I have been blocked for a week (initially indefinitely, then unblocked by another admin and reblocked for a week by the initial admin) for the contents of a page I made in January *2005* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SPUI/jajaja . See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SPUI#Block and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration... . I put {{unblock}} on my talk page three hours ago, with no response. Deco posted on AN/I 2.5 hours ago - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Today.2... - again with no response. The blocking admin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Physchim62 - has no email set.
For this reason, I am more worried than before about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Highway... . Any admin can simply claim my actions are disruption, and, even if the block is overturned, it both remains for too long and creates yet another block in the block log for a future blacking admin to use as "evidence" that it's fine to block me.
SPUI wrote:
What I don't get is, why would anyone care enough to argue about that on MfD, much less on DRV? It's nonsense, with markup that makes it crash some browsers. While the content might be useful as a demonstration if one was reporting the bug to mozilla.org, I see no reason for Wikipedia to host it. We speedy delete nonsense pages like that all the time.
On 6/30/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
I have been blocked for a week (initially indefinitely, then unblocked by another admin and reblocked for a week by the initial admin) for the contents of a page I made in January *2005* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SPUI/jajaja .
The page was recently listed on MFD. You reverted the MFD notice. Why?
For the record, there is now a separate mailing list for unblock requests: http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 6/30/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
I have been blocked for a week (initially indefinitely, then unblocked by another admin and reblocked for a week by the initial admin) for the contents of a page I made in January *2005* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SPUI/jajaja .
The page was recently listed on MFD. You reverted the MFD notice. Why?
Hmmm - I was pretty sure I had kept it while reverting a blanking, but on looking back at it, it appears I did remove it. My mistake.
For the record, there is now a separate mailing list for unblock requests: http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l
It was my understanding that this is not operational yet until more admins get on it.
On 6/30/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
The page was recently listed on MFD. You reverted the MFD notice. Why?
Hmmm - I was pretty sure I had kept it while reverting a blanking, but on looking back at it, it appears I did remove it. My mistake.
Why did you create the page, and how do you justify its continued existence in a website dedicated to creating an encyclopedia?
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 6/30/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
The page was recently listed on MFD. You reverted the MFD notice. Why?
Hmmm - I was pretty sure I had kept it while reverting a blanking, but on looking back at it, it appears I did remove it. My mistake.
Why did you create the page, and how do you justify its continued existence in a website dedicated to creating an encyclopedia?
I created it to see what would happen if I kept increasing the font size. I kept it around because I found it amusing. I justify its continued existence because leaving it alone uses less disk space than deleting it.
On 6/30/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
I created it to see what would happen if I kept increasing the font size. I kept it around because I found it amusing. I justify its continued existence because leaving it alone uses less disk space than deleting it.
Arguments based on server load do not wash. If server load is ever an issue, the developers can tell us what to do. Note that this doesn't only apply to this instance, but to all editorial actions (as opposed to those done by developers). Let's not put words into their mouths.
Sam Korn wrote:
On 6/30/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
I created it to see what would happen if I kept increasing the font size. I kept it around because I found it amusing. I justify its continued existence because leaving it alone uses less disk space than deleting it.
Arguments based on server load do not wash. If server load is ever an issue, the developers can tell us what to do. Note that this doesn't only apply to this instance, but to all editorial actions (as opposed to those done by developers). Let's not put words into their mouths.
I know that a deleted page takes up more space than the same page, not deleted. I also understand that this is a very weak justification, but I don't see any valid arguments on the other side, especially given that nothing links to it.
On 6/30/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
I created it to see what would happen if I kept increasing the font size. I kept it around because I found it amusing.
The moment something outside the encyclopedia space which you merely find amusing becomes disruptive and annoying to other editors, there's little justification to keep it around. Certainly disk space is not one. You could have demonstrated maturity and blanked the page yourself. Instead you reverted the MFD notice, put a big "jajaja" text on your user page, and commented on MFD itself: "If it crashes Firefox, maybe you should use a non-broken browser. "
Don't get me wrong. It is legitimate to experiment and try to determine whether there are HTML instructions that might crash or freeze common browsers. This should be done in a subpage clearly designated for that purpose, such as [[/Browser crash test]]. If you then can reproduce certain behavior, you can report a bug -- either for the browser, or for MediaWiki to filter these instructions.
