I don't really know what's going on here, and I don't know all the histories. What I have gone and read seems to have no relationship to Wikipedia. The converstion keeps coming back, and keeps being directed to discussing SV. I've only interacted with her and Guy about a dozen times each on Wikipedia, 90% negative with each. Does this matter?
Can someone please link directly to a current Wikipedia article, that should be changed, and list a proper reference to it that is not being used, to show the damage being done by this fracas to Wikipedia? Just one example of a specific article, and what should be in it, according to a highly reliable source--not a dozen, just one.
Then, can we discuss this issue instead of SV, unless someone has a news article about her, that belongs in Wikipedia, rather than a blog of gossip?
I apologize to everyone for being part of this list while this is going on, especially to Slim Virgin, whom I don't know, and can't know from malicious and petty gossip about her on an Internet blog. Please, let's move on to what we can do about anything that needs repaired on Wikipedia.
If we need to discuss gossip on the web about Wikipedia editors on this list, can we set some realistic guidelines?
KP
On 8/3/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really know what's going on here, and I don't know all the histories.
[snip]
Only a small part of the people who edit are involved in 'community matters' and only an infinitesimal number have been involved in this 'discussion'.
In the time it to you to complain that people aren't being productive, hundreds of edits were still made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges
So relax. Life goes on.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 8/3/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really know what's going on here, and I don't know all the histories.
[snip]
Only a small part of the people who edit are involved in 'community matters' and only an infinitesimal number have been involved in this 'discussion'.
If anything, getting involved in arguments like this actually increases my editing output. I find that doing large amounts of repetitive and uncontroversial work, such as categorization, format tidying, reference markup, etc., is a great way to work off the frustration and annoyance.
I don't _like_ it, though, so I wouldn't exactly recommend it as a motivator.
On 03/08/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
If anything, getting involved in arguments like this actually increases my editing output. I find that doing large amounts of repetitive and uncontroversial work, such as categorization, format tidying, reference markup, etc., is a great way to work off the frustration and annoyance. I don't _like_ it, though, so I wouldn't exactly recommend it as a motivator.
A proposal: everyone who posted to this discussion must fix up ten articles from each of [[Category:Cleanup]] and [[Category:Category needed]]. Including me.
- d.
On 03/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/08/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
If anything, getting involved in arguments like this actually increases my editing output. I find that doing large amounts of repetitive and uncontroversial work, such as categorization, format tidying, reference markup, etc., is a great way to work off the frustration and annoyance. I don't _like_ it, though, so I wouldn't exactly recommend it as a motivator.
A proposal: everyone who posted to this discussion must fix up ten articles from each of [[Category:Cleanup]] and [[Category:Category needed]]. Including me.
- d.
Erm, hi, banned user here.
Armed Blowfish
On 8/3/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned. It's simply that you have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR, and TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight. You are at any time free to edit without using TOR.
This is not to state that I think your reasons for only being willing to edit using TOR are invalid. In fact, I don't know enough about your circumstances to be able to comment on that; certainly I can envisage good reason for doing so. It's simply that Wikipedia sees so many disadvantages to TOR in terms of ease of sockpuppetry and untraceability.
-Matt
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned. It's simply that you have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR, and TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight. You are at any time free to edit without using TOR.
Yeah, and gay people aren't banned from marrying, either. They can marry th opposite sex just like straight people can. It's their choice to only pick marriages that are not allowed; there are plenty of other marriages which are allowed to them.
On 8/4/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Yeah, and gay people aren't banned from marrying, either. They can marry th opposite sex just like straight people can. It's their choice to only pick marriages that are not allowed; there are plenty of other marriages which are allowed to them.
A bit of a reach to compare sexuality to the desire to edit using TOR, I think.
-Matt
On 05/08/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned. It's simply that you have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR, and TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight. You are at any time free to edit without using TOR.
