Sean Barrett wrote: "I can't speak for my fellow Cabal members, but I'll be glad to compare my new-article count against yours."
Well, you'll probably beat me. I have not been as active over the past few months as in the past. Plus, my articles tend to be relatively long, such as the two that were mentioned in this article http://p2pnet.net/story/3202 (Origins of the American Civil War and Russian constitutional crisis of 1993).
Nevetheless, I am among the 100 most active users in this site's history; and although I am not a member of your cabal, I have just as much right to post something on this site giving you the perspective of the general editors as you people do. And if you don't like it, I'll just do it more frequently.
-User:172
_________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Abe Sokolov stated for the record:
I have just as much right to post something on this site giving you the perspective of the general editors as you people do. And if you don't like it, I'll just do it more frequently.
The very fact that you try to make a distinction between "the general editors" and "you people" makes it clear you have no idea who "the general editors" are or what they want.
And when presented with the fact that the consensus of the Wikipedia community doesn't like it, you state your intention to annoy that community "more frequently." I personally don't think that's a good way to persuade people, but please don't let my opinion cause you to hesitate. Annoy the community as frequently you want.
Abe Sokolov wrote:
Nevetheless, I am among the 100 most active users in this site's history; and although I am not a member of your cabal, I have just as much right to post something on this site giving you the perspective of the general editors as you people do. And if you don't like it, I'll just do it more frequently.
Good for you, and though you may not realize it, you're as much a part of the cabal as those who have disagreed with you on this matter. As for me, I think that your core point is in danger of being overlooked here.
My position is that your technical proposal is mistaken for the reasons cited by others -- our real problems aren't so much from driveby vandals who would be discouraged by a registration system, but rather from dedicated trolls and POV pushers who we have not dealt with as quickly and effectively as we should.
In this, I think you and I would agree.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales (jwales@wikia.com) [050101 00:35]:
My position is that your technical proposal is mistaken for the reasons cited by others -- our real problems aren't so much from driveby vandals who would be discouraged by a registration system, but rather from dedicated trolls and POV pushers who we have not dealt with as quickly and effectively as we should. In this, I think you and I would agree.
In one recent example, a user who was brought to arbitration and promptly created twelve sockpuppets. He put quite a bit of effort into them, too. And they were obnoxious as hell. After I blocked the socks, I got several emails from users thanking me and saying he'd nearly driven them off Wikipedia.
(I must note that I only acted in this case after firm technical proof of abuse of sockpuppets to get around 3RR and personal abuse rules. Because I may have to help arbitrate on this case after Jan 1 ... arbitrators can do less, not more.)
But the problem is, I couldn't really have done anything without the solid technical proof (courtesy Jamesday) that they were all the same user. Because blocking "obvious sock puppets" without technical proof is not generally accepted amongst the admins, and it would have been unblocked promptly.
Compared to this sort of behaviour, hit-and-run vandals or sandboxers are nothing. Even trolls (even the GNAA) are nothing. I find it hard to think what the GNAA could do to Wikipedia that it diesn't do to itself.
I am very annoyed the vote for 24-hour blocks for personal abuse didn't reach consensus. It would help a *lot* IMO. Pity it's a bit subjective. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is too big to block on "you're being a dickhead, stop it" any more.
- d.
Abe Sokolov wrote:
Nevetheless, I am among the 100 most active users in this site's
history;
and although I am not a member of your cabal, I have just as much right
to
post something on this site giving you the perspective of the general editors as you people do. And if you don't like it, I'll just do it more frequently.
Good for you, and though you may not realize it, you're as much a part of the cabal as those who have disagreed with you on this matter.
Is there any way I can become a part of the cabal? Is there a sign-up form or something? Apparently I'm already part of a worldwide domination conspiracy/cabal, but it doesn't feel like enough.
As for me, I think that your core point is in danger of being overlooked here.
My position is that your technical proposal is mistaken for the reasons cited by others -- our real problems aren't so much from driveby vandals who would be discouraged by a registration system, but rather from dedicated trolls and POV pushers who we have not dealt with as quickly and effectively as we should.
I'm still disturbed with the recent case of a dedicated and extremely abusive troll/POV pusher who created a dozen sockpuppets and edited using them with near impunity on Wikipedia for months. His ArbCom case is still slowly dragging its way through the process, not even a temporary injunction yet.
Jay.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:20:12 -0500, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Is there any way I can become a part of the cabal? Is there a sign-up form or something? Apparently I'm already part of a worldwide domination conspiracy/cabal, but it doesn't feel like enough.
==Cabal application form==
Username: [[User:The bellman]]
Real name: Robin Shannon
Previous experience in world domination: Grand Poohbah of the freemasons (1999-2001), Supreme leader of the scientoligists (2000-2003), the REAL pope (2004- ).
Reason you want to dominate the world: current world rulers are either too geeky (bill gates) too stupid (GWB) or too victorian (QEII). I think i would be a more rounded sort of person, thus more sutible for the job.