Asking community members to help you with such an effort to test problematic browser behavior is a positive way to contribute on the technical level. What you have demonstrated, however, is not mature behavior, and I support the (one week) block being upheld for the time being, at least until you acknowledge this.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 6/30/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
I created it to see what would happen if I kept increasing the font size. I kept it around because I found it amusing.
The moment something outside the encyclopedia space which you merely find amusing becomes disruptive and annoying to other editors, there's little justification to keep it around. Certainly disk space is not one. You could have demonstrated maturity and blanked the page yourself. Instead you reverted the MFD notice, put a big "jajaja" text on your user page, and commented on MFD itself: "If it crashes Firefox, maybe you should use a non-broken browser. "
Most of it was commented out on my user page - I don't think any browsers that crash on the full one will crash on this. If I am wrong, I will gladly comment out more, as I don't wish to have a user page that crashes browsers.
An orphaned subpage is a different issue entirely.
Don't get me wrong. It is legitimate to experiment and try to determine whether there are HTML instructions that might crash or freeze common browsers. This should be done in a subpage clearly designated for that purpose, such as [[/Browser crash test]]. If you then can reproduce certain behavior, you can report a bug -- either for the browser, or for MediaWiki to filter these instructions.
Given that I didn't intend it as a browser crash test, that would not have been a possible name.
Asking community members to help you with such an effort to test problematic browser behavior is a positive way to contribute on the technical level. What you have demonstrated, however, is not mature behavior, and I support the (one week) block being upheld for the time being, at least until you acknowledge this.
On 6/30/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Don't get me wrong. It is legitimate to experiment and try to determine whether there are HTML instructions that might crash or freeze common browsers.
Preferably, *not* on Wikipedia itself, though. "Wikipedia is not a web host" applies quite strongly here, and it's quite easy to set up a MediaWiki instance where you can play a crashing browsers and whatnot. While the tester may not mean harm, a local (and hence transcludable) page on English Wikipedia that caused problems for browsers would be a gift to any alert vandals.
On Jun 30, 2006, at 3:37 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
I support the (one week) block being upheld for the time being, at least until you acknowledge this.
Erik
A week seems rather mild. SPUI is rather good at chewing up energy regarding minor disputes. He actually restored that page on June 26. Then he comes on here and claims he was blocked over a page he created in 2005.
Fred
On 6/30/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I support the (one week) block being upheld for the time being, at least until you acknowledge this.
A week seems rather mild. SPUI is rather good at chewing up energy regarding minor disputes. He actually restored that page on June 26. Then he comes on here and claims he was blocked over a page he created in 2005.
SPUI has now been unblocked after a discussion on WP:ANI. I think we need to avoid having unblock discussions in multiple places at the same time -- perhaps when we start using unblock-en, we can try to more systematically centralize all discussion there.
Erik
On 6/30/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
SPUI has now been unblocked after a discussion on WP:ANI. I think we need to avoid having unblock discussions in multiple places at the same time -- perhaps when we start using unblock-en, we can try to more systematically centralize all discussion there.
I don't see that you can ever stop people attempting to contest their blocks on the wikipedia itself (to whatever extent it's technically possible). Nor is it reasonable to force people to "out themselves" on email, to whatever extent writing a public email is outing yourself...
Steve
On 6/30/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see that you can ever stop people attempting to contest their blocks on the wikipedia itself (to whatever extent it's technically possible). Nor is it reasonable to force people to "out themselves" on email, to whatever extent writing a public email is outing yourself...
I think it's the best option. It sucks that they have to write an email, but it makes even less sense to require people to post on Wikipedia to contest their block if they are, well, blocked.
Ryan
On 7/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
It sucks that they have to write an email, but it makes even less sense to require people to post on Wikipedia to contest their block if they are, well, blocked.
Am I missing something vital? Why does it "suck" that they have to write an email? The technology is well enough established, it's hardly rocket science.
On 7/3/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
It sucks that they have to write an email, but it makes even less sense to require people to post on Wikipedia to contest their block if they are, well, blocked.
Am I missing something vital? Why does it "suck" that they have to write an email? The technology is well enough established, it's hardly rocket science.
There are definite privacy concerns. Sure, anyone can get themselves a hotmail account, but then it's starting to become a real drag.
Steve
On 7/3/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/3/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
It sucks that they have to write an email, but it makes even less sense to require people to post on Wikipedia to contest their block if they are, well, blocked.
Am I missing something vital? Why does it "suck" that they have to write an email? The technology is well enough established, it's hardly rocket science.
