Guy wrote:
I have no regrets about [...] having absolutely no patience whatsoever with anybody expressing support for banned abusers. Time for people to decide where their loyalties lie. Mine lie with Wikipedia, not with banned abusers of Wikipedia.
And later:
I think users that stand with one foot in the sewer will, as a result, leave shitty footmarks on Wikipedia. They should get their foot out of the sewer, at least until the next rainstorm cleans it out.
See, these are the kinds of statements that concern me. It seems like you're making your distinctions based on assocations, not behavior.
The reality is, there's substantial diversity, and a number of different people. At one end of the extreme, we have hard-core provacteurs who, though few in number, cause a large amount of trouble. At the other far end of spectrum, we have users like DanT or GTBacchus who, although they have participated in sites like WR or ED, are nontheless outstanding members of the community, and make great contributions to the project. And in the middle, we have a whole mass of people who fall somewhere in between.
The problem is, through your words and your actions, you lead me to believe that you regard anyone who has had absolutely any connection with any site frequented by anyone you don't like as utterly contemptible. If you edited WR once, well you might as well be Jon Awbrey himself! (or Bagley, or Barber).
That you see no distinctions is disturbing. That you seem to act as if NPA doesn't apply to editors of sites you disagree with is going to be the source for trouble, I'm afraid. ---
To get us back to the concrete example: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/084961.html
In this you use Dan's affiliation as a way to dismiss his concerns, and you basically imply that Dan is affiliated with Awbrey. Dan has now explicitly denied your allegation.
To me, you ought to now either prove to us all that Dan really is "In League" with Awbrey, or you should immediately apologize to Dan for inadvertantly suggesting he agreed with someone he does not.
And again, if you DON'T want to apologize to Dan, that's fine. The past isn't the point. But what you are gonna have to do in the future, sooner or later, is cut this muckracking crap out.
NPA does not come with some special exemption saying it's okay to attack somebody if you can link them through six degrees of seperation to somebody you really really REALLY hate. NPA and AGF exist, you should follow them in the future, starting with Dan and PrivateMusings.
Alec
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:12:23 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
See, these are the kinds of statements that concern me. It seems like you're making your distinctions based on assocations, not behavior.
No, I am making judgments based on what is actually happening. See the Alkivar arbitration for a real-world example of how the influence of this particular site is currently damaging Wikipedia.
The problem is, through your words and your actions, you lead me to believe that you regard anyone who has had absolutely any connection with any site frequented by anyone you don't like as utterly contemptible. If you edited WR once, well you might as well be Jon Awbrey himself! (or Bagley, or Barber).
No, I regard the current high-profile WR crowd, notably Bagley (user WordBomb), Barber (user JB196 / WR user Looch) and Awbrey (WR user Jonny Cache) as enemies of the project. So do they. They have no interest whatsoever in Wikipedia other than as a place to pursue their personal agenda. They are resourceful, determined and their agenda is inimical to ours. Once they are gone then WR might perhaps turn into a group of people worth listening to.
Cleaning up after these abusers has cost me and numerous others a lot of time and effort. A lot.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/10/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
No, I am making judgments based on what is actually happening. See the Alkivar arbitration for a real-world example of how the influence of this particular site is currently damaging Wikipedia.
The problem is, through your words and your actions, you lead me to believe that you regard anyone who has had absolutely any connection with any site frequented by anyone you don't like as utterly contemptible. If you edited WR once, well you might as well be Jon Awbrey himself! (or Bagley, or Barber).
No, I regard the current high-profile WR crowd, notably Bagley (user WordBomb), Barber (user JB196 / WR user Looch) and Awbrey (WR user Jonny Cache) as enemies of the project. So do they. They have no interest whatsoever in Wikipedia other than as a place to pursue their personal agenda. They are resourceful, determined and their agenda is inimical to ours. Once they are gone then WR might perhaps turn into a group of people worth listening to.