Yeah, and gay people aren't banned from marrying, either. They can marry th opposite sex just like straight people can. It's their choice to only pick marriages that are not allowed; there are plenty of other marriages which are allowed to them.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Homosexuals are banned from getting married?
On 05/08/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/08/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned. It's simply that you have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR, and
TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight. You are at any time free to edit without using TOR.
Yeah, and gay people aren't banned from marrying, either. They can marry th opposite sex just like straight people can. It's their choice to only pick marriages that are not allowed; there are plenty of other marriages which are allowed to them.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Homosexuals are banned from getting married?
Oh wait yeah, you're in the US.. never mind.
On 8/5/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned. It's simply that you have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR, and TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight. You are at any time free to edit without using TOR.
Yeah, and gay people aren't banned from marrying, either. They can marry th opposite sex just like straight people can. It's their choice to only pick marriages that are not allowed; there are plenty of other marriages which are allowed to them.
True, but how is that relevant?
On 05/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/5/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned. It's simply that you have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR, and TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight. You are at any time free to edit without using TOR.
Yeah, and gay people aren't banned from marrying, either. They can
marry
th opposite sex just like straight people can. It's their choice to
only
pick marriages that are not allowed; there are plenty of other marriages which are allowed to them.
True, but how is that relevant?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's WikiEN-l. if you're not using stupid analogies you're doing something wrong.
Vee wrote:
It's WikiEN-l. if you're not using stupid analogies you're doing something wrong.
Using an analogy to prove a point is like hammering nails into a tree with a frozen salmon. Seems like it might work at first glance, but when you think about it further it makes no sense and has nothing to do with the actual subject at hand.
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Using an analogy to prove a point is like hammering nails into a tree with a frozen salmon. Seems like it might work at first glance, but when you think about it further it makes no sense and has nothing to do with the actual subject at hand.
Doesn't that example contradict itself?
Besides, pointing out that "you can do it, as long as it's with someone you don't want to do it with" is equivalent to "you can't do it" has quite a lot to do with the subject at hand.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Using an analogy to prove a point is like hammering nails into a tree with a frozen salmon. Seems like it might work at first glance, but when you think about it further it makes no sense and has nothing to do with the actual subject at hand.
Doesn't that example contradict itself?
Hence, humor.
On 05/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/5/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned. It's simply that you have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR, and TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight. You are at any time free to edit without using TOR.
Yeah, and gay people aren't banned from marrying, either. They can marry th opposite sex just like straight people can. It's their choice to only pick marriages that are not allowed; there are plenty of other marriages which are allowed to them.
True, but how is that relevant?
It's a bit like a spoiler warning.
- d.
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 08:36:52 -0400 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/5/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned. It's
simply that you
have made the personal choice to only be able to edit
through TOR, and
TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight.
You are at any
time free to edit without using TOR.
Yeah, and gay people aren't banned from marrying, either. They can marry th opposite sex just like straight people can. It's their choice to only pick marriages that are not allowed; there are plenty of other marriages which are allowed to them.
True, but how is that relevant?
I am just guessing here, but I think that he is saying that gay couples don't REALLY have a choice to be gay, in the same way that he doesn't really have a choice to edit using TOR. That's my take on it at least.
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Anthony wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned. It's simply that you have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR, and TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight. You are at any time free to edit without using TOR.
Yeah, and gay people aren't banned from marrying, either. They can marry th opposite sex just like straight people can. It's their choice to only pick marriages that are not allowed; there are plenty of other marriages which are allowed to them.
True, but how is that relevant?
Because it's an *analogy*.
We recognize that the argument about gays is completely bogus. We know very well that "sure, you can marry, you just can't marry anyone you'd want to marry" is equivalent to "you can't marry at all".
Likewise, saying "you aren't banned, you're just banned from the only method you want to use" is equivalent to "you are banned".
On 8/7/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Anthony wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned. It's simply that you have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR,
and
TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight. You are at any time free to edit without using TOR.