There are definite privacy concerns. Sure, anyone can get themselves a hotmail account, but then it's starting to become a real drag.
You're kidding, surely. What's the "privacy" concern with sending an email? That people will know how to communicate with you? That way lies madness.
On 7/3/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/3/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/3/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/3/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
It sucks that they have to write an email, but it makes even less sense to require people to post on Wikipedia to
contest
their block if they are, well, blocked.
Am I missing something vital? Why does it "suck" that they have to write an email? The technology is well enough established, it's hardly rocket science.
There are definite privacy concerns. Sure, anyone can get themselves a hotmail account, but then it's starting to become a real drag.
You're kidding, surely. What's the "privacy" concern with sending an email? That people will know how to communicate with you? That way lies madness.
I presume the problem is with people who are scared to reveal their real name. They have two very easy options: (1) get over it, or (2) get a free webmail account which identifies as their SN.
~ESkog
This is over the top just for sheer lack of substance, and the fact that it passed an AFD with some help from a apparently clueness newbie contingent, unencumbered by any corrective measures for fostering founding philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eon8_%282nd_nom...
In the absence of any formal editorial prunership, I'd like to announce that the newly-formed Wikipedia:Editorial_Qabal is now hiring.
Motto: "NPOV, what a novel concept".
Stevertigo convicted NPOV pusher
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/4/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
This is over the top just for sheer lack of substance, and the fact that it passed an AFD with some help from a apparently clueness newbie contingent, unencumbered by any corrective measures for fostering founding philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eon8_%282nd_nom...
In the absence of any formal editorial prunership, I'd like to announce that the newly-formed Wikipedia:Editorial_Qabal is now hiring.
Motto: "NPOV, what a novel concept".
Stevertigo convicted NPOV pusher
Nothing to do with NPOV. Just the old deletionist vs inculsionist battles.
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing to do with NPOV. Just the old deletionist vs inculsionist battles.
Dont crap on my soapbox, kid.
No but seriously, it does relate to NPOV, as NPOV guides not only how articles are written, but what constitutes encyclopedicality... ness. People who understand what NPOV means will understand what an encyclopedia is.
To say its just inclusion or disinclusion is to ignore the fact that the rationale for either must be NPOV, ie. encyclopedicality... ness. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes just a wiki and not a 'Pedia. Doesnt it?
S
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/4/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing to do with NPOV. Just the old deletionist vs inculsionist battles.
Dont crap on my soapbox, kid.
No but seriously, it does relate to NPOV, as NPOV guides not only how articles are written, but what constitutes encyclopedicality... ness. People who understand what NPOV means will understand what an encyclopedia is.
Doubtful. Historicaly most encyclopedias have not been NPOV.
To say its just inclusion or disinclusion is to ignore the fact that the rationale for either must be NPOV, ie. encyclopedicality... ness. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes just a wiki and not a 'Pedia. Doesnt it?
S
Of course the problem here is that prior to wikipedia no one sat down to work out solid defintion of what an encyclopedia is.
NPOV does has a role to play of course. You use it along with the verifabiltiy stuff. Non only should there be enough information to write an article but enough to write an NPOV article. This does not appear to be universialy accepted though.
On 7/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/4/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote: (snips)
No but seriously, it does relate to NPOV, as NPOV guides not only how articles are written, but what constitutes encyclopedicality... ness. People who understand what NPOV means will understand what an encyclopedia is.
Doubtful. Historicaly most encyclopedias have not been NPOV.
Historicaly going back a ways; fairly neutral POV has been the standard in the last 50 years or longer. I think it's reasonable to claim that NPOV is part of modern encyclopedic, as modern readers should be familiar with.
On 7/4/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
This is over the top just for sheer lack of substance, and the fact that it passed an AFD with some help from a apparently clueness newbie contingent, unencumbered by any corrective measures for fostering founding philosophy.
Even if you subtract the newbies, it's fairly obvious that there is no consensus to delete. I think the page should be kept for now, but this is a special case of WP:MEME where the meme is still very young and it's hard to determine how ephemeral it will be.
There's nothing wrong with doing another AfD two or three months from now. In the case of [[Brian Peppers]], Jimmy tried an article creation moratorium as an alternative approach. Peppers, however, is another special case where human dignity is concerned. I see no harm in keeping a verifiable, limited page about [[Eon8]] for the time being. I am very wary of viral marketing crap, but this seems to be a harmless experiment without a clear commercial motive.