Cleaning up after these abusers has cost me and numerous others a lot of time and effort. A lot.
Guy-- those are fine sentiments, but how are they are reply to my post? Go read my post: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/084973.html
I don't care a hoot about Bagley, Barber, Awbry, Adolph Hitler, or Emmanuel Goldstein. How to treat banned users is NOT in contention.
What I've been discussing is your treatment of DanT, PM, GTBacchus, and anyone else who you think is even remotely affiliateded with WR, ED, or other BADSITES. Unfortunately, we seem to be talking past each other.
I said: Your comments about DanT were wrong, you should apologize for them. You replied: Awbry is bad. Really bad.. Really really bad.
Somewhere, the lines are scramble. What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
If you want to argue about what should be done banned users who create sock puppets, you'd best go to WR for that debate-- I don't see any source of disagreement here.
Alternative, if you'd liked to comment on the question of whether NPA prohibits dismissing good-faith contributors merely for there association with WR, I happened to write a dandy email on that very subject just this morning arguing that NPA protects even the likes of DanT. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/084973.html :)
Alec
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:58:10 -0500, "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
I don't care a hoot about Bagley, Barber, Awbry, Adolph Hitler, or Emmanuel Goldstein. How to treat banned users is NOT in contention.
Something tells me you just violated Godwin's Law.
What I've been discussing is your treatment of DanT, PM, GTBacchus, and anyone else who you think is even remotely affiliateded with WR, ED, or other BADSITES. Unfortunately, we seem to be talking past each other.
I can't recall the last interaction I had with GTBacchus, and my interaction with PM was limited to trying to stop one example of an increasing tendency to abuse multiple accounts; when three arbitrators chip in to say that this use of alternate accounts was inappropriate, I'd say it was inappropriate.
I am, however, very concerned at the pernicious influence of that particular site on Wikipedia editors, as evidenced in the Alkivar arbitration.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 10, 2007 2:45 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
No, I regard the current high-profile WR crowd, notably Bagley (user WordBomb), Barber (user JB196 / WR user Looch) and Awbrey (WR user Jonny Cache) as enemies of the project. So do they. They have no interest whatsoever in Wikipedia other than as a place to pursue their personal agenda. They are resourceful, determined and their agenda is inimical to ours. Once they are gone then WR might perhaps turn into a group of people worth listening to.
Cleaning up after these abusers has cost me and numerous others a lot of time and effort. A lot.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Looch hasn't posted for ages and WordBomb posts very rarely.
On Nov 12, 2007 7:44 PM, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 10, 2007 2:45 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
No, I regard the current high-profile WR crowd, notably Bagley (user WordBomb), Barber (user JB196 / WR user Looch) and Awbrey (WR user Jonny Cache) as enemies of the project. So do they. They have no interest whatsoever in Wikipedia other than as a place to pursue their personal agenda. They are resourceful, determined and their agenda is inimical to ours. Once they are gone then WR might perhaps turn into a group of people worth listening to.
Cleaning up after these abusers has cost me and numerous others a lot of time and effort. A lot.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Looch hasn't posted for ages and WordBomb posts very rarely.
Oh, and I post there and I'm not banned and have in fact written a featured article for the English Wikipedia. But thanks for the hatred Guy, you're really driving up the traffic there.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:53:55 +0000, "Kamryn Matika" kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, and I post there and I'm not banned and have in fact written a featured article for the English Wikipedia. But thanks for the hatred Guy, you're really driving up the traffic there.
Hatred? Your words, not mine.
I am looking at things like the Alkivar arbitration, where a WPO admin was misled into damaging the project by JB196, and at the recent thread on ANI sparked by a baseless allegation of Thekohser's. There are other examples.
The very minute they clean up their act, I will change my position.
Note that I contributed actively to Rootology's apparently good-faith attempt to create a site dedicated to rational, moderated, cited critique, which sadly got hijacked by JB196 and others to push their grudges. I have no problem with informed critique.
Guy (JzG)