Yeah, and gay people aren't banned from marrying, either. They can
marry
th opposite sex just like straight people can. It's their choice to
only
pick marriages that are not allowed; there are plenty of other
marriages
which are allowed to them.
True, but how is that relevant?
Because it's an *analogy*.
We recognize that the argument about gays is completely bogus. We know very well that "sure, you can marry, you just can't marry anyone you'd want to marry" is equivalent to "you can't marry at all".
Likewise, saying "you aren't banned, you're just banned from the only method you want to use" is equivalent to "you are banned".
I want a new camera, but I don't have money for it and don't actually want to pay for it anyway. I could just take it, but I'm banned from doing so by the law. This is unjust repression by my government - I have the right to a camera! The present law is tantamount to "you can have a camera, but you can't have it through the only method you want to use".
I'm not saying that the argument doesn't have merits, but the fact is, as Edmund Burke said, we must restrict freedom in order to have it. (Actually that's a completely irrelevant quotation, but if we're going to have funny analogies, we might as well go one step further.) I guess I mean, we recognise that some arguments are bogus and some are not - but it all depends on the precise situation. The way your analogies present the situation focuses on a number of variables but ignore others.
Johnleemk
On 8/6/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Anthony wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned. It's simply that you have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR,
and
TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight. You are at any time free to edit without using TOR.
Yeah, and gay people aren't banned from marrying, either. They can
marry
th opposite sex just like straight people can. It's their choice to
only
pick marriages that are not allowed; there are plenty of other
marriages
which are allowed to them.
True, but how is that relevant?
Because it's an *analogy*.
We recognize that the argument about gays is completely bogus. We know very well that "sure, you can marry, you just can't marry anyone you'd want to marry" is equivalent to "you can't marry at all".
Likewise, saying "you aren't banned, you're just banned from the only method you want to use" is equivalent to "you are banned".
I want a new camera, but I don't have money for it and don't actually want to pay for it anyway. I could just take it, but I'm banned from doing so by the law. This is unjust repression by my government - I have the right to a camera! The present law is tantamount to "you can have a camera, but you can't have it through the only method you want to use".
I'm not saying that the argument doesn't have merits, but the fact is, as Edmund Burke said, we must restrict freedom in order to have it. (Actually that's a completely irrelevant quotation, but if we're going to have funny analogies, we might as well go one step further.) I guess I mean, we recognise that some arguments are bogus and some are not - but it all depends on the precise situation. The way your analogies present the situation focuses on a number of variables but ignore others.
Exactly. Because, FWIW, I think we should be allowed to use TOR. But I don't think it has anything to do with gay marriage!
On 8/6/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Anthony wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned. It's simply that you have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR, and TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight. You are at any time free to edit without using TOR.
Yeah, and gay people aren't banned from marrying, either. They can marry th opposite sex just like straight people can. It's their choice to only pick marriages that are not allowed; there are plenty of other marriages which are allowed to them.
True, but how is that relevant?
Because it's an *analogy*.
So, all analogies are relevant?
We recognize that the argument about gays is completely bogus.
We do? The argument you gave seemed legitimate to me.
We know very well that "sure, you can marry, you just can't marry anyone you'd want to marry" is equivalent to "you can't marry at all".
Well, no, it's not equivalent. Similar in effect, perhaps, but not equivalent.
Likewise, saying "you aren't banned, you're just banned from the only method you want to use" is equivalent to "you are banned".
OK, so getting back to this analogy thing, if I tell someone who wants to vandalize Wikipedia that they aren't banned, they're just banned from vandalism, that's equivalent to telling them that they are banned?
Hmm, I guess it kind of is, when you think about it...
On 8/6/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Likewise, saying "you aren't banned, you're just banned from the only method you want to use" is equivalent to "you are banned".
There is a difference between being banned (specific, targeted bar against a specific editor editing Wikipedia through any method available) and being unable to edit because the way you (choose/need) to do so has been blocked because of a persistent vandal and troll problem.
