Hi,
This was an otherwise great article that as of late (the past 3 days) has seen excessive edit warring and POV entries injected into it. Now it has been (predictably) set up for removal as a featured article.
All of this is due to a single user, Tern, who continually injects this passage
"These things illustrate how AS appears to correlate with child authorship, hence a number of aspie communities have a concerned awareness of the terrible injustice an aspie child can suffer when the [http://www.phad-fife.org.uk/recognition.html chance to achieve child authorship] is unfairly wrecked by high-handed [[school]] pressures."
and links to a very controversial site which nearly everyone else describes as a "hate site", which other editors are editing anonymously to avoid being listed on.
The link above in question is merely the rantings of a 14-year-old person with Asperger's Syndrome who could not get a scifi book published (and some other editors also claim that Tern is the person referenced there)- so initially users (before I came in the debate) just reverted the passage and noted on the talk page that it needed to be reworded to be less POV and needed a better reference. However, as evidenced by the history page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Asperger%27s_syndrome&curid=37556&action=history Tern continued to revert back to his version many, many times against MANY other editors who reached their 3 revert limit VERY quickly (reverts often happen within 10 minutes!). So, out of desperation the other users attempted to reword the passage in order to be less pov and accurate, including myself - however, this was not enough and Tern continued to revert back to his version.
Some of his edit summaries have been very hurtful and involve personal attacks, such as "sysops look how this rv of haters' vandalism gives new consensual edits to both items" "the last attack made here, the public can see is blatant personally malicious bullying against wikpedia's rules and illegal in intending to suppress prevention of child cruelty" "creatively revert the llast absurdity, cos it's obviously just an irresponsible personal insult and not verified"
Tern has also accused other editors of "hurting children" on the talk page.
Tern has violated 3RR at least 3 times, and depending on how you want to do the math many more times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/ 3RR#User:Tern
I'm just a participant in the war and have reached my 3RR limit twice already, and I've filed the 3RR against Tern. I WANT to work with the user, but the user needs to calm down and discuss with more sense about what he wants to do with the page, not just revert other good faith editors. I've tried notifying two admins without response on the issue also - and one admin - Zscout370 - simply voted to remove the article from FA status and not get in the debate with the user.
I'm the one who brought the Autism article to its Featured Article status and used this article as a reference more or less on how to do it, so its really a pity to see this happen - I'd hate to see it lose its status because of a war with one user.
Thanks, RN
Ok, so I voted to have the FA status removed from the article.Also, if you payed attention, I said "Coming as a neutral party, I looked at the website in question. IMHO, I do not think we should have a link to there. Also, in fairness, we could start trimming other links to various forums and other websites. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)" Tren himself responded to my statement as "more 2 -sided. Despite ZScout370 not giving reasons for his view above, I credit the balance in what he is trying to do by removing (qhile I was writing this!) the entire block of community sites and forcing a rethink on them and their balance." I did remove the links to all of the froums since we do not have to have every single stinking forum about Asperger's (which, I have anyways), and how every person who has it is coping with it. I, also, have removed a link to a school that is "developing," since I saw it as a promo. I also said "Note, my suggestion for removal of the links is due to the page, to me, sounding like a forum. And, there are countless of those dealing with this community. While if there are sites who oppose the community in a way that is scientific, we should have a link. But, overall, there could be a bunch of links that could be removed. I suggest, as a community, figure out what should stay and should go. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)"
As for the vote I performed, I stand by it and I will not change it. If the article is still going to be full of edit wars and have that POV tag at the top of the page, it does not deserve FA status and should be removed until the problems are solved.
Regards,
Zachary Harden (Zscout370)
From: Ryan Norton wxprojects@comcast.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] A cry to save the Asperger's Syndrome page Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:02:04 -0700
Hi,
This was an otherwise great article that as of late (the past 3 days) has seen excessive edit warring and POV entries injected into it. Now it has been (predictably) set up for removal as a featured article.
All of this is due to a single user, Tern, who continually injects this passage
"These things illustrate how AS appears to correlate with child authorship, hence a number of aspie communities have a concerned awareness of the terrible injustice an aspie child can suffer when the [http://www.phad-fife.org.uk/recognition.html chance to achieve child authorship] is unfairly wrecked by high-handed [[school]] pressures."
and links to a very controversial site which nearly everyone else describes as a "hate site", which other editors are editing anonymously to avoid being listed on.
The link above in question is merely the rantings of a 14-year-old person with Asperger's Syndrome who could not get a scifi book published (and some other editors also claim that Tern is the person referenced there)- so initially users (before I came in the debate) just reverted the passage and noted on the talk page that it needed to be reworded to be less POV and needed a better reference. However, as evidenced by the history page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Asperger%27s_syndrome&curid=37556&action=history Tern continued to revert back to his version many, many times against MANY other editors who reached their 3 revert limit VERY quickly (reverts often happen within 10 minutes!). So, out of desperation the other users attempted to reword the passage in order to be less pov and accurate, including myself - however, this was not enough and Tern continued to revert back to his version.
