Could the whole discussion on Erik issues over Mother Teresa MOVE to the english list where it is relevant
WHILE
The whole discussion on watch list issues move from the english list to the general list, where it is relevant
OR
could we just swap mailing list names since discussions relevant on english matter are on the general list, while discussions relevant to the whole community are on the english list ?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
--- Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com wrote:
Could the whole discussion on Erik issues over Mother Teresa MOVE to the english list where it is relevant
WHILE
The whole discussion on watch list issues move from the english list to the general list, where it is relevant
I agree. Right now, it seems like Wikipedia-l is used exactly like WikiEN-l except with 1/10 of the traffic.
OR
could we just swap mailing list names since discussions relevant on english matter are on the general list, while discussions relevant to the whole community are on the english list ?
Yeah, that might work, but I prefer the first. There are probably some people on the Wikipedia-l list who don't want to be on the WikiEN-l list. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
What the heck is the "general" list?
RickK
Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com wrote: Could the whole discussion on Erik issues over Mother Teresa MOVE to the english list where it is relevant
WHILE
The whole discussion on watch list issues move from the english list to the general list, where it is relevant
OR
could we just swap mailing list names since discussions relevant on english matter are on the general list, while discussions relevant to the whole community are on the english list ?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
Several new users with no edit history have suddenly ganged together at the [[Fallujah]] article, demanding some sort of disclaimer that Wikipedia/Bomis is somehow associated with the United States Marine Corps and therefore cannot be neutral in editing such articles as Fallujah. It's pretty obvious that they're sock puppets for some previously-known User (maybe Bird?) with an axe to grind, but the discussion at [[Talk:Fallujah]] is instructive.
RickK, who is not involved in the slightest in the article's editing
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
So, I can't help but wonder, *is* Bomis somehow associated with the United States Marine Corps?
-- Sam Kennedy
----- Original Message ----- From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Fallujah]] To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org
Several new users with no edit history have suddenly ganged together at the [[Fallujah]] article, demanding some sort of disclaimer that Wikipedia/Bomis is somehow associated with the United States Marine Corps and therefore cannot be neutral in editing such articles as Fallujah. It's pretty obvious that they're sock puppets for some previously-known User (maybe Bird?) with an axe to grind, but the discussion at [[Talk:Fallujah]] is instructive.
RickK, who is not involved in the slightest in the article's editing
________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
Samuel Kennedy wrote:
So, I can't help but wonder, *is* Bomis somehow associated with the United States Marine Corps?
So if Jimbo were the chief Marine Rambo, so what? He doesn't edit that article (about any article, that is), nor do his employees, AFAIK.
Magnus
-- Sam Kennedy
----- Original Message ----- From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Fallujah]] To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org
Several new users with no edit history have suddenly ganged together at the [[Fallujah]] article, demanding some sort of disclaimer that Wikipedia/Bomis is somehow associated with the United States Marine Corps and therefore cannot be neutral in editing such articles as Fallujah. It's pretty obvious that they're sock puppets for some previously-known User (maybe Bird?) with an axe to grind, but the discussion at [[Talk:Fallujah]] is instructive.
RickK, who is not involved in the slightest in the article's editing
________________________________Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Samuel Kennedy wrote:
So, I can't help but wonder, *is* Bomis somehow associated with the United States Marine Corps?
Not in any way at all that I can think of, no.
The accusation seems to run as follows...
Jerk Sauce, which is a blog written by Tim Shell, who manages the content of Bomis, links to the blogs Command Post and Tim Blair. Those blogs, in turn, run advertisements from the blogsads.com syndication agency. One advertiser for blogads.com is Spirit of America.
Spirit of America is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization which raises money which is used to assist members of the military channel goods to help local people where they are serving. A typical example would be baseball and school supplies for a village in Iraq.
I fail to see how this set of facts could possibly warrant any sort of disclaimer. Bomis hosts a blog which links to other blogs, which run ads for a charity, which assists members of the military. Even if the Bomis blog itself directly raised money for the military, which it absolutely does not, even then no disclosure would be warranted on the article.