AB is in the same situation as someone whose school has been range-blocked because of persistent vandalism from that range that the school admins are unable/unwilling to deal with.
Sure, the immediate results are the same - being unable to edit. However, AB is able, as is the student whose school is blocked, to edit should another means of access become available to them.
And yes, it sucks. I am quite aware that it sucks. However, Wikipedia right now is in the situation where a user's originating IP is pretty much the basis for any ability to bar editing at all for anyone, since we have so few requirements to create an account. If we permit anonymizing services such as Tor, we effectively no longer have any way to block users or track them at all.
The only other functioning alternative, IMO, is to make it require a lot more effort to qualify for an account, so that it is much harder to create a new Wikipedia identity. I'd submit that doing that is going to change the Wikipedia environment a heck of a lot more than banning anonymizing proxies does. (The other alternative, which appears to be soundly rejected, is giving up on any attempt to use technical information about a user's internet connection and HTTP requests to back up suspicions of sockpuppetry/resurrection).
-Matt
On 8/6/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
And yes, it sucks. I am quite aware that it sucks. However, Wikipedia right now is in the situation where a user's originating IP is pretty much the basis for any ability to bar editing at all for anyone, since we have so few requirements to create an account. If we permit anonymizing services such as Tor, we effectively no longer have any way to block users or track them at all.
The only other functioning alternative, IMO, is to make it require a lot more effort to qualify for an account, so that it is much harder to create a new Wikipedia identity. I'd submit that doing that is going to change the Wikipedia environment a heck of a lot more than banning anonymizing proxies does. (The other alternative, which appears to be soundly rejected, is giving up on any attempt to use technical information about a user's internet connection and HTTP requests to back up suspicions of sockpuppetry/resurrection).
Your analysis makes at least two major incorrect assumptions: 1) that current IP address blocks are an effective way to stop determined banned users (the kind that would be using TOR); and 2) that there is no possibility for middleground between adminship and getting an account (in technical terms, it assumes that the "ipblock-exempt" can only be granted along with adminship).
On 8/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Your analysis makes at least two major incorrect assumptions: 1) that current IP address blocks are an effective way to stop determined banned users (the kind that would be using TOR); and 2) that there is no possibility for middleground between adminship and getting an account (in technical terms, it assumes that the "ipblock-exempt" can only be granted along with adminship).
To address point 1, they are not necessarily an effective way to stop banned users from editing, but they are better than nothing and help to some degree. More importantly, it is much easier to track the activity of a malicious user if they either have to use legitimate IP addresses or hardblockable-on-sight open proxies. It also makes them work harder; Tor is available as a pre-packaged solution that is easy to install and use without too much advanced knowledge.
As to point 2, it is an option I would be personally willing to consider. However, implementing it would require both (a) agreement of the developers or of WMF to implement such a thing in software (my understanding is that patches to add this functionality have been refused) and (b) either an active push by Wikipedia users for such a feature with reasonable rough consensus behind it (it appears this does not exist; at the very least, there are those with strenuous objections to it) or a push by the influential to allow it.
The Arbcom technically do not make policy; we but interpret it. Thus we cannot force through such a policy change ourselves, although an unanimously held position of the sitting Arbcom would be a powerful force in favor. However, I believe the Arbcom is divided on this issue and will not state such a unanimously held position (heck, I'm personally divided on the issue). Jimbo appears to be somewhat in favor, but I'm not sure Jimbo alone could push this kind of change against strong opposition. Lastly, the WMF Board could change Foundation policy, I suppose, and make this happen, but again I don't really see it.
Thus, I don't see this change happening overnight. Perhaps over time the community will warm to the idea.
This also, of course, has the chicken-and-egg problem that those who are most motivated to want to permit editing from Tor are blocked because Tor is blocked.