Some of his edit summaries have been very hurtful and involve personal attacks, such as "sysops look how this rv of haters' vandalism gives new consensual edits to both items" "the last attack made here, the public can see is blatant personally malicious bullying against wikpedia's rules and illegal in intending to suppress prevention of child cruelty" "creatively revert the llast absurdity, cos it's obviously just an irresponsible personal insult and not verified"
Tern has also accused other editors of "hurting children" on the talk page.
Tern has violated 3RR at least 3 times, and depending on how you want to do the math many more times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/ 3RR#User:Tern
I'm just a participant in the war and have reached my 3RR limit twice already, and I've filed the 3RR against Tern. I WANT to work with the user, but the user needs to calm down and discuss with more sense about what he wants to do with the page, not just revert other good faith editors. I've tried notifying two admins without response on the issue also - and one admin - Zscout370 - simply voted to remove the article from FA status and not get in the debate with the user.
I'm the one who brought the Autism article to its Featured Article status and used this article as a reference more or less on how to do it, so its really a pity to see this happen - I'd hate to see it lose its status because of a war with one user.
Thanks, RN
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Regardless, until it is resolved, my vote will not change.
Regards,
Zachary Harden
Ok, so I voted to have the FA status removed from the article.Also, if you payed attention,
And I did realize this Z and I thank you for your contributions, but I have to ask - why is this user not banned for 24 hours? Is it because he claims "injustice" etc. so admins fear getting involved?
Ryan
I just got involved. I was being asked to block the user before in IRC, but as you can tell, he always edits by using IP's, so the likely hood of the block working is zero to none, closer to none.
Regards,
Zachary Harden
From: Ryan Norton wxprojects@comcast.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A cry to save the Asperger's Syndrome page Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:19:20 -0700
Ok, so I voted to have the FA status removed from the article.Also, if you payed attention,
And I did realize this Z and I thank you for your contributions, but I have to ask - why is this user not banned for 24 hours? Is it because he claims "injustice" etc. so admins fear getting involved?
On Monday, August 22, 2005, at 06:21 PM, Zachary Harden wrote:
I just got involved. I was being asked to block the user before in IRC, but as you can tell, he always edits by using IP's, so the likely hood of the block working is zero to none, closer to none.
I'm not sure what you mean - from the 3RR the 3rd violation - reverts 2-6 (5 reverts) are all by Tern logged in as Tern.
Thanks, RN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Zachary Harden wrote:
I just got involved. I was being asked to block the user before in IRC, but as you can tell, he always edits by using IP's, so the likely hood of the block working is zero to none, closer to none.
That's what that nice little "protect" button you get when you become an admin is for.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 01:21:34AM +0000, Zachary Harden wrote:
From: Ryan Norton wxprojects@comcast.net 22 Aug 2005 18:19:20 -0700
Ok, so I voted to have the FA status removed from the article.Also, if you payed attention,
And I did realize this Z and I thank you for your contributions, but I have to ask - why is this user not banned for 24 hours? Is it because he claims "injustice" etc. so admins fear getting involved?
I just got involved. I was being asked to block the user before in IRC, but as you can tell, he always edits by using IP's, so the likely hood of the block working is zero to none, closer to none. > Regards, Zachary Harden
Hmmm... Suggestion:
When a page is in this type of "trouble", is it possible that one more tool in the toolbox would help?
That would be a tag which means a page is only editable from a logged-in Wiki-account.
All logged-in edits to the page would be processed as usual.
When an non-logged in user opened the edit tab on that page they would get a message indicating that page's special status and a chance to login or register.
The logic is straightforward. How much work this would be to add is an unknown, as is how much of a load increase it would add to the wiki-servers. I'm happy to contribute code if needed.
(Blindingly simplistic ascii flow chart starts here)
User clicks edit tab | | V Is user logged in ? ----> YES ---> allow edit | NO | V Redirect to a special message page | |-----> user logs in ------> allow edit | |-----> user registers ----> allow edit | V All others choices are the user using the normal wiki or browser navigation features to go somewhere else. (BACK, Search etc..)
I'm new to this list, if this has been discussed before please disregard.
Sounds good, but it's super easy to register, and I will oppose all attempts to make registration difficult. ;)
On 8/25/05, Jeff Kinz jkinz@kinz.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 01:21:34AM +0000, Zachary Harden wrote:
From: Ryan Norton wxprojects@comcast.net 22 Aug 2005 18:19:20 -0700
Ok, so I voted to have the FA status removed from the article.Also, if you payed attention,
And I did realize this Z and I thank you for your contributions, but I have to ask - why is this user not banned for 24 hours? Is it because he claims "injustice" etc. so admins fear getting involved?
I just got involved. I was being asked to block the user before in IRC, but as you can tell, he always edits by using IP's, so the likely hood of the block working is zero to none, closer to none. > Regards, Zachary Harden
Hmmm... Suggestion:
When a page is in this type of "trouble", is it possible that one more tool in the toolbox would help?
That would be a tag which means a page is only editable from a logged-in Wiki-account.
All logged-in edits to the page would be processed as usual.
When an non-logged in user opened the edit tab on that page they would get a message indicating that page's special status and a chance to login or register.