My own philosophical and political convictions are well-known. Many Wikipedians will disagree with me on political issues, but no rational person could conclude that I have in any way sought to impose my POV on the Wikipedia in anyway. Indeed, one of the reasons that I so seldom edit is precisely to eliminate even any appearance of impropriety in that regard.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Samuel Kennedy wrote:
So, I can't help but wonder, *is* Bomis somehow associated with the United States Marine Corps?
Not in any way at all that I can think of, no.
The accusation seems to run as follows...
Jerk Sauce, which is a blog written by Tim Shell, who manages the content of Bomis, links to the blogs Command Post and Tim Blair. Those blogs, in turn, run advertisements from the blogsads.com syndication agency. One advertiser for blogads.com is Spirit of America.
Spirit of America is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization which raises money which is used to assist members of the military channel goods to help local people where they are serving. A typical example would be baseball and school supplies for a village in Iraq.
Baseball in Iraq????
I fail to see how this set of facts could possibly warrant any sort of disclaimer. Bomis hosts a blog which links to other blogs, which run ads for a charity, which assists members of the military. Even if the Bomis blog itself directly raised money for the military, which it absolutely does not, even then no disclosure would be warranted on the article.
My own philosophical and political convictions are well-known. Many Wikipedians will disagree with me on political issues, but no rational person could conclude that I have in any way sought to impose my POV on the Wikipedia in anyway. Indeed, one of the reasons that I so seldom edit is precisely to eliminate even any appearance of impropriety in that regard.
Speaking from the left, I've always respected the effort that Jimbo has made to avoid being drawn into these edit conflicts. Without that the entire project would have deteriorated into chaos a long time ago..
I haven't tooked at the Fallujah article, though it is probably already getting more than its share of attention. Trying to rein in highly POV positions across a broad range of articles, and a broad range of issues is ultimately a non-productive endeavour. I've chosen to limit that kind of activity to a few articles of my own selection; that's as much high blood pressure as I can take. There is always plenty of work to be done in less conflicted topics.
The difficulty with Jimbo editing articles is not with his opinions, but the gospel-like quality that some Wikipedians tend to attach to them.
Ec
On Apr 30, 2004, at 7:00 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I fail to see how this set of facts could possibly warrant any sort of disclaimer. Bomis hosts a blog which links to other blogs, which run ads for a charity, which assists members of the military.
Chad gad-yo-o-o-o, chad gad-yo.
;)
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --
Someone calling themself [[User:Enforcer]], who seems to be the same person who was posting on [[Fallujah]] the nonsense about the Bomis/Wikipedia/US Marine Corps connection, is posting the following on several trolls' Talk pages: ([[User talk:JRR Trollkien]], [[User talk:Pooya]] and [[User talk:Plato]])
Because of your determination in opposing anarchy and vigilantism among Wikipedia leadership, you have been selected as a possible complainant against the Wikimedia Foundation for violations of Florida Statutes Title XXXIII, (Regulation of Trade, Commerce, Investments and Solicitations), Chapter 496 (Solicitation of Funds). [http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=...] The act requires any charitable organization in the state of Florida, such as the Wikimedia Foundation, to register [http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Sear...] with that state's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and to disclose [http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Sear...] their activities in annual statements, available to donors and to the public. Wikipedia Foundation has so far attempted to evade the letter and spirit of Florida law by claiming its published solicitations for editorial contributions and cash donations "is not and should not be considered a solicitation to make a donation." The claim is as false as would be the claim of a panhandler on a sidewalk rattling coins a tin cup.Wikimedia Foundation, on links provided from every page, solicit readers to contribute editorial content (edit this page) and to "donate if you can afford it." [http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising] That is a solicitation, regardless the pages attempt to say black is white. You can form your own opinions if a claiming a request to "donate if you can afford it" is not a solicitation is accurate and neutral information, as Wikipedia claims to provide. Florida law states "'Solicitation' means a request, directly or indirectly, for money, property, financial assistance, or any other thing of value on the plea or representation that such money, property, financial assistance, or other thing of value or a portion of it will be used for a charitable or sponsor purpose or will benefit a charitable organization or sponsor. [http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Sear...] Florida law states "'Solicitation' includes, but is not limited to, the following methods of requesting or securing the promise, pledge, or grant of money, property, financial assistance, or any other thing of value: (a) Any oral or written request; (b) Making any announcement