If someone is looking for a nice wiki idea to launch, I suspect a "MemeWatch" wiki that explicitly allows original research would do rather well, and we could point many of the forum people who keep coming up in cases like that in this direction.
Applying our existing policies seems more important to me than keeping the encyclopedia free of "trivial" content. With 1.2 million articles, including a page dedicated to anthropomorphized operating systems ([[List of OS-tans]]) and an entire category of lists of fictional animals, that strikes me as a rather quixotic enterprise.
Erik
--- Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Even if you subtract the newbies, it's fairly obvious that there is no consensus to delete.
No consensus? What's consensus?
I think the page should be kept for now, but this is a special case of WP:MEME where the meme is still very young and it's hard to determine how ephemeral it will be.
Special cases are subject to editorial axeing by the Editorial Qabal.
There's nothing wrong with doing another AfD two or three months from now.
Patience is only a virtue, nothing more.
In the case of [[Brian Peppers]], Jimmy tried an article creation moratorium as an alternative approach. Peppers, however, is another special case where human dignity is concerned.
Dignity is not on everyones mind. Again, its just one of those "virtues."
You mentioned the Brian Peppers article, which an editor apparently dispatched with appropriately. I think the Qabal should follow this example of NPOV pushing.
I see no harm in keeping a verifiable, limited page about [[Eon8]] for the time being. I am very wary of viral marketing crap, but this seems to be a harmless experiment without a clear commercial motive.
"Verifiability" would appear to be limited to 1) its a site, and 2) that "Mike" runs it. The Wikinews article called it "mysterious," and quoted its stated "purpose" as "to determine the reactions of the internet public to lack of information." This pissed me off enough to write to the Wikien Qabal. Its a joke site, with a claimed "purpose", who's real purpose appears to have been to gain legitimacy by memeing WP.
Applying our existing policies seems more important to me than keeping the encyclopedia free of "trivial" content. With 1.2 million articles, including a page dedicated to anthropomorphized operating systems ([[List of OS-tans]]) and an entire category of lists of fictional animals, that strikes me as a rather quixotic enterprise.
Quixotic? I'm nothing but Quixotic.
-S
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/4/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
You mentioned the Brian Peppers article, which an editor apparently dispatched with appropriately. I think the Qabal should follow this example of NPOV pushing.
I don't see what it has to do with NPOV and why you spell cabal with a "q." This is not a case of WP being specifically targeted for planting a meme; it _is_ a meme: http://technorati.com/search/eon8
As stupid as it may be, it's notable enough to document. You need to stop worrying and learn to love the wiki.
Erik
The page was now deleted, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of a very large amount of blog coverage and a newspaper report in Politiken about it. Whether you like it or not (and I don't), it does meet the WP:WEB criteria. This is part of a worrying and growing trend among admins to do whatever they feel like when they close an AfD. Overriding community opinion should only be done in exceptional circumstances and with clear documentation of one's reasoning, which can then be taken into policy discussions. Otherwise you end up with completely arbitrary enforcement, and an ever growing tension between admins and regular users.
There was a time when we called admins "janitors." When did we decide to replace "jan-" with "ed-"?
Erik
On 7/5/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
The page was now deleted, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of a very large amount of blog coverage and a newspaper report in Politiken about it.
Slight majority in favor of keep in fact. on that basis I've undeleted.
On 7/5/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
The page was now deleted, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of a very large amount of blog coverage and a newspaper report in Politiken about it.
Slight majority in favor of keep in fact. on that basis I've undeleted.
Thanks. Now get ready for the accusations of starting a "wheel war."
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 7/5/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
The page was now deleted, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of a very large amount of blog coverage and a newspaper report in Politiken about it.
Slight majority in favor of keep in fact. on that basis I've undeleted.
Thanks. Now get ready for the accusations of starting a "wheel war."
And now it's deleted again. It's been put up for review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Eon8.
I don't frequent AfD so perhaps I get a skewed impression, but does anyone think that the prevalence of extremely hyperbolic "strong" voting is on the increase? AfD isn't even supposed to be a vote in the first place, technically, so giving a vote to "Destroy, pillage and salt the earth of this accursed article" or "Strong strong strong KEEP" seems kind of silly and pointless. The calls to _ban_ article contributors and/or people who voted to keep the article are even more silly, well over into the realm of blatantly stupid - AfD is not ArbCom, the very notion of crossing the two gives me the heebie-jeebies. Maybe it's just these specific highly contentious arguments where that sort of thing happens.
