frankly, especially now, when people are letting bizarre conspiracy theories fly at the drop of the hat, egged on by the banned trolls and WR, and other editors who make all sorts of opaque and unsubstantiated claims, then refuse to explain what they mean or back them up. And the latter refers to you, KP Botany.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
2007/6/18, K P kpbotany@gmail.com:
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call someone on their bad conduct.
This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia.
Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his own opinion about it?
greetings, elian
It's on my talk page, links galore.
But what is your editing name????? Where is your Talk: page?????
The issues raised about Jay were concerning his access to tools that gave him information (and Slim Virgin it appears) that others do not have access to.
Evidence?
Both Slim and Jay revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
Both revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
If the policy is going to be enforced, don't enforce it at politically charged times only. Enforce it all of the time.
I do enforce it all the time. As I said, I block every open proxy I come across. I've blocked dozens, perhaps hundreds. And *every* time is politically charge on Wikipedia; frankly, especially now, when people are letting bizarre conspiracy theories fly at the drop of the hat, egged on by the banned trolls and WR, and other editors who make all sorts of opaque and unsubstantiated claims, then refuse to explain what they mean or back them up. And the latter refers to you, KP Botany.
I do back up my claims. I send them in to the list all the time, just for you, all my little AfD links, like the assertion that American Polygraph Association should be deleted because it's not notable, like Rock climbing for deletion.
There are no opaque and unsubstantiated claims coming from me on this issue. I am asking questions, because I think the issue goes further than just you defending your actions. I want to know what else is subject to revelation by users with access to check user tools. I want to know if my privacy will be invaded in a fly by, when someone else is subject to check user and my account shows up. I wasn't worried about check user when I was not ever subject to it--but CW was not subject to check user and she should have been concerned about what about her would have been revealed. The attached privacy policy is misleading.
KP
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
2007/6/18, K P kpbotany@gmail.com:
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call someone on their bad conduct.
This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia.
Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his own opinion about it?
greetings, elian
It's on my talk page, links galore.
But what is your editing name????? Where is your Talk: page?????
The issues raised about Jay were concerning his access to tools that gave him information (and Slim Virgin it appears) that others do not have access to.
Evidence?
Both Slim and Jay revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
Both revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
If the policy is going to be enforced, don't enforce it at politically charged times only. Enforce it all of the time.
I do enforce it all the time. As I said, I block every open proxy I come across. I've blocked dozens, perhaps hundreds. And *every* time is politically charge on Wikipedia; frankly, especially now, when people are letting bizarre conspiracy theories fly at the drop of the hat, egged on by the banned trolls and WR, and other editors who make all sorts of opaque and unsubstantiated claims, then refuse to explain what they mean or back them up. And the latter refers to you, KP Botany.
I do back up my claims. I send them in to the list all the time, just for you, all my little AfD links, like the assertion that American Polygraph Association should be deleted because it's not notable, like Rock climbing for deletion.
What is your editing name, where is your Talk: page?
There are no opaque and unsubstantiated claims coming from me on this issue.
You claimed, more than once, that SlimVirgin had access to, and had revealed, CheckUser information. What substantiation do you have for that claim?
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
2007/6/18, K P kpbotany@gmail.com:
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call someone on their bad conduct.
This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia.
Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his own opinion about it?
greetings, elian
It's on my talk page, links galore.
But what is your editing name????? Where is your Talk: page?????
The issues raised about Jay were concerning his access to tools that gave him information (and Slim Virgin it appears) that others do not have access to.
Evidence?
Both Slim and Jay revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
Both revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
If the policy is going to be enforced, don't enforce it at politically charged times only. Enforce it all of the time.
I do enforce it all the time. As I said, I block every open proxy I come across. I've blocked dozens, perhaps hundreds. And *every* time is politically charge on Wikipedia; frankly, especially now, when people are letting bizarre conspiracy theories fly at the drop of the hat, egged on by the banned trolls and WR, and other editors who make all sorts of opaque and unsubstantiated claims, then refuse to explain what they mean or back them up. And the latter refers to you, KP Botany.
I do back up my claims. I send them in to the list all the time, just for you, all my little AfD links, like the assertion that American Polygraph Association should be deleted because it's not notable, like Rock climbing for deletion.
