What the hell is up with this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Plato/red_faction
Wikipedia breaking up into factions is a very, very bad idea.
Also, comments from IndigoGenius like:
"Father of the Fifth World movement, thinks Jimbo is brain dead and deserves the death penalty; not a job editing (I mean deleting) the ideas that will change and save our world! God made a mistake when he made Jimbo!!"
are not at all acceptable and should be deleted on sight and the user who wrote them blocked from editing.
JRR's mention and link to [[meta:Regime change]] (a page mostly written by banned user 142.177) along with many other 142-written meta pages elesewhere (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JRR_Trollkien/Troll ) indicates that JRR and 142.177 are one in the same.
This type of crap should not be tolerated - and yet it is. I am fearful that our open and trusting nature is making us a haven for trolls.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote: What the hell is up with this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Plato/red_faction
Wikipedia breaking up into factions is a very, very bad idea.
Also, comments from IndigoGenius like:
"Father of the Fifth World movement, thinks Jimbo is brain dead and deserves the death penalty; not a job editing (I mean deleting) the ideas that will change and save our world! God made a mistake when he made Jimbo!!"
are not at all acceptable and should be deleted on sight and the user who wrote them blocked from editing.
JRR's mention and link to [[meta:Regime change]] (a page mostly written by banned user 142.177) along with many other 142-written meta pages elesewhere (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JRR_Trollkien/Troll ) indicates that JRR and 142.177 are one in the same.
This type of crap should not be tolerated - and yet it is. I am fearful that our open and trusting nature is making us a haven for trolls.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You really shouldn't worry about it. I allow anyone (pretty much) to edit my red faction page. Even though you might worry about the communist overtones, it is not a wiki-communist organization. It was created for those users who need wiki-love and they don't get it. Now I never knew that 142 wrote that page which provides a rather interesting insight into who Jrr is but it is still not enough proof to convince me.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
I think much of the worry about Red Faction is fairly justified, especially considering that their membership is a virtual who's who of problem users, as well as their tendency to try to swarm on various issues. It should also be noted that User:Editing Saddam Hussein (Better known to the world as Lir) did his work under the red faction banner.
That's not to say that I think RF poses any sort of meaningful "threat" - simply put, they're kind of too scrawny to be worth worrying about. But I think that they make a pretty good bellweather. That is, if you don't have time to form a full opinion on an issue, you could do worse than looking at RF's opinion and voting exactly opposite them.
-Snowspinner
On Jun 12, 2004, at 6:58 PM, N.T. Riche wrote:
Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
What the hell is up with this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Plato/red_faction
Wikipedia breaking up into factions is a very, very bad idea.
Also, comments from IndigoGenius like:
"Father of the Fifth World movement, thinks Jimbo is brain dead and deserves the death penalty; not a job editing (I mean deleting) the ideas that will change and save our world! God made a mistake when he made Jimbo!!"
are not at all acceptable and should be deleted on sight and the user who wrote them blocked from editing.
JRR's mention and link to [[meta:Regime change]] (a page mostly written by banned user 142.177) along with many other 142-written meta pages elesewhere (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JRR_Trollkien/Troll ) indicates that JRR and 142.177 are one in the same.
This type of crap should not be tolerated - and yet it is. I am fearful that our open and trusting nature is making us a haven for tr olls.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You really shouldn't worry about it. I allow anyone (pretty much) to edit my red faction page. Even though you might worry about the communist overtones, it is not a wiki-communist organization. It was created for those users who need wiki-love and they don't get it. Now I never knew that 142 wrote that page which provides a rather interesting insight into who Jrr is but it is still not enough proof to convince me.
Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:11:14 -0500, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
That's not to say that I think RF poses any sort of meaningful "threat"
- simply put, they're kind of too scrawny to be worth worrying about.
But I think that they make a pretty good bellweather. That is, if you don't have time to form a full opinion on an issue, you could do worse than looking at RF's opinion and voting exactly opposite them.
Darn. And to think that User:Plato (aka ComradeNick) voted for my adminship... and awarded me a barnstar. Maybe I should go around there and trash the page just to make sure I don't end up on the wrong side of the fence! What do you say, Nick? Which one of your friends should I beat up this evening? ;)
Not really very serious, ~~~~
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Also, comments from IndigoGenius like: "Father of the Fifth World movement, thinks Jimbo is brain dead [...]" are not at all acceptable and should be deleted on sight and the user who wrote them blocked from editing.