Furthermore, since even if this flag was available outside of adminship, it would only be available to already known and trusted users. Therefore, it would be of use only to a tiny subset of Tor users; those who have already built up a positive reputation on Wikipedia by either editing without using Tor, or having successfully evaded such blocks for long enough to build up such a reputation. Most Tor users will not have built up such a reputation, because they won't be able to edit through Tor and are unwilling to not use Tor; blocking of Tor addresses has been on occasion lax in the past but my feeling is that this is much less so now.
I'm guessing that this last is a good part of why the developers are unwilling to implement such a patch; it would be useable only by such a tiny fraction of the community that its utility is marginal at best. What subset of Wikipedia users are trusted enough to get such a flag but not to get adminship? Probably a few dozen at the extreme most, and I can't see even that many.
Thus, I don't feel this is actually a workable solution.
-Matt
On 04/08/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/3/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned.
I filed three unblock-auto requests. (The first, a simple template on my talk page, asking to be added to the ipblock-exempt group. It failed because apparently there was no such group, separate from adminship. The second, some code to create such a group, which the Wikimedia developers didn't want to commit.) The third (my RfA) was rejected by the community... which makes it a community ban.
It's simply that you have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR, and TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight. You are at any time free to edit without using TOR.
You may as well say, 'If you were someone other than who you are, then you would be welcome to edit.' The same could be said of any banned user.
P.S. It's Tor not TOR.
This is not to state that I think your reasons for only being willing to edit using TOR are invalid. In fact, I don't know enough about your circumstances to be able to comment on that; certainly I can envisage good reason for doing so.
I actually answered that question on the mailing list just recently. In case you missed that, the quick summary is that I have a past which involves being the victim of long term sexual abuse.
And please don't judge that reason... as either bad or good. If you did say it was a bad reason, I'd have to overdose on painkillers even more than I am already overdosing, which would hurt my liver.
It's simply that Wikipedia sees so many disadvantages to TOR in terms of ease of sockpuppetry and untraceability.
-Matt
The security concerns are all addressable. The value of IP addresses in identifying people has been going down ever since commercial services, rather than just universities, started offering access to the internet. Biologists could have told you ages ago that there are better ways of telling apart honesty and deception. Judith Donath of MIT Media labs wrote about the topic about a decade ago. The good people of Tor wrote patches for Wikipaedia a couple years ago, but none of them were committed. And even if Wikipaedia really wants to block Tor, the good people of Tor also provided better ways to do that - so you can have less false positives (which are bad for Tor) and less false negatives (which are bad for Wikipaedia). If Wikipaedia doesn't want to use that code, it isn't the fault of the good people of Tor.
In any case, I've really given up on all that. I'd just like Wikipaedia to be nice to me... not very nice, just enough to be in compliance with the 'Basic human dignity' principle of the Badlydrawnjeff RfAr, where it states, 'Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.'
All of the questions and speculation about why people are using Tor, the continued insistence on asking that question even after myself and others made it clear we didn't want to answer the question has brought a lot of my worst memories to the surface. The criticism of my reasons for using Tor, and of my paranoia, feels like people saying it is my fault I got molested. First I started crying at the drop of a hat. When it all continued even after I withdrew my RfA, I started misusing painkillers - propoxyphene (which is spiked with acetomenophin, which is bad for my liver) and various over-the-counter meds. At some point, I started throwing up at the drop of a hat. When I couldn't fall asleep until after dawn, they gave me zolpidem. Then the phone wouldn't stop ringing - because it's not actually ringing, I'm just hallucinating. During my effort to help SlimVirgin, I've been overdosing on the meds.
In any case, the reason I am sending to you privately is that now seems like the absolute worst time to risk making SlimVirgin and Jayjg feel bad about all that.
Armed Blowfish
Dammit, I just realised I forgot to change the 'To' address.
I am hurt, but I really don't want anyone to feel guilty about that right now. : (
Armed Blowfish
On 05/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 04/08/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/3/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned.