What is your editing name, where is your Talk: page?
There are no opaque and unsubstantiated claims coming from me on this issue.
You claimed, more than once, that SlimVirgin had access to, and had revealed, CheckUser information. What substantiation do you have for that claim?
Not a claim, I thought she was the one who asked Armedblowfish why he edited through a tor account?
KP
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
2007/6/18, K P kpbotany@gmail.com:
> I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a > well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being > funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to > get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call > someone on their bad conduct. > > This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia.
Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his own opinion about it?
greetings, elian
It's on my talk page, links galore.
But what is your editing name????? Where is your Talk: page?????
The issues raised about Jay were concerning his access to tools that gave him information (and Slim Virgin it appears) that others do not have access to.
Evidence?
Both Slim and Jay revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
Both revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
If the policy is going to be enforced, don't enforce it at politically charged times only. Enforce it all of the time.
I do enforce it all the time. As I said, I block every open proxy I come across. I've blocked dozens, perhaps hundreds. And *every* time is politically charge on Wikipedia; frankly, especially now, when people are letting bizarre conspiracy theories fly at the drop of the hat, egged on by the banned trolls and WR, and other editors who make all sorts of opaque and unsubstantiated claims, then refuse to explain what they mean or back them up. And the latter refers to you, KP Botany.
I do back up my claims. I send them in to the list all the time, just for you, all my little AfD links, like the assertion that American Polygraph Association should be deleted because it's not notable, like Rock climbing for deletion.
What is your editing name, where is your Talk: page?
There are no opaque and unsubstantiated claims coming from me on this issue.
You claimed, more than once, that SlimVirgin had access to, and had revealed, CheckUser information. What substantiation do you have for that claim?
Not a claim, I thought she was the one who asked Armedblowfish why he edited through a tor account?
No, *I* was the person who did so. That's what this is all about. I would have hoped you would at least have looked at the RFA in question before spouting even more wild accusations.
What did you say your userid was? Where can I find this Talk: page you allege outlines some sort of cabal efforts against you?
On 6/19/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Not a claim, I thought she was the one who asked Armedblowfish why he edited through a tor account?
No, *I* was the person who did so. That's what this is all about. I would have hoped you would at least have looked at the RFA in question before spouting even more wild accusations.
What did you say your userid was? Where can I find this Talk: page you allege outlines some sort of cabal efforts against you?
I think this is the user in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KP_Botany
Johnleemk
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote: > 2007/6/18, K P kpbotany@gmail.com: > > > I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a > > well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being > > funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to > > get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call > > someone on their bad conduct. > > > > This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia. > > Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his > own opinion about it? > > greetings, > elian > It's on my talk page, links galore.
But what is your editing name????? Where is your Talk: page?????
The issues raised about Jay were concerning his access to tools that gave him information (and Slim Virgin it appears) that others do not have access to.
Evidence?
Both Slim and Jay revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
Both revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
If the policy is going to be enforced, don't enforce it at politically charged times only. Enforce it all of the time.
I do enforce it all the time. As I said, I block every open proxy I come across. I've blocked dozens, perhaps hundreds. And *every* time is politically charge on Wikipedia; frankly, especially now, when people are letting bizarre conspiracy theories fly at the drop of the hat, egged on by the banned trolls and WR, and other editors who make all sorts of opaque and unsubstantiated claims, then refuse to explain what they mean or back them up. And the latter refers to you, KP Botany.
I do back up my claims. I send them in to the list all the time, just for you, all my little AfD links, like the assertion that American Polygraph Association should be deleted because it's not notable, like Rock climbing for deletion.
What is your editing name, where is your Talk: page?
There are no opaque and unsubstantiated claims coming from me on this issue.
You claimed, more than once, that SlimVirgin had access to, and had revealed, CheckUser information. What substantiation do you have for that claim?
Not a claim, I thought she was the one who asked Armedblowfish why he edited through a tor account?
No, *I* was the person who did so. That's what this is all about. I would have hoped you would at least have looked at the RFA in question before spouting even more wild accusations.
What did you say your userid was? Where can I find this Talk: page you allege outlines some sort of cabal efforts against you?
