Someone created {{User pedophile}}. While almost anyone would think this was created as a vehicle for trolling and personal attacks, the creator actually did create it for the purpose of finding and blocking paedophiles from editing, since *of course* they would put it on their own page.
Someone went "wtf" and killed it. Then someone else RECREATED it. Then it was put on TFD. Then someone else killed it. Then someone else recreated it *because it was in the process*.
A sample of the depths of Wiki discussion can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#Blocking_self-identified_pedophiles
What happens is that really really stupid ideas get floated and discussed, but people who aren't stupid avoid the discussions because their brain will fall out if they try ... so then the people who like the stupid idea consider they've formed a 'consensus' amongst all those interested, and think it's the will of the community to push the really stupid idea.
I think we really, really need a Wiki Stupidity Patrol to go to really dumb discussions and attempt to inject sense into them.
- d.
On 2/5/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#Blocking_self-identified_pedophilesWhat happens is that really really stupid ideas get floated and discussed, but people who aren't stupid avoid the discussions because their brain will fall out if they try ... so then the people who like the stupid idea consider they've formed a 'consensus' amongst all those interested, and think it's the will of the community to push the really stupid idea.
You think this is a stupid idea? You must like pedophiles...etc...
How about a board called "The guardians of good taste" or something, who stomp on bad ideas like this?
There are so many comments that could be made about this template, but...I'll refrain.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/5/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#Blocking_self-identified_pedophiles
What happens is that really really stupid ideas get floated and discussed, but people who aren't stupid avoid the discussions because their brain will fall out if they try ... so then the people who like the stupid idea consider they've formed a 'consensus' amongst all those interested, and think it's the will of the community to push the really stupid idea.
You think this is a stupid idea? You must like pedophiles...etc...
How about a board called "The guardians of good taste" or something, who stomp on bad ideas like this?
Sounds like you would put Dilbert on [[Index Librorum Prohibitorum]] :-)
Ec
On 2/5/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Someone created {{User pedophile}}. While almost anyone would think this was created as a vehicle for trolling and personal attacks, the creator actually did create it for the purpose of finding and blocking paedophiles from editing, since *of course* they would put it on their own page.
That *is* trolling, by definition. I'm speedying it.
On 2/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Someone created {{User pedophile}}. While almost anyone would think this was created as a vehicle for trolling and personal attacks, the creator actually did create it for the purpose of finding and blocking paedophiles from editing, since *of course* they would put it on their own page.
That *is* trolling, by definition. I'm speedying it.
Not fair! You beat me!
On 2/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Someone created {{User pedophile}}. While almost anyone would think this was created as a vehicle for trolling and personal attacks, the creator actually did create it for the purpose of finding and blocking paedophiles from editing, since *of course* they would put it on their own page.
That *is* trolling, by definition. I'm speedying it. _______________________________________________
With all the controversy around yourself regarding speedying userboxes, I would really recommend you leave this to other people. No doubt someone will use the fact you speedied it to justify a recreation. There's plenty of people here who agree on this from what I've seen in the earlier mailing list post on the subject.
Mgm
On 2/5/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
With all the controversy around yourself regarding speedying userboxes, I would really recommend you leave this to other people.
I'm an editor on Wikipedia. To leave things to other people is always an option, but then there's always the possibility of doing it oneself. Don't you agree that we should try out best at all times to improve the encyclopedia?
No doubt someone will use the fact you speedied it to justify a recreation.
That would be a bad faith action.
And look at what I just got on my talk page for deleting an attack template and recreating it blank:
Warning level 2; Blanking.
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Template:User paedophile. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. âBorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please kill all userboxes conclusively, even the 'useful' ones. And give James F. a look for having invented them, something he is *very sorry for indeed*.
(I replied pointing out that blanking is 'simple vandalism', but deleting and recreating blank is whoops, NOT LISTED! And that trolling userboxes aren't "Wikipedia content". I expressed my sincere hope also that this satisfied the urge to process sufficiently.)
- d.