I the undersigned do solemly swear to follow the 8 rules of the wikimedia cabal.
# You do not talk about THE CABAL.
# You DO NOT talk about THE CABAL.
# If someone says "stop" or goes limp, taps out the edit war is over.
# Only two guys to an eidt war.
# One edit war at a time.
# No shirts, no shoes.
# Arbitration will go on as long as it has to.
# If this is your first night in THE CABAL, you HAVE to edit
~~~~.
Hee! Ok. You're in!
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 14:53:26 +1100, Robin Shannon robin.shannon@gmail.com wrote:
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:20:12 -0500, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Is there any way I can become a part of the cabal? Is there a sign-up form or something? Apparently I'm already part of a worldwide domination conspiracy/cabal, but it doesn't feel like enough.
==Cabal application form==
Username: [[User:The bellman]]
Real name: Robin Shannon
Previous experience in world domination: Grand Poohbah of the freemasons (1999-2001), Supreme leader of the scientoligists (2000-2003), the REAL pope (2004- ).
Reason you want to dominate the world: current world rulers are either too geeky (bill gates) too stupid (GWB) or too victorian (QEII). I think i would be a more rounded sort of person, thus more sutible for the job.
I the undersigned do solemly swear to follow the 8 rules of the wikimedia cabal.
# You do not talk about THE CABAL.
# You DO NOT talk about THE CABAL.
# If someone says "stop" or goes limp, taps out the edit war is over.
# Only two guys to an eidt war.
# One edit war at a time.
# No shirts, no shoes.
# Arbitration will go on as long as it has to.
# If this is your first night in THE CABAL, you HAVE to edit
-- hit me: robin.shannon.id.au jab me: saudade@jabber.zim.net.au This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Excellent. Now go start an edit war.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Stacey Greenstein wrote:
Hee! Ok. You're in!
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 14:53:26 +1100, Robin Shannon robin.shannon@gmail.com wrote:
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:20:12 -0500, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Is there any way I can become a part of the cabal? Is there a sign-up form or something? Apparently I'm already part of a worldwide domination conspiracy/cabal, but it doesn't feel like enough.
==Cabal application form==
Username: [[User:The bellman]]
Real name: Robin Shannon
Previous experience in world domination: Grand Poohbah of the freemasons (1999-2001), Supreme leader of the scientoligists (2000-2003), the REAL pope (2004- ).
Reason you want to dominate the world: current world rulers are either too geeky (bill gates) too stupid (GWB) or too victorian (QEII). I think i would be a more rounded sort of person, thus more sutible for the job.
I the undersigned do solemly swear to follow the 8 rules of the wikimedia cabal.
# You do not talk about THE CABAL.
# You DO NOT talk about THE CABAL.
# If someone says "stop" or goes limp, taps out the edit war is over.
# Only two guys to an eidt war.
# One edit war at a time.
# No shirts, no shoes.
# Arbitration will go on as long as it has to.
# If this is your first night in THE CABAL, you HAVE to edit
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050101 07:21]:
I'm still disturbed with the recent case of a dedicated and extremely abusive troll/POV pusher who created a dozen sockpuppets and edited using them with near impunity on Wikipedia for months. His ArbCom case is still slowly dragging its way through the process, not even a temporary injunction yet.
The ArbCom case is being pushed at the moment (in our first 6 1/2 hours, the new arbitrators have been hacking away at the backlog ... why am I still up, and why am I online?).
The socks are blocked and so is the user (for glaring sock abuse for policy-violating purposes and because we're still sorting out the mess). Which isn't an entirely elegant solution providing a way forward, but does stop the abusiveness for the moment.
I'd really like to see a decent wording for 'No personal attacks, block after warning' that would be objective enough to make it through a vote, like the last one didn't.
- d.
David Gerard said
The socks are blocked and so is the user (for glaring sock abuse for policy-violating purposes and because we're still sorting out the mess). Which isn't an entirely elegant solution providing a way forward, but does stop the abusiveness for the moment.
The thing I find most frightening is that if the user had been just slightly smarter in the way he had done things, he would have succeeded, his 13 man sockpuppet army would have edited (and reverted) with impunity, and there would have been no "technical evidence" against him. I think it's likely he will still attempt this. If he doesn't others might.
I'd really like to see a decent wording for 'No personal attacks, block after warning' that would be objective enough to make it through a vote, like the last one didn't.
Me too. I know of at least one good editor, who added high quality technical (and non-political) material, but was not up to the rough and tumble of edit wars and insults, who left permanently as a result of the abusive atmosphere.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
Me too. I know of at least one good editor, who added high quality technical (and non-political) material, but was not up to the rough and tumble of edit wars and insults, who left permanently as a result of the abusive atmosphere.
I think this is the critical point.
This is why I say that I fully support the central concept (as I understand it at least) of what 172 has been saying, even though I disagreed with the technical proposal that he made.
--Jimbo