On 7/5/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I don't frequent AfD so perhaps I get a skewed impression, but does anyone think that the prevalence of extremely hyperbolic "strong" voting is on the increase?
This along with unreasoned "speedy" votes. "Speedy" does not mean "because I really really think so". There are circumstances where it is appropriate, but they are rigidly defined. People with half a degree of sense should know not to vote like this.
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote: Erik Moeller wrote:
On 7/5/06, geni wrote:
On 7/5/06, Erik Moeller wrote:
The page was now deleted, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of a very large amount of blog coverage and a newspaper report in Politiken about it.
Slight majority in favor of keep in fact. on that basis I've undeleted.
Thanks. Now get ready for the accusations of starting a "wheel war."
And now it's deleted again. It's been put up for review at
.
I don't frequent AfD so perhaps I get a skewed impression, but does anyone think that the prevalence of extremely hyperbolic "strong" >>voting is on the increase? AfD isn't even supposed to be a vote in the first place, technically, so giving a vote to "Destroy, pillage and salt the earth of this accursed article" or "Strong strong strong KEEP" seems kind of silly and pointless. The calls to _ban_ article contributors and/or people who voted to keep the article are even more silly, well over into the realm of blatantly stupid - AfD is not ArbCom, the very notion of crossing the two gives me the heebie-jeebies. Maybe it's >>just these specific highly contentious arguments where that sort of thing happens.
I think the problem with DRV and other processes that reivew content is the entire premise. I reviewed a backlog previously to discover a template. To my horror, it noted:
"The community is interested in process not content".
This is madness. - Randall Brackett _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 15:51:23 +0200, "Erik Moeller" eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
The page was now deleted, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of a very large amount of blog coverage and a newspaper report in Politiken about it.
There was strong consensus to keep among new, unregistered and otherwise normally-ignored editors, and what looked to me like consensus to delete (especially on balance of arguments) among editors with any kind of history.
I am also uneasy when we keep something which is asserted to be of massive global significance on the basis of a single reference, in a publication which is hardly mainstream. We kept The Game (game) on the basis of one reference in one Flemish-language newspaper - which hardly gives credibility to the idea of this as a massive global phenomenon, as described in the article. Actually the article should say it is a game described in De. Morgen which blah blah blah... until we get more references. It stretches credibility somewhat that a genuinely famous thing could escape all the special web sections of all the mainstream newspapers and journals, including the BBC which has frequent columns from the likes of Bill Thompson on things happening on "teh Intarwebs".
Given that we are all internet users, many of us obsessively so, if we have not heard of it then it may well be that the arm-wavers are wrong about its significance.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Given that we are all internet users, many of us obsessively so, if we have not heard of it then it may well be that the arm-wavers are wrong about its significance.
Obsessive? Please clarify "obsessive." Do you have a reliable source which states that over 10 hpd is "obsessive"? Are there significant dissenting views? This statement reeks of anti-geek POV.
(obligatory smiley: :-) )
-kc-
On 7/3/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
You're kidding, surely. What's the "privacy" concern with sending an email? That people will know how to communicate with you? That way lies madness.
That people might know your real name? And possibly more information about you? Whereas, normally we make it possible for people to use Wikipedia pseudononymously.
Now, you may argue that pseudonymity is a bad thing. But it's a separate argument. As long as people have that right, there's no reason they should have to forfeit it simply to contest a block.
(and as pointed out, they could get themselves another email address...but as I mentioned, that's a hassle)
Steve
On 7/4/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
(and as pointed out, they could get themselves another email address...but as I mentioned, that's a hassle)
...and as I mentioned, it's a necessary one. Surely we can move on now.
Ryan
On 7/4/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
(and as pointed out, they could get themselves another email address...but as I mentioned, that's a hassle)
If pseudonymity is that important to you, you should be willing to put up with that hassle. This is a barrier to entry best characterized as a log to step over, not a fence. If you can't make that step, or are unwilling to put in the 5 minutes to do so, that's your own fault.
On 7/4/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If pseudonymity is that important to you, you should be willing to put up with that hassle. This is a barrier to entry best characterized as a log to step over, not a fence. If you can't make that step, or are unwilling to put in the 5 minutes to do so, that's your own fault.