On 2/5/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
And look at what I just got on my talk page for deleting an attack template and recreating it blank:
Warning level 2; Blanking. Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Template:User paedophile. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Could someone please kill all userboxes conclusively, even the 'useful' ones. And give James F. a look for having invented them, something he is *very sorry for indeed*.
(I replied pointing out that blanking is 'simple vandalism', but deleting and recreating blank is whoops, NOT LISTED! And that trolling userboxes aren't "Wikipedia content". I expressed my sincere hope also that this satisfied the urge to process sufficiently.)
- d.
That last excuse won't work president is slightly against you. I also seem to recall from debates about the three revert rule that how you do things doesn't matter if the results are functionaly the same.
-- geni
On 2/5/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
That last excuse won't work president is slightly against you. I also seem to recall from debates about the three revert rule that how you do things doesn't matter if the results are functionaly the same.
And, oh boy, has that worked well.
-- Sam
On 2/5/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Could someone please kill all userboxes conclusively, even the 'useful' ones.
We should do this. Really we should. For the sake of the encyclopedia these divisive things must die, and acquire a "shoot on sight" status. The community is torn in two by their very presence, and I fear that only a software feature preventing the use of categories and templates in userspace would work now. If I want to say that I'm available as a resource to those needing a speaker of good French, passable Spanish and schoolboy Latin, I can create wikiprojects for the purpose and add my name to them. The userbox is a nice idea that, for the encyclopedia, has had absolutely hideous consequences.
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Could someone please kill all userboxes conclusively, even the 'useful' ones.
We should do this. Really we should. For the sake of the encyclopedia these divisive things must die, and acquire a "shoot on sight" status. The community is torn in two by their very presence, and I fear that only a software feature preventing the use of categories and templates in userspace would work now. If I want to say that I'm available as a resource to those needing a speaker of good French, passable Spanish and schoolboy Latin, I can create wikiprojects for the purpose and add my name to them.
Perhaps the divisive userboxes could die, but (at least) the language boxes are effective and useful for their purpose in a way that users adding themselves to lists in obscure parts of the Wikipedia would not be. (Also, many people find the use of templates to be very useful within userspace.)
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
On 2/5/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Perhaps the divisive userboxes could die, but (at least) the language boxes are effective and useful for their purpose in a way that users adding themselves to lists in obscure parts of the Wikipedia would not be. (Also, many people find the use of templates to be very useful within userspace.)
Oh I do agree. Just trying to "think out of the box".
Actually my research results (the only research on this that I'm aware of) suggest that there isn't a lot of this going on. Of 230 editors, chosen because their userpages were on my watchlist, who were still active over the past two months, when I checked their userpages only 22 had political, polemical or religious userboxes. This comprises A through E on my watchlist, and a random selection of active editors from the rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony_Sidaway/Jimbo%27s_request#A
On 2/6/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Could someone please kill all userboxes conclusively, even the
'useful'
ones.
We should do this. Really we should. For the sake of the encyclopedia these divisive things must die, and acquire a "shoot on sight" status. The community is torn in two by their very presence, and I fear that only a software feature preventing the use of categories and templates in userspace would work now. If I want to say that I'm available as a resource to those needing a speaker of good French, passable Spanish and schoolboy Latin, I can create wikiprojects for the purpose and add my name to them.
Perhaps the divisive userboxes could die, but (at least) the language boxes are effective and useful for their purpose in a way that users adding themselves to lists in obscure parts of the Wikipedia would not be. (Also, many people find the use of templates to be very useful within userspace.)
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
I totally agree with Matt here. The useful userboxes don't have to suffer because some people like to create divisive ones and argue about them. Babelboxes and boxes which show your abilities, computer settings and geoprgraphical location are all quite useful and should be allowed to stay.
Mgm
On 2/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
say that I'm available as a resource to those needing a speaker of good French, passable Spanish and schoolboy Latin, I can create wikiprojects for the purpose and add my name to them.
