Mark Gallagher wrote:
This is the site that welcomed AMorrow with open arms. This is the site that Daniel Brandt regularly contributes to. This is the site that organised severe harrassment of Phil Sandifer, then lied about their motives. This is the site that drove Katefan0, *an admin who even they couldn't fault*, away from Wikipedia out of pure meanness of spirit. This is the site where, when a board administrator mentioned that revealing personal information was frowned-upon, the rest told that fellow: "Speak for yourself."
Here's an example of the sort of rhetoric-by-repetition technique that works much better spoken than written. The repetition in this case is the phrase, "This is the site that..." It would spare Mark a bit of typing if he would just list his litany, without the oratorical device.
I know a bit about AMorrow because he showed up briefly on my own wiki, SourceWatch, before we banned him. One thing that happens with people who can't get along with Wikipedia is that after they quit in anger or are banned, they go forum-shopping to other websites. We get a few disgruntled ex-Wikipedians this way, and almost always it turns out that they were banned for good reason, which was certainly the case with AMorrow. Given the mission of Wikipedia Review, I'm sure it attracts far more disgruntled ex-Wikipedians than we do.
Just now, however, I did a Google search for AMorrow on site:wikipediareview.com, and it appears that he was banned there about a year ago. I didn't spend a lot of time reading the discussion threads, but there was some debate over his banning, with a user named "blissy2" writing, "Amorrow was commenting in ways that could be considered to be cyber stalking. Since Wikipedia Review is a law- abiding entity, it is risky for us to be associated with someone who may be engaging in illegal activity. ... Even if Wikipedia was sitting there being decent, not harassing us, not slandering us, not trying to destroy us, and we were working together, we still couldn't allow this kind of activity. Its got nothing to do with whether or not Wikipedia hates him."
Banning him on grounds that he is a cyberstalker doesn't sound to me like "welcoming with open arms."
I did a similar brief search to see what happened in the case of Katefan0. (I hadn't heard of it before.) In that case my snap judgment is that it was indeed meanspirited and wrong for Brandt to go after her as he did.
The problem I have with litanies like the one that I quoted above from Mark Gallagher is that they dredge up old history mostly for the sake of rehearsing bitterness, and they usually do so in a tendentious way that selectively presents the facts in order to make WR look even worse than it is (such as saying that AMorrow was "welcomed with open arms" without mentioning that they banned him). If this sort of history is important enough to keep bringing up, then it ought to be done in a more thorough, precise fashion, which inevitably means linking to and quoting from the relevant threads on Wikipedia Review so everyone can see for themselves what is being discussed. But, um, that presents a problem, doesn't it?
I also couldn't help noticing the similarity between the anti- Wikipedia rhetoric that comes pouring out of "blissy2" and some of the rhetoric that I've seen written here about WR. Blissy2 says Wikipedia is "harassing us, slandering us, trying to destroy us." Do any of these phrases sound familiar?
I agree that WR is a pretty pissy bunch with which I would not personally want to become associated, but I think the problem is being exacerbated rather than improved by a few Wikipedians who are so busy seeing red that they can't let a few things go.
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/ custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107 --------------------------------
On 5/31/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
The problem I have with litanies like the one that I quoted above from Mark Gallagher is that they dredge up old history mostly for the sake of rehearsing bitterness, and they usually do so in a tendentious way that selectively presents the facts in order to make WR look even worse than it is (such as saying that AMorrow was "welcomed with open arms" without mentioning that they banned him).
They did the right thing in the end, but they let him post quite a lot before banning him, when the posts were clearly and seriously problematic, especially when combined with what was known about him on Wikipedia. And he was posting links to his own website, which contained appalling material, so it wasn't as though they couldn't see what he was about.
Slim Virgin wrote:
They did the right thing in the end, but they let him post quite a lot before banning him, when the posts were clearly and seriously problematic, especially when combined with what was known about him on Wikipedia. And he was posting links to his own website, which contained appalling material, so it wasn't as though they couldn't see what he was about.
The posts were /concerning/, but nothing that, by themselves, were overtly problematic. I just assumed he was another crankpot, and "what was known about him on Wikipedia" was not known about him on Wikipedia Review.
In addition, Wikipedia Review has always been reluctant to ban users, unlike Wikipedia. The decision to ban is not one that is taken lightly, and involves discussion between the various staff of the forum to determine that it is the best decision. (This may have changed since I stepped down, but I presume it hasn't).
But feel free to paint the forum whichever colors you like.
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:57:47 -0500, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Even if Wikipedia was sitting there being decent, not harassing us, not slandering us, not trying to destroy us, and we were working together, we still couldn't allow this kind of activity
Hilarious. Which site was set up to attack which, again?
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:57:47 -0500, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Even if Wikipedia was sitting there being decent, not harassing us, not slandering us, not trying to destroy us, and we were working together, we still couldn't allow this kind of activity
Hilarious. Which site was set up to attack which, again?
Guy (JzG)
Wikipedia Review was set up to *critique*, not attack, Wikipedia. It has fallen short from it's initial stated goal, granted.