Well, why didn't you delete it?
--- Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Also, comments from IndigoGenius like: "Father of the Fifth World movement, thinks Jimbo is brain dead [...]" are not at all acceptable and should be deleted on sight and the user who
wrote
them blocked from editing.
Well, why didn't you delete it?
Because doing so unilaterally would probably result in several people attacking me for it. The current climate seems to be hostile against admins enforcing our policies. I would like to change that.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Also, comments from IndigoGenius like: "Father of the Fifth World movement, thinks Jimbo is brain dead [...]" are not at all acceptable and should be deleted on sight and the user who
wrote
them blocked from editing.
Well, why didn't you delete it?
Because doing so unilaterally would probably result in several people attacking me for it. The current climate seems to be hostile against admins enforcing our policies. I would like to change that.
If something is likely to be used as evidence of somebody's behaviour it should stay. Perhaps it should even be highlighted in a special coloured box.
Ec
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Also, comments from IndigoGenius like: "Father of the Fifth World movement, thinks Jimbo is brain dead [...]" are not at all acceptable and should be deleted on sight and the user who wrote them blocked from editing.
Well, why didn't you delete it?
Because doing so unilaterally would probably result in several people attacking me for it.
I didn't mean deleting the entire page, but the personal attack you quoted.
I deleted it yesterday and so far there has been no reaction.
On the contrary, I think the current climate is hostile to those trying to persuade admins to follow policy, or even inform themselves of it. Mark
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Also, comments from IndigoGenius like: "Father of the Fifth World movement, thinks
Jimbo is brain dead [...]"
are not at all acceptable and should be deleted
on sight and the user who
wrote
them blocked from editing.
Well, why didn't you delete it?
Because doing so unilaterally would probably result in several people attacking me for it. The current climate seems to be hostile against admins enforcing our policies. I would like to change that.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Mark Richards wrote:
On the contrary, I think the current climate is hostile to those trying to persuade admins to follow policy, or even inform themselves of it.
What it really comes down to is confusion between policy and enforcement of policy.
If the policy is, "A properly banned user may not edit under any name while the ban is in effect," that is understandable whether one agrees with it or not.
When we have the situation that some individual is suspected of being the reincarnation of a banned user, many, including some sysops start by acting on their suspicions rather than seeking out hard evidence. There is rarely a need for hasty action when the suspect is confining his activities to a handful of articles; there will always be time to fix this when the issue is clarified.
If you suspect that someone is a reincarnation have the logs and other technical information checked, and bring back that information. That will be the basis for the appropriate decision. The incessant gnattering about whether someone's edits resemble those of a banned user serves no useful purpose.
There is a serious need for some people to start understanding what standards of proof are all about.
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
.. If you suspect that someone is a reincarnation have the logs and other technical information checked, and bring back that information. That will be the basis for the appropriate decision. The incessant gnattering about whether someone's edits resemble those of a banned user serves no useful purpose.
Speaking of which, it would be nice for stewards to have the ability to check those logs in these cases. Our developers seem to be overworked as it is.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
This is not necessary when the "Trollinator 3" immediately goes to work restoring the deleted material previously posted by "Trollinator 2" and "Trollinator 1".
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:15:39 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Red faction and the Legion of Trolls
If you suspect that someone is a reincarnation have the logs and other technical information checked, and bring back that information. That will be the basis for the appropriate decision. The incessant gnattering about whether someone's edits resemble those of a banned user serves no useful purpose.
There is a serious need for some people to start understanding what standards of proof are all about.
Ec
As far as I can tell, this is an entirely fictitious straw man. Yes, there are clear cut cases, but most are not. Mark --- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This is not necessary when the "Trollinator 3" immediately goes to work restoring the deleted material previously posted by "Trollinator 2" and "Trollinator 1".
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:15:39 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Red faction and the
Legion of Trolls
If you suspect that someone is a reincarnation
have the logs and other
technical information checked, and bring back that
information. That
will be the basis for the appropriate decision.
The incessant
gnattering about whether someone's edits resemble
those of a banned user
serves no useful purpose.
There is a serious need for some people to start
understanding what
standards of proof are all about.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Fred Bauder wrote:
This is not necessary when the "Trollinator 3" immediately goes to work restoring the deleted material previously posted by "Trollinator 2" and "Trollinator 1".
Fair enough. In this example there is a direct link in the actions of the two (or three) on the same article. It's not an effort in trying to analyze editing style or similarity of contents and ideas.
Ec