I filed three unblock-auto requests. (The first, a simple template on my talk page, asking to be added to the ipblock-exempt group. It failed because apparently there was no such group, separate from adminship. The second, some code to create such a group, which the Wikimedia developers didn't want to commit.) The third (my RfA) was rejected by the community... which makes it a community ban.
It's simply that you have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR, and TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight. You are at any time free to edit without using TOR.
You may as well say, 'If you were someone other than who you are, then you would be welcome to edit.' The same could be said of any banned user.
P.S. It's Tor not TOR.
This is not to state that I think your reasons for only being willing to edit using TOR are invalid. In fact, I don't know enough about your circumstances to be able to comment on that; certainly I can envisage good reason for doing so.
I actually answered that question on the mailing list just recently. In case you missed that, the quick summary is that I have a past which involves being the victim of long term sexual abuse.
And please don't judge that reason... as either bad or good. If you did say it was a bad reason, I'd have to overdose on painkillers even more than I am already overdosing, which would hurt my liver.
It's simply that Wikipedia sees so many disadvantages to TOR in terms of ease of sockpuppetry and untraceability.
-Matt
The security concerns are all addressable. The value of IP addresses in identifying people has been going down ever since commercial services, rather than just universities, started offering access to the internet. Biologists could have told you ages ago that there are better ways of telling apart honesty and deception. Judith Donath of MIT Media labs wrote about the topic about a decade ago. The good people of Tor wrote patches for Wikipaedia a couple years ago, but none of them were committed. And even if Wikipaedia really wants to block Tor, the good people of Tor also provided better ways to do that
- so you can have less false positives (which are bad for Tor) and
less false negatives (which are bad for Wikipaedia). If Wikipaedia doesn't want to use that code, it isn't the fault of the good people of Tor.
In any case, I've really given up on all that. I'd just like Wikipaedia to be nice to me... not very nice, just enough to be in compliance with the 'Basic human dignity' principle of the Badlydrawnjeff RfAr, where it states, 'Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.'
All of the questions and speculation about why people are using Tor, the continued insistence on asking that question even after myself and others made it clear we didn't want to answer the question has brought a lot of my worst memories to the surface. The criticism of my reasons for using Tor, and of my paranoia, feels like people saying it is my fault I got molested. First I started crying at the drop of a hat. When it all continued even after I withdrew my RfA, I started misusing painkillers - propoxyphene (which is spiked with acetomenophin, which is bad for my liver) and various over-the-counter meds. At some point, I started throwing up at the drop of a hat. When I couldn't fall asleep until after dawn, they gave me zolpidem. Then the phone wouldn't stop ringing - because it's not actually ringing, I'm just hallucinating. During my effort to help SlimVirgin, I've been overdosing on the meds.
In any case, the reason I am sending to you privately is that now seems like the absolute worst time to risk making SlimVirgin and Jayjg feel bad about all that.
Armed Blowfish
On 8/2/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/3/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really know what's going on here, and I don't know all the histories.
[snip]
Only a small part of the people who edit are involved in 'community matters' and only an infinitesimal number have been involved in this 'discussion'.
In the time it to you to complain that people aren't being productive, hundreds of edits were still made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges
So relax. Life goes on.
I am relaxed, particularly since I assumed with all the flames and smoke and mirrors there wouldn't be an immediate and direct answer but rather side trip responses. If I had been expecting an answer, though, I might not be relaxed. But thanks for caring about my state of physical well-being.
And, yes, doing tedium work is a good way to spend a little extra time on Wikipedia.
Oh, and in the meantime I found a real conspiracy on Wikipedia this week, also, and had oen of my comments about it oversighted. Rather than feeling the need to scream about the cabal, I find it highly entertaining.
KP
On 8/3/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
In the time it to you to complain that people aren't being productive,
hundreds of edits were still made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges
So relax. Life goes on.
I am relaxed, particularly since I assumed with all the flames and smoke and mirrors there wouldn't be an immediate and direct answer but rather side trip responses. If I had been expecting an answer, though, I might not be relaxed. But thanks for caring about my state of physical well-being.