It's not a wild accusation, it's just a mistake, and since you already posted a letter to me clearly stating my user name, yawn over the baseless threat. I looked at the Armedblowfish link briefly, and saw that Slim Virgin had asked--so apparently I made a mistake.
Wild accusations, spouting, accuse, accuse accuse.
Okay, back to the subject matter, I guess it's good that only one admin with check user tools is out there revealing private information gained through check user to everyone on Wikipedia.
KP
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote: > On 6/18/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote: > > 2007/6/18, K P kpbotany@gmail.com: > > > > > I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a > > > well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being > > > funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to > > > get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call > > > someone on their bad conduct. > > > > > > This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia. > > > > Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his > > own opinion about it? > > > > greetings, > > elian > > > It's on my talk page, links galore.
But what is your editing name????? Where is your Talk: page?????
> The issues raised about Jay were concerning his access to tools that > gave him information (and Slim Virgin it appears) that others do not > have access to.
Evidence?
> Both Slim and Jay revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
> Both revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
> If the policy is going to be enforced, don't enforce it at politically > charged times only. Enforce it all of the time.
I do enforce it all the time. As I said, I block every open proxy I come across. I've blocked dozens, perhaps hundreds. And *every* time is politically charge on Wikipedia; frankly, especially now, when people are letting bizarre conspiracy theories fly at the drop of the hat, egged on by the banned trolls and WR, and other editors who make all sorts of opaque and unsubstantiated claims, then refuse to explain what they mean or back them up. And the latter refers to you, KP Botany.
I do back up my claims. I send them in to the list all the time, just for you, all my little AfD links, like the assertion that American Polygraph Association should be deleted because it's not notable, like Rock climbing for deletion.
What is your editing name, where is your Talk: page?
There are no opaque and unsubstantiated claims coming from me on this issue.
You claimed, more than once, that SlimVirgin had access to, and had revealed, CheckUser information. What substantiation do you have for that claim?
Not a claim, I thought she was the one who asked Armedblowfish why he edited through a tor account?
No, *I* was the person who did so. That's what this is all about. I would have hoped you would at least have looked at the RFA in question before spouting even more wild accusations.
What did you say your userid was? Where can I find this Talk: page you allege outlines some sort of cabal efforts against you?
It's not a wild accusation, it's just a mistake, and since you already posted a letter to me clearly stating my user name, yawn over the baseless threat. I looked at the Armedblowfish link briefly, and saw that Slim Virgin had asked--so apparently I made a mistake.
Wild accusations, spouting, accuse, accuse accuse.
Okay, back to the subject matter, I guess it's good that only one admin with check user tools is out there revealing private information gained through check user to everyone on Wikipedia.
KP
Oh, and the cabal is yours, not mine. I like clique much better.
KP
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote: > 2007/6/18, K P kpbotany@gmail.com: > > > I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a > > well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being > > funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to > > get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call > > someone on their bad conduct. > > > > This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia. > > Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his > own opinion about it? > > greetings, > elian > It's on my talk page, links galore.
But what is your editing name????? Where is your Talk: page?????
The issues raised about Jay were concerning his access to tools that gave him information (and Slim Virgin it appears) that others do not have access to.
Evidence?
Both Slim and Jay revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
Both revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
If the policy is going to be enforced, don't enforce it at politically charged times only. Enforce it all of the time.
I do enforce it all the time. As I said, I block every open proxy I come across. I've blocked dozens, perhaps hundreds. And *every* time is politically charge on Wikipedia; frankly, especially now, when people are letting bizarre conspiracy theories fly at the drop of the hat, egged on by the banned trolls and WR, and other editors who make all sorts of opaque and unsubstantiated claims, then refuse to explain what they mean or back them up. And the latter refers to you, KP Botany.
I do back up my claims. I send them in to the list all the time, just for you, all my little AfD links, like the assertion that American Polygraph Association should be deleted because it's not notable, like Rock climbing for deletion.
What is your editing name, where is your Talk: page?
There are no opaque and unsubstantiated claims coming from me on this issue.
You claimed, more than once, that SlimVirgin had access to, and had revealed, CheckUser information. What substantiation do you have for that claim?
Not a claim, I thought she was the one who asked Armedblowfish why he edited through a tor account?