But let's not be naive or ignorant here. Both Wikipedia Review *and* Wikipedia have launched some pretty nasty shit at each other.
On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia Review was set up to *critique*, not attack, Wikipedia. It has fallen short from it's initial stated goal, granted.
Blu, it was set up by User:Amalekite, a user I indefblocked for posting a list of Jewish editors to Stormfront. That's why I was its number one target from day one.
On 31/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia Review was set up to *critique*, not attack, Wikipedia. It has fallen short from it's initial stated goal, granted.
Blu, it was set up by User:Amalekite, a user I indefblocked for posting a list of Jewish editors to Stormfront. That's why I was its number one target from day one.
And here I was about to post something about Godwin's Law of wikien-l involving Wikipedia Review.
Blu Aardvark is now on moderation, by the way, for just a little too much odiousness. wikien-l is entirely too tolerant, but Jeff, you gotta be on crack to expect us to swallow the rubbish you've been serving today.
- d.
on 5/31/07 4:35 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Blu Aardvark is now on moderation, by the way, for just a little too much odiousness. wikien-l is entirely too tolerant, but Jeff, you gotta be on crack to expect us to swallow the rubbish you've been serving today.
(aside) Would you, or someone, explain what list moderation is and how it works? Or provide me with a link that explains it. I'm serious, I've looked but couldn't find what I needed to understand it.
Thanks,
Marc Riddell
On 5/31/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
(aside) Would you, or someone, explain what list moderation is and how it works? Or provide me with a link that explains it. I'm serious, I've looked but couldn't find what I needed to understand it.
Typically, a moderated person on a given email list has all email from them bounced to the list mods (David and others) who then activate some sort of release option to let the mail through. Either a web based interface, or sometimes just forwarding the email back in with a given command or key or something similar. This is to often basically act as a filter on emails from them for whatever reason.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 5/31/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
(aside) Would you, or someone, explain what list moderation is and how it works? Or provide me with a link that explains it. I'm serious, I've looked but couldn't find what I needed to understand it.
on 5/31/07 4:56 PM, Joe Szilagyi at szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Typically, a moderated person on a given email list has all email from them bounced to the list mods (David and others) who then activate some sort of release option to let the mail through. Either a web based interface, or sometimes just forwarding the email back in with a given command or key or something similar. This is to often basically act as a filter on emails from them for whatever reason.
Joe,
Is the person being moderated informed that this is happening?
Marc
On 5/31/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Is the person being moderated informed that this is happening?
If nothing else, he would still be able to read the list and know we are discussing this.
—C.W.
on 5/31/07 5:12 PM, Charlotte Webb at charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Is the person being moderated informed that this is happening?
If nothing else, he would still be able to read the list and know we are discussing this.
Charlotte,
My question is: could someone's messages to the List suddenly become moderated (OK, censored) without first being told that they are - and why they are?
Marc
On 31/05/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 5/31/07 5:12 PM, Charlotte Webb at charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Is the person being moderated informed that this is happening?
If nothing else, he would still be able to read the list and know we are discussing this.
My question is: could someone's messages to the List suddenly become moderated (OK, censored) without first being told that they are - and why they are?
Technically, sure - this is why the public announcement, to avoid someone not realising (and thus submitting a hundred messages wondering why none get through, to pick one response seen in the past...). It's a very low-level solution; I guess it wouldn't be too hard to code up something to have a "status change" email sent out by default, though.
On 31/05/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
My question is: could someone's messages to the List suddenly become moderated (OK, censored) without first being told that they are - and why they are?
It's quite possible, but I don't like doing that here. New posters are told on the list info page (but not in the welcome message, I think - need to look into that) about starting moderated, but existing users are moderated basically only for good reason (being dickish or obviously socially problematic).
- d.
On 5/31/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 5/31/07 4:35 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Blu Aardvark is now on moderation, by the way, for just a little too much odiousness. wikien-l is entirely too tolerant, but Jeff, you gotta be on crack to expect us to swallow the rubbish you've been serving today.
(aside) Would you, or someone, explain what list moderation is and how it works? Or provide me with a link that explains it. I'm serious, I've looked but couldn't find what I needed to understand it.
Thanks,
Marc Riddell
Basically, David now has to review all his messages before they are sent to the list. I'm not sure this was the right decision, but I'll go with it. ~~~~
On 31/05/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 5/31/07 4:35 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Blu Aardvark is now on moderation, by the way, for just a little too much odiousness. wikien-l is entirely too tolerant, but Jeff, you gotta be on crack to expect us to swallow the rubbish you've been serving today.
(aside) Would you, or someone, explain what list moderation is and how it works? Or provide me with a link that explains it. I'm serious, I've looked but couldn't find what I needed to understand it.
It means their messages are held in the moderation queue and may be sent to the list, rejected (sent back to them) or discarded (thrown away silently). This introduces inconvenience for the poster as their messages are sent to the list on a moderator's convenience basis.
New members of the list start on moderation, which is annoying for all, but sadly necessary to control the trolls (or, rather, one troll).