And, yes, doing tedium work is a good way to spend a little extra time on Wikipedia.
Oh, and in the meantime I found a real conspiracy on Wikipedia this week, also, and had oen of my comments about it oversighted. Rather than feeling the need to scream about the cabal, I find it highly entertaining.
KP
Well, if you're in need of more "entertainment" you should feel free to drop in on the "fun" that I was having while all this was going on. I consider it my penance for making light of the difficulties of hiring ninjas to do one's dirty work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Church_of_Christ_%28Temple_Lot%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeb... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeb... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeb...
Those links should get you started, though there's a lot in the history tab of the talk page that may or may not still be there when you look. The BLPN notices have been closed at this point, so the section anchors probably won't work. Despite the closures, there are still unresolved issues (though I'll be damned if I can figure out what they even are, at this point...).
-- Jonel
On 8/3/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/3/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
In the time it to you to complain that people aren't being productive,
hundreds of edits were still made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges
So relax. Life goes on.
I am relaxed, particularly since I assumed with all the flames and smoke and mirrors there wouldn't be an immediate and direct answer but rather side trip responses. If I had been expecting an answer, though, I might not be relaxed. But thanks for caring about my state of physical well-being.
And, yes, doing tedium work is a good way to spend a little extra time on Wikipedia.
Oh, and in the meantime I found a real conspiracy on Wikipedia this week, also, and had oen of my comments about it oversighted. Rather than feeling the need to scream about the cabal, I find it highly entertaining.
KP
Well, if you're in need of more "entertainment" you should feel free to drop in on the "fun" that I was having while all this was going on. I consider it my penance for making light of the difficulties of hiring ninjas to do one's dirty work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Church_of_Christ_%28Temple_Lot%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeb... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeb... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeb...
Those links should get you started, though there's a lot in the history tab of the talk page that may or may not still be there when you look. The BLPN notices have been closed at this point, so the section anchors probably won't work. Despite the closures, there are still unresolved issues (though I'll be damned if I can figure out what they even are, at this point...).
-- Jonel
Thanks, but I have some serious research to do for an experiment--work, sigh. I did take a peek though, to see if Ward Chruchhill's latest would be there, so I appreciate the links.
KP
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, K P wrote:
Can someone please link directly to a current Wikipedia article, that should be changed, and list a proper reference to it that is not being used, to show the damage being done by this fracas to Wikipedia? Just one example of a specific article, and what should be in it, according to a highly reliable source--not a dozen, just one.
Like the generalized attack sites version, the harm caused by this is mostly in the discussion pages, not in the article pages. I hope you are not claiming that unless it's directly deleted from an article page, it isn't damage.
On 8/3/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, K P wrote:
Can someone please link directly to a current Wikipedia article, that should be changed, and list a proper reference to it that is not being used, to show the damage being done by this fracas to Wikipedia? Just one example of a specific article, and what should be in it, according to a highly reliable source--not a dozen, just one.
Like the generalized attack sites version, the harm caused by this is mostly in the discussion pages, not in the article pages. I hope you are not claiming that unless it's directly deleted from an article page, it isn't damage.
I can't claim anything without any basis for understanding, and since there doesn't seem to be any forthcoming that is a civil presentation of just what has been done, I'm not claiming anything.
But I don't see how you went from the question I asked to what my claims might or might not be.
KP
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, K P wrote:
Can someone please link directly to a current Wikipedia article, that should be changed, and list a proper reference to it that is not being used, to show the damage being done by this fracas to Wikipedia? Just one example of a specific article, and what should be in it, according to a highly reliable source--not a dozen, just one.
Like the generalized attack sites version, the harm caused by this is mostly in the discussion pages, not in the article pages. I hope you are not claiming that unless it's directly deleted from an article page, it isn't damage.