to the press, on radio or television, by telephone or telegraph, or by any other communication device concerning an appeal or campaign by or for any charitable organization or sponsor or for any charitable or sponsor purpose; (c) Distributing, circulating, posting, or publishing any handbill, written advertisement, or other publication that directly or by implication seeks to obtain any contribution; [http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Sear...] Wikipedia Foundation solicits cash donations, in-kind donations of editorial services and in-kind donations of technical services. You may either personally and directly pursue prosecution of Wikipedia Foundation by contacting the Florida Division of Consumer Services of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. [http://www.800helpfla.com/~cs/complnt.html], and may verify Wikimedia Foundation's lack of compliance at the Division's on-line charitable organizations reporting page [http://www.800helpfla.com/~cs/gift_givers/search.html]. You may make an on-line complaint to the Division at [http://www.800helpfla.com/~cs/ccform.html http://www.800helpfla.com/~cs/ccform.html]. Thank you for your interest in protecting the integrity of human knowledge, and for whatever interest you might develop in upholding the rule of law regarding charitable contributions, and compliance with the law among rouge on-line charitable organizations.
Kindly, [[User:Enforcer|Enforcer]]
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
Well, we are registered, and we do make annual reports, except that of course is hasn't been one year yet. So yes, this is nonsense.
--Jimbo
Rick wrote:
Someone calling themself [[User:Enforcer]], who seems to be the same person who was posting on [[Fallujah]] the nonsense about the Bomis/Wikipedia/US Marine Corps connection, is posting the following on several trolls' Talk pages: ([[User talk:JRR Trollkien]], [[User talk:Pooya]] and [[User talk:Plato]])
Because of your determination in opposing anarchy and vigilantism among Wikipedia leadership, you have been selected as a possible complainant against the Wikimedia Foundation for violations of Florida Statutes Title XXXIII, (Regulation of Trade, Commerce, Investments and Solicitations), Chapter 496 (Solicitation of Funds). [http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=...] The act requires any charitable organization in the state of Florida, such as the Wikimedia Foundation, to register [http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Sear...] with that state's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and to disclose [http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Sear...] their activities in annual statements, available to donors and to the public. Wikipedia Foundation has so far attempted to evade the letter and spirit of Florida law by claiming its published solicitations for editorial contributions and cash donations "is not and should not be considered a solicitation to make a donation." The claim is as false as would be the claim of a panhandler on a sidewalk rattling coins a tin cup.Wikimedia Foundation, on links provided from every page, solicit readers to contribute editorial content (edit this page) and to "donate if you can afford it." [http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising] That is a solicitation, regardless the pages attempt to say black is white. You can form your own opinions if a claiming a request to "donate if you can afford it" is not a solicitation is accurate and neutral information, as Wikipedia claims to provide. Florida law states "'Solicitation' means a request, directly or indirectly, for money, property, financial assistance, or any other thing of value on the plea or representation that such money, property, financial assistance, or other thing of value or a portion of it will be used for a charitable or sponsor purpose or will benefit a charitable organization or sponsor. [http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Sear...] Florida law states "'Solicitation' includes, but is not limited to, the following methods of requesting or securing the promise, pledge, or grant of money, property, financial assistance, or any other thing of value: (a) Any oral or written request; (b) Making any announcement to the press, on radio or television, by telephone or telegraph, or by any other communication device concerning an appeal or campaign by or for any charitable organization or sponsor or for any charitable or sponsor purpose; (c) Distributing, circulating, posting, or publishing any handbill, written advertisement, or other publication that directly or by implication seeks to obtain any contribution; [http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Sear...] Wikipedia Foundation solicits cash donations, in-kind donations of editorial services and in-kind donations of technical services. You may either personally and directly pursue prosecution of Wikipedia Foundation by contacting the Florida Division of Consumer Services of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. [http://www.800helpfla.com/~cs/complnt.html], and may verify Wikimedia Foundation's lack of compliance at the Division's on-line charitable organizations reporting page [http://www.800helpfla.com/~cs/gift_givers/search.html]. You may make an on-line complaint to the Division at [http://www.800helpfla.com/~cs/ccform.html http://www.800helpfla.com/~cs/ccform.html]. Thank you for your interest in protecting the integrity of human knowledge, and for whatever interest you might develop in upholding the rule of law regarding charitable contributions, and compliance with the law among rouge on-line charitable organizations.