I'm not sure that's the friendliest, most welcoming attitude we could possibly give to someone who has possibly been wrongly blocked (it happens, you know). But I'll leave it there.
Steve
On 7/4/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/4/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If pseudonymity is that important to you, you should be willing to put up with that hassle. This is a barrier to entry best characterized as a log to step over, not a fence. If you can't make that step, or are unwilling to put in the 5 minutes to do so, that's your own fault.
I'm not sure that's the friendliest, most welcoming attitude we could possibly give to someone who has possibly been wrongly blocked (it happens, you know). But I'll leave it there.
This is an internal discussion, not responding to someone who's blocked. I agree that responses to blockees should be more supportive than the way I phrased it above.
Randall Brackett megamanzero521@yahoocom wrote: On 7/4/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/4/06, George Herbert wrote:
If pseudonymity is that important to you, you should be willing to put up with that hassle. This is a barrier to entry best characterized as a log to step over, not a fence. If you can't make that step, or are unwilling to put in the 5 minutes to do so, that's your own fault.
I'm not sure that's the friendliest, most welcoming attitude we could possibly give to someone who has possibly been wrongly blocked (it happens, you know). But I'll leave it there.
This is an internal discussion, not responding to someone who's blocked. I agree that responses to blockees should be more >>supportive than the way I phrased it above.
On 7/4/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
I've no idea what the manner of this conversation has to do with SPUI. I was under the impression the focal point of this e-mail thread was the discussion of the unblock and the editor in question.
In relevance, I paticularly don't think this user should be unblocked so easily anymore. I'm not very experienced with SPUI, but to have multiple blocks, consistant comments concerning behavior on WP:AN/I, blatent disregard to dispute resolution and egregrious edit warring is not the standards demanded of us as wikipedians.
Oh, sorry, I wasn't responding specifically about SPUI, though I can see where the confusion came from. SPUI is definitely a troll of the worst kind - to some, he's a saint, to some, he's the devil. He floats eternally on the borderline, making friends with the masses and pissing off the admins. Block him forever and his supporters will hate you. Let him go unpunished and he'll get imitators. No idea what to do about him.
But dear god I wish he would stop this "I've been blocked. WHY???" behaviour.
Steve
On 7/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, sorry, I wasn't responding specifically about SPUI, though I can see where the confusion came from. SPUI is definitely a troll of the worst kind - to some, he's a saint, to some, he's the devil. He floats eternally on the borderline, making friends with the masses and pissing off the admins. Block him forever and his supporters will hate you. Let him go unpunished and he'll get imitators. No idea what to do about him.
I find ignoreing him works most of the time.
On 7/5/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I find ignoreing him works most of the time.
Exactly - something that should be followed by those who edit war with him as well - it does take two, after all.
-Matt
Fred Bauder wrote:
On Jun 30, 2006, at 3:37 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
I support the (one week) block being upheld for the time being, at least until you acknowledge this.
Erik
A week seems rather mild. SPUI is rather good at chewing up energy regarding minor disputes. He actually restored that page on June 26. Then he comes on here and claims he was blocked over a page he created in 2005.
I'm not an admin - Freakofnurture restored it for the VFU.
On 6/29/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 6/30/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
I have been blocked for a week (initially indefinitely, then unblocked by another admin and reblocked for a week by the initial admin) for the contents of a page I made in January *2005* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SPUI/jajaja .
The page was recently listed on MFD. You reverted the MFD notice. Why?
Hmmm - I was pretty sure I had kept it while reverting a blanking, but on looking back at it, it appears I did remove it. My mistake.
This was not listed as a reason for the block, and the block happened 2 days after the last notice was put on the page (by someone else, of the DRV).
I fail to see what the proximate cause was of the block. Using the page (after it had been MFD and during DRV, when it had relatively respected defenders) as an excuse seems poor judgement.
I agree that if the page was disruptive it should be subject to deletion policy etc, but if it was so disruptive that it warranted invoking the Arbcom probation, someone should have said so at the time.
On 6/30/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
I have been blocked for a week (initially indefinitely, then unblocked by another admin and reblocked for a week by the initial admin) for the contents of a page I made in January *2005* -
You again!
Steve
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:45:52 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Any admin can simply claim my actions are disruption, and, even if the block is overturned, it both remains for too long and creates yet another block in the block log for a future blacking admin to use as "evidence" that it's fine to block me.
Have you ever considered being less disruptive? Just a thought.
Guy (JzG)