I can't claim anything without any basis for understanding, and since there doesn't seem to be any forthcoming that is a civil presentation of just what has been done, I'm not claiming anything.
But I don't see how you went from the question I asked to what my claims might or might not be.
I thought it was fairly straightforward: "I won't believe in damage unless you show me an article that was damaged by removing a reference."
"I hope you don't mean that the only kind of damage is in articles."
On 8/3/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, K P wrote:
Can someone please link directly to a current Wikipedia article, that should be changed, and list a proper reference to it that is not being used, to show the damage being done by this fracas to Wikipedia? Just one example of a specific article, and what should be in it, according to a highly reliable source--not a dozen, just one.
Like the generalized attack sites version, the harm caused by this is mostly in the discussion pages, not in the article pages. I hope you are not claiming that unless it's directly deleted from an article page, it isn't damage.
I can't claim anything without any basis for understanding, and since there doesn't seem to be any forthcoming that is a civil presentation of just what has been done, I'm not claiming anything.
But I don't see how you went from the question I asked to what my claims might or might not be.
I thought it was fairly straightforward: "I won't believe in damage unless you show me an article that was damaged by removing a reference."
"I hope you don't mean that the only kind of damage is in articles."
You used quotes, but that's not what I said within the quotes.
"Can someone please link directly to a current Wikipedia article, that should be changed, and list a proper reference to it that is not being used, to show the damage being done by this fracas to Wikipedia? Just one example of a specific article, and what should be in it, according to a highly reliable source--not a dozen, just one."
If the information is being kept out, and it is legitimate information, then certainly there are other references available, somewhere, that will contain this information. And presumably these references are not in the article, because if they were, the information would not be missing from the article. If it is only a fracas on a talk page, and no resulting damage anywhere to article content on Wikipedia, then that should be clarified to all who have to read this: there is no damage to Wikipedia article content.
I think I made a simple enough request, and muddying it up pretty much just shows that it will never be about damage to the encyclopledia, but always about spreading gossip--it's the equivalent of calling someone a troll, or of discussing a gossip column about an editor as evidence that Wikipedia is damaged. This is not my belief system, but my opinion from watching this.
Please simply quote me, when quoting me.
KP
K P wrote:
I think I made a simple enough request, and muddying it up pretty much just shows that it will never be about damage to the encyclopledia, but always about spreading gossip--it's the equivalent of calling someone a troll, or of discussing a gossip column about an editor as evidence that Wikipedia is damaged. This is not my belief system, but my opinion from watching this.
Hi! You guys both seem to have very reasonable viewpoints, and it pains me to see what I interpret as harsh words over misunderstandings.
KP, I think your query was simple, and a great one, as it brings us back to our primary purpose: to make an encyclopedia. But the message subject, of the form
is it X or just Y
could be seen as excluding other possibilities. I think Ken's just saying that he believes the harm is not directly to articles, but that he still feels there has been harm to our project, and that he's not gossiping or trying to create drama.
That's my view on your views, anyhow. I hope it helped.
William
On 8/3/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
K P wrote:
I think I made a simple enough request, and muddying it up pretty much just shows that it will never be about damage to the encyclopledia, but always about spreading gossip--it's the equivalent of calling someone a troll, or of discussing a gossip column about an editor as evidence that Wikipedia is damaged. This is not my belief system, but my opinion from watching this.
Hi! You guys both seem to have very reasonable viewpoints, and it pains me to see what I interpret as harsh words over misunderstandings.
KP, I think your query was simple, and a great one, as it brings us back to our primary purpose: to make an encyclopedia. But the message subject, of the form
is it X or just Y
could be seen as excluding other possibilities. I think Ken's just saying that he believes the harm is not directly to articles, but that he still feels there has been harm to our project, and that he's not gossiping or trying to create drama.
That's my view on your views, anyhow. I hope it helped.
William
-- William Pietri william@scissor.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
Yeah, the subject is a bit of a flame, for which I apologize, particularly for it contributing to misunderstanding.
KP