Kindly, [[User:Enforcer|Enforcer]]
RickK
Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, the trolls have driven off another valuable contributor. [[User:Tannin]] is gone. See his User page for the reasons.
If we DO NOT get our act together and make it more difficult for the trolls and hatemongers to post, instead of bending over backwards to make it easier, Wikipedia is doomed.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
I entered the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RickK vs. Guanaco]] in order to deal with the problem of Guanaco repeatedly making unilateral unblocks of blocked users. This problem finally came to a head when he was not only unblocking Michael, even though Jimbo had asked him not to, but he was reverting my reversions and deletions of Michael's creations under Mike Grant even though this was in contravention of the decision that Michael was on hard ban and immediate revert. Five members of the arbitration committee accepted the arbitration.
Instead, this arbitration has turned into an ad hominem attack on me personally, and has been perverted into having nothing to do with Guanaco's actions, but entirely about me. Fred Bauder, a member of the arbitration committee, has not only manufactured evidence which is not germane to the situation, but actively participates in the creation of information attacking me which has nothing to do even with me OR Guanaco. I have asked him to recuse himself from the arbitration because of his collusion in this manufacturing of false evidence, but he has refused. Instead, he has posted Jimbo's letter to the mailing list announcing his decision to unban Michael. This mailing came after the creation of my request for arbitration and after Guanaco's unilateral unblockings, and therefore is irrelevant. He is not only allowing, but encouraging, people not associated with the arbitration to post information which has no bearing on the arbitration, and when I attempted to delete it, he repeatedly re-posted it. As I said, with the active participation of Fred Bauder, the arbitration has become a completely different situation from what was voted on. To my thinking, this means that the members of the arbitration committee should be requested to re-vote on whether or not to hear the case, since what they voted on is not what the case has turned into.
I have repeatedly said that the arbitration process does not work. The ONE previous time in which I bothered to participate, not only was the person against whom the arbitration was asked for (Wik) allowed off without so much as a slap on the wrist, but Hephaestos and I, the people who requested the arbitration in the first place, were admonished for our "bad behavior". I vowed never to participate in the arbitration process again, but Guanaco's outrageous behavior caused me to rethink my position.
Seeing how the process has become perverted into something it was not meant to be, I will once again say that I will no longer participate in this process, and I hereby repudiate the case which has my name on it, until such as time as Fred Bauder recuses himself and either the so-called evidence page is turned into evidence about the case that the members of the committee voted to hear, or they are allowed to take a revote.
For the final time, I will no longer participate in this process. It is not only unworkable, but too easily perverted into what it was not intended to be.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
Rick wrote:
I entered the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RickK vs. Guanaco]] in order to deal with the problem of Guanaco repeatedly making unilateral unblocks of blocked users. This problem finally came to a head when he was not only unblocking Michael, even though Jimbo had asked him not to, but he was reverting my reversions and deletions of Michael's creations under Mike Grant even though this was in contravention of the decision that Michael was on hard ban and immediate revert.
I don't understand this. Michael was explicitly unbanned. The account [[User:Mike Grant]] was created in order to allow him to make edits again, and everybody was explicitly asked *not* to revert him (except, of course, whenever he posts rubbish).
I don't know how the arbitration went, and I have no interest in looking at it to find out, but clearly your initial request for arbitration against Guanaco, who did was Jimbo *did* ask us to do, was pointless. And I'm saying that solely from the contents of your e-mail; I haven't checked (and can't be bothered to check) whether it really was Guanaco who unbanned him, and when, and anything else.
Timwi
My mistake. I wrote Mike Grant, it's really Mike Garcia.