No, *I* was the person who did so. That's what this is all about. I would have hoped you would at least have looked at the RFA in question before spouting even more wild accusations.
What did you say your userid was? Where can I find this Talk: page you allege outlines some sort of cabal efforts against you?
Gee, what was I thinking:
Optional question from SlimVirgin 4. Hi, ABF. Can you say why you're editing via open proxies? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish
Not surprising simply another diversion for the real issue: the information IS private, only those with check user tools do have access to it.
So, what other information is private, but isn't private because those with check user tools can reveal it at will, and will do or desperately say anything to limit discussion of their revealing this privately gained information, privately gained while they are held in a position of trust, armed with tools that reveal this information?
Slim Virgin asked the question, either it was already openly known that Armedblowfish edited through open proxies or Slim Virgin revealed it. Take your pick, it doesn't change the first set of questions. Nothing you Jay or Slim have attempted to use to gloss over answering it has done that.
I'm a member of the community and I want to know what information about me can be gained incidently through check user and then is not considered private and may be revealed?
KP
On 0, K P kpbotany@gmail.com scribbled: [3~>
Gee, what was I thinking:
Optional question from SlimVirgin 4. Hi, ABF. Can you say why you're editing via open proxies? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish
Not surprising simply another diversion for the real issue: the information IS private, only those with check user tools do have access to it.
So, what other information is private, but isn't private because those with check user tools can reveal it at will, and will do or desperately say anything to limit discussion of their revealing this privately gained information, privately gained while they are held in a position of trust, armed with tools that reveal this information?
Slim Virgin asked the question, either it was already openly known that Armedblowfish edited through open proxies or Slim Virgin revealed it. Take your pick, it doesn't change the first set of questions. Nothing you Jay or Slim have attempted to use to gloss over answering it has done that.
...
KP
It was the former. Armedblowfish (and myself to a much lesser extent) were hit hard when Jayg and company recently cracked down on TOR nodes, and had often gone around complaining about it both on and off-wiki.
-- gwern (M56) Field Security Division (M52) Al Amn al-Askari Supreme Assembly of the
On 6/18/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 0, K P kpbotany@gmail.com scribbled: [3~>
Gee, what was I thinking:
Optional question from SlimVirgin 4. Hi, ABF. Can you say why you're editing via open proxies? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish
Not surprising simply another diversion for the real issue: the information IS private, only those with check user tools do have access to it.
So, what other information is private, but isn't private because those with check user tools can reveal it at will, and will do or desperately say anything to limit discussion of their revealing this privately gained information, privately gained while they are held in a position of trust, armed with tools that reveal this information?
Slim Virgin asked the question, either it was already openly known that Armedblowfish edited through open proxies or Slim Virgin revealed it. Take your pick, it doesn't change the first set of questions. Nothing you Jay or Slim have attempted to use to gloss over answering it has done that.
...
KP
It was the former. Armedblowfish (and myself to a much lesser extent) were hit hard when Jayg and company recently cracked down on TOR nodes, and had often gone around complaining about it both on and off-wiki.
-- gwern (M56) Field Security Division (M52) Al Amn al-Askari Supreme Assembly of the
Thanks for the information.
KP
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a member of the community and I want to know what information about me can be gained incidently through check user and then is not considered private and may be revealed?
If somebody requested a checkuser on you, policy would explicitly allow me to reveal: (a) your use of a large national or multinational ISP, such as AOL, NTL, BT, Telestra (b) the country you're dialing in from
Use of a Tor proxy falls into the same sort of category, and has been generally treated that way (as have all open proxies). No personally identifying information can be gleaned from such revelations; in fact, less is revealed than in the explicitly permitted data. The purpose of restricting information obtained via Checkuser is to prevent personally identifying information from being released; releasing such information can be downright dangerous to the editor thus revealed, especially if they happen to reside in an authoritarian or worse country. There is no such risk in revealing the use of open proxies; the whole point of Tor is to prevent such risk, and it does so pretty well, from what I can tell. In CW's case, all we know is that some editor who goes by the label Charlotte Webb (a wonderful name) is one of hundreds of thousands of Tor users; there's no way to know from that who or what CW is in real life.