- d.
on 5/31/07 4:35 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Blu Aardvark is now on moderation, by the way, for just a little too much odiousness. wikien-l is entirely too tolerant, but Jeff, you gotta be on crack to expect us to swallow the rubbish you've been serving today.
On 31/05/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
(aside) Would you, or someone, explain what list moderation is and how it works? Or provide me with a link that explains it. I'm serious, I've looked but couldn't find what I needed to understand it.
on 5/31/07 5:17 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It means their messages are held in the moderation queue and may be sent to the list, rejected (sent back to them) or discarded (thrown away silently). This introduces inconvenience for the poster as their messages are sent to the list on a moderator's convenience basis.
New members of the list start on moderation, which is annoying for all, but sadly necessary to control the trolls (or, rather, one troll).
Am I on moderation, David?
Marc
On 31/05/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
New members of the list start on moderation, which is annoying for all, but sadly necessary to control the trolls (or, rather, one troll).
Am I on moderation, David?
Your messages are arriving roughly one minute after posting. This is a pretty good sign you're not :-)
On 31/05/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
New members of the list start on moderation, which is annoying for all, but sadly necessary to control the trolls (or, rather, one troll).
Am I on moderation, David?
on 5/31/07 5:43 PM, Andrew Gray at shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Your messages are arriving roughly one minute after posting. This is a pretty good sign you're not :-)
Thank you for this, Andrew. I've created new dimensions to the term "computer challenged". I've written several posts that somehow never made it to the list recently - it must be me :-). My fears appear to be unfounded.
Thanks again,
Marc
On 31/05/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Am I on moderation, David?
Nope. If a post is held, you get an email saying it's in the queue.
The only reason I know for an unmoderated member to have a message held is if the message is over 10,000 characters long. I also set it so that messages with too high a score from the spam detector are just discarded, but no-one's told me of a message being eaten from that.
If a poster is not sure a message made it to the list, check the archive:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/
- d.
on 5/31/07 5:46 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/05/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Am I on moderation, David?
Nope. If a post is held, you get an email saying it's in the queue.
The only reason I know for an unmoderated member to have a message held is if the message is over 10,000 characters long. I also set it so that messages with too high a score from the spam detector are just discarded, but no-one's told me of a message being eaten from that.
If a poster is not sure a message made it to the list, check the archive:
Thanks, David. As I said in my response to Andrew, I've been having (I'm sure self-created) computer problems lately. Time for some computer intensive care :-).
Marc
David Gerard wrote:
Blu Aardvark is now on moderation, by the way, for just a little too much odiousness. wikien-l is entirely too tolerant, but Jeff, you gotta be on crack to expect us to swallow the rubbish you've been serving today.
Rubbish? Excuse me, but what exactly are you talking about?
Granted, I may have crossed the bounds of civility a few too many times, and I kinda expected that this would happen eventually, but "rubbish" is a farcical term.
Slim Virgin wrote:
Blu, it was set up by User:Amalekite, a user I indefblocked for posting a list of Jewish editors to Stormfront. That's why I was its number one target from day one.
Igor Alexander actually posted very little about you. The number one targets from "day one" were likely Raul654 and Snowspinner, mainly because Lir was one of the first members, and had a gripe about them, reasonable or no.
I don't remember when the focus shifted to you, but I believe it was around the time Blissyu2 invited Selina to the board.
On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Blu, it was set up by User:Amalekite, a user I indefblocked for posting a list of Jewish editors to Stormfront. That's why I was its number one target from day one.
Igor Alexander actually posted very little about you. The number one targets from "day one" were likely Raul654 and Snowspinner, mainly because Lir was one of the first members, and had a gripe about them, reasonable or no.
I don't remember when the focus shifted to you, but I believe it was around the time Blissyu2 invited Selina to the board.
It was the three of them together. For Amalekite, I was a Jewish/Zionist POV pusher because I'd blocked him for posting a list of Jews to Stormfront. For Selina, I was an Islamist POV pusher because I'd defended some Muslim editors against her attacks. For BlissyU2, I had engineered the blocks of Poetlister and socks (when in fact I hadn't), now recently confirmed as sockpuppets again. The three of them got together and proceeded to trash me. Then Daniel Brandt started posting there about how evil I was because I'd started a stub on him, and the rest is history. Since then, almost everything that happens on Wikipedia has been my fault.
Slim Virgin wrote:
It was the three of them together. For Amalekite, I was a Jewish/Zionist POV pusher because I'd blocked him for posting a list of Jews to Stormfront. For Selina, I was an Islamist POV pusher because I'd defended some Muslim editors against her attacks. For BlissyU2, I had engineered the blocks of Poetlister and socks (when in fact I hadn't), now recently confirmed as sockpuppets again. The three of them got together and proceeded to trash me. Then Daniel Brandt started posting there about how evil I was because I'd started a stub on him, and the rest is history.
Hmm. You know, that seems to be a fairly accurate depiction of events, although I still assert that I cannot recall Igor really getting involved with the issue on WR. There has certainly been a considerable over-fixation on you as an editor, and that hasn't ever really changed at all. I do feel that there are some legitimate concerns, but I don't feel it appropriate to get into that discussion on the mailing list.