The problem is that Jimbo's unblocking occurred AFTER Guanaco's actions, and while Jimbo still had a message on Mike Garcia's user page saying that he had NOT been unbanned and should not be posting. Note that five members of the arbitration committee voted to hear the case.
RickK
Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote: I don't understand this. Michael was explicitly unbanned. The account [[User:Mike Grant]] was created in order to allow him to make edits again, and everybody was explicitly asked *not* to revert him (except, of course, whenever he posts rubbish).
I don't know how the arbitration went, and I have no interest in looking at it to find out, but clearly your initial request for arbitration against Guanaco, who did was Jimbo *did* ask us to do, was pointless. And I'm saying that solely from the contents of your e-mail; I haven't checked (and can't be bothered to check) whether it really was Guanaco who unbanned him, and when, and anything else.
Timwi
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
All this is about is Rickk's attempt to delete evidence, which may or may not be relevant evidence, from the /Evidence page of his arbitration case. Participants in arbitration need to leave whatever others post on the /Evidence page alone. I also put a copy of Jimbo's post regarding Michael in the case for reference. I have never engaged in a dispute with Rickk, to my memory, and have no feeling one way or the other regarding his arbitration case.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 12:58:39 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration
I entered the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RickK vs. Guanaco]] in order to deal with the problem of Guanaco repeatedly making unilateral unblocks of blocked users. This problem finally came to a head when he was not only unblocking Michael, even though Jimbo had asked him not to, but he was reverting my reversions and deletions of Michael's creations under Mike Grant even though this was in contravention of the decision that Michael was on hard ban and immediate revert. Five members of the arbitration committee accepted the arbitration.
Instead, this arbitration has turned into an ad hominem attack on me personally, and has been perverted into having nothing to do with Guanaco's actions, but entirely about me. Fred Bauder, a member of the arbitration committee, has not only manufactured evidence which is not germane to the situation, but actively participates in the creation of information attacking me which has nothing to do even with me OR Guanaco. I have asked him to recuse himself from the arbitration because of his collusion in this manufacturing of false evidence, but he has refused. Instead, he has posted Jimbo's letter to the mailing list announcing his decision to unban Michael. This mailing came after the creation of my request for arbitration and after Guanaco's unilateral unblockings, and therefore is irrelevant. He is not only allowing, but encouraging, people not associated with the arbitration to post information which has no bearing on the arbitration, and when I attempted to delete it, he repeatedly re-posted it. As I said, with the active participation of Fred Bauder, the arbitration has become a completely different situation from what was voted on. To my thinking, this means that the members of the arbitration committee should be requested to re-vote on whether or not to hear the case, since what they voted on is not what the case has turned into.
I have repeatedly said that the arbitration process does not work. The ONE previous time in which I bothered to participate, not only was the person against whom the arbitration was asked for (Wik) allowed off without so much as a slap on the wrist, but Hephaestos and I, the people who requested the arbitration in the first place, were admonished for our "bad behavior". I vowed never to participate in the arbitration process again, but Guanaco's outrageous behavior caused me to rethink my position.
Seeing how the process has become perverted into something it was not meant to be, I will once again say that I will no longer participate in this process, and I hereby repudiate the case which has my name on it, until such as time as Fred Bauder recuses himself and either the so-called evidence page is turned into evidence about the case that the members of the committee voted to hear, or they are allowed to take a revote.
For the final time, I will no longer participate in this process. It is not only unworkable, but too easily perverted into what it was not intended to be.
RickK
Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Are you sure Rick, that the best solution to this case is arbitration rather than mediation ?
After all, what we are dealing here with, is much more a conflict between two different personalities, and between two different approaches of the sysop role, than a conflict with a vandal.
Would not it be solve by discussing with Guanaco first ?
Rick a écrit:
I entered the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RickK vs. Guanaco]] in order to deal with the problem of Guanaco repeatedly making unilateral unblocks of blocked users. This problem finally came to a head when he was not only unblocking Michael, even though Jimbo had asked him not to, but he was reverting my reversions and deletions of Michael's creations under Mike Grant even though this was in contravention of the decision that Michael was on hard ban and immediate revert. Five members of the arbitration committee accepted the arbitration.