The logic is straightforward. How much work this would be to add is an unknown, as is how much of a load increase it would add to the wiki-servers. I'm happy to contribute code if needed.
(Blindingly simplistic ascii flow chart starts here)
User clicks edit tab | | V Is user logged in ? ----> YES ---> allow edit | NO | V Redirect to a special message page | |-----> user logs in ------> allow edit | |-----> user registers ----> allow edit | V All others choices are the user using the normal wiki or browser navigation features to go somewhere else. (BACK, Search etc..)
I'm new to this list, if this has been discussed before please disregard.
-- speech recognition software was used in the composition of this e-mail Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Phroziac wrote:
On 8/25/05, Jeff Kinz jkinz@kinz.org wrote:
Hmmm... Suggestion:
When a page is in this type of "trouble", is it possible that one more tool in the toolbox would help?
That would be a tag which means a page is only editable from a logged-in Wiki-account.
All logged-in edits to the page would be processed as usual.
When an non-logged in user opened the edit tab on that page they would get a message indicating that page's special status and a chance to login or register.
The logic is straightforward. How much work this would be to add is an unknown, as is how much of a load increase it would add to the wiki-servers. I'm happy to contribute code if needed.
<snip>
Sounds good, but it's super easy to register, and I will oppose all attempts to make registration difficult. ;)
I think a variety of meta-protection - pages which can only be edited by logged in users - would be very useful. Coupled with a solution for bug 550 (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550), it would be very useful to stop blatant POV warring by new users. Encouraging people to register is undoubtably a Good Thing, because new users are very quickly welcomed and dealt with as needed.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
To get around a small problem raised above, Why not add a feature to this potential new tool to say "Only registered users with more than x amount of edits can edit this page"?
On 8/27/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Phroziac wrote:
On 8/25/05, Jeff Kinz jkinz@kinz.org wrote:
Hmmm... Suggestion:
When a page is in this type of "trouble", is it possible that one more tool in the toolbox would help?
That would be a tag which means a page is only editable from a logged-in Wiki-account.
All logged-in edits to the page would be processed as usual.
When an non-logged in user opened the edit tab on that page they would get a message indicating that page's special status and a chance to login or register.
The logic is straightforward. How much work this would be to add is an unknown, as is how much of a load increase it would add to the wiki-servers. I'm happy to contribute code if needed.
<snip> > > Sounds good, but it's super easy to register, and I will oppose all > attempts to make registration difficult. ;) >
I think a variety of meta-protection - pages which can only be edited by logged in users - would be very useful. Coupled with a solution for bug 550 (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550), it would be very useful to stop blatant POV warring by new users. Encouraging people to register is undoubtably a Good Thing, because new users are very quickly welcomed and dealt with as needed.
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDEGaa/RxM5Ph0xhMRAzfLAJ9RN77YuDnpK5io5iJJ/jYCPEKneQCfXvu/ Lw0F58LmIMVihFVTVn+8Gl4= =3x+W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
that's starting to get a little evil. ;)
On 8/27/05, Measure measure@gmail.com wrote:
To get around a small problem raised above, Why not add a feature to this potential new tool to say "Only registered users with more than x amount of edits can edit this page"?
On 8/27/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Phroziac wrote:
On 8/25/05, Jeff Kinz jkinz@kinz.org wrote:
Hmmm... Suggestion:
When a page is in this type of "trouble", is it possible that one more tool in the toolbox would help?
That would be a tag which means a page is only editable from a logged-in Wiki-account.
All logged-in edits to the page would be processed as usual.
When an non-logged in user opened the edit tab on that page they would get a message indicating that page's special status and a chance to login or register.
The logic is straightforward. How much work this would be to add is an unknown, as is how much of a load increase it would add to the wiki-servers. I'm happy to contribute code if needed.
<snip> > > Sounds good, but it's super easy to register, and I will oppose all > attempts to make registration difficult. ;) >
I think a variety of meta-protection - pages which can only be edited by logged in users - would be very useful. Coupled with a solution for bug 550 (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550), it would be very useful to stop blatant POV warring by new users. Encouraging people to register is undoubtably a Good Thing, because new users are very quickly welcomed and dealt with as needed.
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDEGaa/RxM5Ph0xhMRAzfLAJ9RN77YuDnpK5io5iJJ/jYCPEKneQCfXvu/ Lw0F58LmIMVihFVTVn+8Gl4= =3x+W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/25/05, Jeff Kinz jkinz@kinz.org wrote:
That would be a tag which means a page is only editable from a logged-in Wiki-account.
All logged-in edits to the page would be processed as usual.
When an non-logged in user opened the edit tab on that page they would get a message indicating that page's special status and a chance to login or register.
This is "semiprotection" and has been discussed before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Semiprotect
Don't confuse this with the other form of semiprotection (which only prohibits non-admins from moving the page).
Kelly
I'm the one who brought the Autism article to its Featured Article status and used this article as a reference more or less on how to do it
I should mention that I had quite a bit of help from the community, especially with rewriting the intro, so I don't want to leave them out of that :).
Thanks,
RN