Josh Gordon wrote:
If somebody requested a checkuser on you, policy would explicitly allow me to reveal: (a) your use of a large national or multinational ISP, such as AOL, NTL, BT, Telestra (b) the country you're dialing in from
Use of a Tor proxy falls into the same sort of category, and has been generally treated that way (as have all open proxies).
I confess that I haven't followed the CharlotteWebb thing closely. Did anybody request a CheckUser on them?
Maybe all of my years of being bound by various confidentiality agreements has made me more sensitive than most, but it seems to me that giving out even apparently harmless information learned about person Y when doing a CheckUser on person X would be inappropriate.
Thanks,
William
On 6/18/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Josh Gordon wrote:
If somebody requested a checkuser on you, policy would explicitly allow me to reveal: (a) your use of a large national or multinational ISP, such as AOL, NTL, BT, Telestra (b) the country you're dialing in from
Use of a Tor proxy falls into the same sort of category, and has been generally treated that way (as have all open proxies).
I confess that I haven't followed the CharlotteWebb thing closely. Did anybody request a CheckUser on them?
Maybe all of my years of being bound by various confidentiality agreements has made me more sensitive than most, but it seems to me that giving out even apparently harmless information learned about person Y when doing a CheckUser on person X would be inappropriate.
Thanks,
William
Yes, in general in privacy agreements giving out information about Y learned while doing a check on X is not allowed. That Wikipedia has a different sort of privacy agreement is a matter of concern for me, because their privacy policy appears to be written only towards specifically protecting the privacy of the person who was being checked.
KP
On 18/06/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Maybe all of my years of being bound by various confidentiality agreements has made me more sensitive than most, but it seems to me that giving out even apparently harmless information learned about person Y when doing a CheckUser on person X would be inappropriate.
Pretty much. I put the line in the how-to about "when in doubt, imitate a Magic 8-Ball."
- d.
On 6/18/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a member of the community and I want to know what information about me can be gained incidently through check user and then is not considered private and may be revealed?
If somebody requested a checkuser on you, policy would explicitly allow me to reveal: (a) your use of a large national or multinational ISP, such as AOL, NTL, BT, Telestra (b) the country you're dialing in from
Use of a Tor proxy falls into the same sort of category, and has been generally treated that way (as have all open proxies). No personally identifying information can be gleaned from such revelations; in fact, less is revealed than in the explicitly permitted data. The purpose of restricting information obtained via Checkuser is to prevent personally identifying information from being released; releasing such information can be downright dangerous to the editor thus revealed, especially if they happen to reside in an authoritarian or worse country. There is no such risk in revealing the use of open proxies; the whole point of Tor is to prevent such risk, and it does so pretty well, from what I can tell. In CW's case, all we know is that some editor who goes by the label Charlotte Webb (a wonderful name) is one of hundreds of thousands of Tor users; there's no way to know from that who or what CW is in real life.
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆
Thanks for the straight answer with details.
KP
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
> Both Slim and Jay revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
> Both revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
Gee, what was I thinking:
Optional question from SlimVirgin 4. Hi, ABF. Can you say why you're editing via open proxies? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish
Slim Virgin asked the question, either it was already openly known that Armedblowfish edited through open proxies or Slim Virgin revealed it.
Armedblowfish ran for admin because he was using TOR proxies; that was the whole point of his adminship run. It's the third paragraph of the nomination statement.
On 6/18/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
2007/6/18, K P kpbotany@gmail.com:
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call someone on their bad conduct.
This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia.
Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his own opinion about it?
I'd like to see some evidence too so we can judge the case for ourselves.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
2007/6/18, K P kpbotany@gmail.com:
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call someone on their bad conduct.
This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia.
Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his own opinion about it?
I'd like to see some evidence too so we can judge the case for ourselves.
Judge whatever you want, the evidence is all in my edit history and much on my talk page. But it's dead, just another dead case of bullying, where the bullies won some of what they wanted, didn't win everything.
Just go right ahead and bring it up on my talk page, if you like. I would love to get some last words in on the matter, and adding some more heated discussors to the fracas might make it interesting.
Or just let it die the death it's already recieved.
If you do decide to fan the flames, I may not respond right away as I have some work to do this week, just got a late shipment of canvas that needs stretching.
KP