Instead, this arbitration has turned into an ad hominem attack on me personally, and has been perverted into having nothing to do with Guanaco's actions, but entirely about me. Fred Bauder, a member of the arbitration committee, has not only manufactured evidence which is not germane to the situation, but actively participates in the creation of information attacking me which has nothing to do even with me OR Guanaco. I have asked him to recuse himself from the arbitration because of his collusion in this manufacturing of false evidence, but he has refused. Instead, he has posted Jimbo's letter to the mailing list announcing his decision to unban Michael. This mailing came after the creation of my request for arbitration and after Guanaco's unilateral unblockings, and therefore is irrelevant. He is not only allowing, but encouraging, people not associated with the arbitration to pos t information which has no bearing on the arbitration, and when I attempted to delete it, he repeatedly re-posted it. As I said, with the active participation of Fred Bauder, the arbitration has become a completely different situation from what was voted on. To my thinking, this means that the members of the arbitration committee should be requested to re-vote on whether or not to hear the case, since what they voted on is not what the case has turned into.
I have repeatedly said that the arbitration process does not work. The ONE previous time in which I bothered to participate, not only was the person against whom the arbitration was asked for (Wik) allowed off without so much as a slap on the wrist, but Hephaestos and I, the people who requested the arbitration in the first place, were admonished for our "bad behavior". I vowed never to participate in the arbitration process again, but Guanaco's outrageous behavior caused me to rethink my position.
Seeing how the process has become perverted into something it was not meant to be, I will once again say that I will no longer participate in this process, and I hereby repudiate the case which has my name on it, until such as time as Fred Bauder recuses himself and either the so-called evidence page is turned into evidence about the case that the members of the committee voted to hear, or they are allowed to take a revote.
For the final time, I will no longer participate in this process. It is not only unworkable, but too easily perverted into what it was not intended to be.
RickK
Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
Every time I have attempted to discuss it with Guanaco, he has deleted my posting off his Talk page without responding.
RickK
Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote: Are you sure Rick, that the best solution to this case is arbitration rather than mediation ?
After all, what we are dealing here with, is much more a conflict between two different personalities, and between two different approaches of the sysop role, than a conflict with a vandal.
Would not it be solve by discussing with Guanaco first ?
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Rick wrote:
Every time I have attempted to discuss it with Guanaco, he has deleted my posting off his Talk page without responding.
RickK
Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote: Are you sure Rick, that the best solution to this case is arbitration rather than mediation ?
After all, what we are dealing here with, is much more a conflict between two different personalities, and between two different approaches of the sysop role, than a conflict with a vandal.
Would not it be solve by discussing with Guanaco first ?
The "attempts" he posted were completely unhelpful and were not real attempts at serious disruption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Guanaco&diff=549389... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Guanaco&diff=549412...
I would be willing to deal with this through mediation, but arbitration has lately become a "second resort" through which every significant dispute is eventually handled.
--Guanaco
Guanaco wrote:
Rick wrote:
Every time I have attempted to discuss it with Guanaco, he has deleted my posting off his Talk page without responding.
RickK
Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote: Are you sure Rick, that the best solution to this case is arbitration rather than mediation ?
After all, what we are dealing here with, is much more a conflict between two different personalities, and between two different approaches of the sysop role, than a conflict with a vandal.
Would not it be solve by discussing with Guanaco first ?
The "attempts" he posted were completely unhelpful and were not real attempts at serious disruption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Guanaco&diff=549389...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Guanaco&diff=549412...
I would be willing to deal with this through mediation, but arbitration has lately become a "second resort" through which every significant dispute is eventually handled.
--Guanaco
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oops, I meant /discussion/, not /disruption/.
--Guanaco
I think, Rick, that it would be really helpful perhaps, if you agreed to come on irc from time to time.
This is a great place to chat and solve some misundertandings (also a great place to create others, but well :-))
Why would you not do this ?
ant
Guanaco a écrit:
Guanaco wrote:
Rick wrote:
Every time I have attempted to discuss it with Guanaco, he has deleted my posting off his Talk page without responding.
RickK
Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote: Are you sure Rick, that the best solution to this case is arbitration rather than mediation ?
After all, what we are dealing here with, is much more a conflict between two different personalities, and between two different approaches of the sysop role, than a conflict with a vandal.
Would not it be solve by discussing with Guanaco first ?
The "attempts" he posted were completely unhelpful and were not real attempts at serious disruption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Guanaco&diff=549389...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Guanaco&diff=549412...
I would be willing to deal with this through mediation, but arbitration has lately become a "second resort" through which every significant dispute is eventually handled.
--Guanaco
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oops, I meant /discussion/, not /disruption/.
--Guanaco
http://www.frozennorth.org/C2011481421/E652809545/index.html
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
As long as they fix whatever they have done after the "test" I see no harm.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:19:21 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Another troll "testing" Wikipedia
http://www.frozennorth.org/C2011481421/E652809545/index.html
RickK
Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The harm is that everyone and their brother is trying to be a smart ass by posting these "researches" and "investigations into the effectiveness of the wiki system" on their stupid blogs and its turning into some lame trend of late.
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:33:23 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
As long as they fix whatever they have done after the "test" I see no harm.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:19:21 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Another troll "testing" Wikipedia
http://www.frozennorth.org/C2011481421/E652809545/index.html
RickK
Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. _______________________________________________ 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
I guess what I suggest is that we thank them for whatever data they collect and use it to correct any problems they find to the extent we can without disrupting the Wiki mechanism. If Wikipedia can stand amateur editors it can stand amateur researchers, especially if we welcome whatever they discover.
Good ideas have already come out of these researches.
Fred
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com Reply-To: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 00:15:31 +0200 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another troll "testing" Wikipedia
The harm is that everyone and their brother is trying to be a smart ass by posting these "researches" and "investigations into the effectiveness of the wiki system" on their stupid blogs and its turning into some lame trend of late.
As I posted in the other thread about this; "experiments" of this nature are very dangerous to the Wikipedia project, why? There is no assurance people will revert their false and "experimental" edits from articles after they have finished their "experiment". Secondly, these so called experiments are getting more publicity and could encourage more people to do the same.
Example, a story about this experiment was published on Slashdot today.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/05/1339219&tid=146&tid=1
Wikipedia is going to need to be robust enough to cope. There's plenty of junk on it at present, one is going to have to accept that. "Wikifaith" is overrated IMO, there's no point in believing that Wikipedia is some flawless amazing gift to humanity! Too many wondermints!
Perhaps instead of just Featured Article or not, we could have ratings on each article. How to set those would be another matter - but there's likely to be some solution. Perhaps it could just be an accumulated rating, that if one reads it, one can add your vote to the average. Logged in users could have a greater influence, perhaps sysops even more (or less ;o)
But perhaps I'm musing too much.
Zoney
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:19:21 -0700 (PDT), Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
http://www.frozennorth.org/C2011481421/E652809545/index.html
RickK
Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Please see [[User talk:Simplebrain#Please also respond to request from other editors to collaborate]]. User:Simplebrain is attempting to withdraw his edits from the [[Science of Value]] article, and when I suggested that he cannot do so, [[User:Dr Zen]] advised him to institute legal action.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
Please see [[User talk:Simplebrain#Please also respond to request from other editors to collaborate]]. User:Simplebrain is attempting to withdraw his edits from the [[Science of Value]] article, and when I suggested that he cannot do so, [[User:Dr Zen]] advised him to institute legal action.
When I read the discussion, it sure sounds like we're dealing with the original founder of the modern study of "Science of Value". As such, isn't this page either vanity or original research? Isn't it therefore a ripe candidate for VFD?
Aside from RickK's addition of {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}}, only user:Hu and user:Gene Ward Smith have made any changes to Simplebrain's work. Hu made a single effort to remove POV while retaining the essence of the entry. Gene Ward Smith's edits amount to a negative critique of the concept.
Essentially, what we have is a simple "he said, she said" between someone's original research and a single critic.
Perhaps we can work for a true NPOV presentation of the concepts, but can't we just do everyone a favor and delete the current article?
-Rich Holton (en.wikipedia:user:rholton)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com