Except if I can't read the local language how am I meant to find the wikiprojects
-- geni
On 2/6/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
We should do this. Really we should. For the sake of the encyclopedia these divisive things must die, and acquire a "shoot on sight" status. The community is torn in two by their very presence, and I fear that only a software feature preventing the use of categories and templates in userspace would work now. If I want to say that I'm available as a resource to those needing a speaker of good French, passable Spanish and schoolboy Latin, I can create wikiprojects for the purpose and add my name to them. The userbox is a nice idea that, for the encyclopedia, has had absolutely hideous consequences.
Likewise, if I want to express that I'm a muslim-hating far-right Christian fundamentalist, I'll just create a wikiproject for that purpose too...
I suspect that if the desire to express such things is there, taking away a means to do it won't achieve much.
Steve
On 2/6/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/6/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
We should do this. Really we should. For the sake of the encyclopedia these divisive things must die, and acquire a "shoot on sight" status. The community is torn in two by their very presence, and I fear that only a software feature preventing the use of categories and templates in userspace would work now. If I want to say that I'm available as a resource to those needing a speaker of good French, passable Spanish and schoolboy Latin, I can create wikiprojects for the purpose and add my name to them. The userbox is a nice idea that, for the encyclopedia, has had absolutely hideous consequences.
Likewise, if I want to express that I'm a muslim-hating far-right Christian fundamentalist, I'll just create a wikiproject for that purpose too...
I suspect that if the desire to express such things is there, taking away a means to do it won't achieve much.
Steve
Technically speaking you could, but I would support an immediate blocking. It would constitute baiting and refueling the fire over this debate, and it's really not helpful to creating an encyclopedia to begin with.
Mgm
On 2/6/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/6/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
If I want to say that I'm available as a resource to those needing a speaker of good French, passable Spanish and schoolboy Latin, I can create wikiprojects for the purpose and add my name to them. The userbox is a nice idea that, for the encyclopedia, has had absolutely hideous consequences.
Likewise, if I want to express that I'm a muslim-hating far-right Christian fundamentalist, I'll just create a wikiproject for that purpose too...
I suspect that if the desire to express such things is there, taking away a means to do it won't achieve much.
Well, create the wikiproject and it would be deleted pretty quickly. For some reason we've got a blind spot for the same opinion if it's expressed in template space.
We already have a stupidity patrol. Appeal to Jimbo if things get out of hand.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm (macgyvermagic@gmail.com) [060206 09:08]:
We already have a stupidity patrol. Appeal to Jimbo if things get out of hand.
The stupidity is created by a massively parallel process; it needs to be dealt with by one too. Remember that our page hits went up 50% in January alone.
A lot of it is newbies coming along and going through bad ideas that the wiki's been through several times already; pointing out why things are a bad idea seems to be what's missing. They REALLY DON'T KNOW THE IDEAS ARE STUPID if someone doesn't tell them. (And often even if they do, but anyway.)
- d.
Geez I thought the brilliant idea of not being "rule bound" took care of this.
nobs
On 2/5/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
A lot of it is newbies coming along and going through bad ideas that the wiki's been through several times already; pointing out why things are a bad idea seems to be what's missing. They REALLY DON'T KNOW THE IDEAS ARE STUPID if someone doesn't tell them.
David Gerard wrote:
... stupidity is created by a massively parallel process.
Is that statement protected by copyright?
Ray, I've asked you privately, and I know I'm not the only one. FIX YOUR COMPUTER'S DATESTAMP. You're screwing up everybody's message sorting because all your messages show up as being from 1997.
Philip Welch wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
... stupidity is created by a massively parallel process.
Is that statement protected by copyright?
Ray, I've asked you privately, and I know I'm not the only one. FIX YOUR COMPUTER'S DATESTAMP. You're screwing up everybody's message sorting because all your messages show up as being from 1997.
Sort by "order received" or view as threads?
But yeah, this is really bizzare...
... stupidity is created by a massively parallel process.
Is that statement protected by copyright?
Ray, I've asked you privately, and I know I'm not the only one. FIX YOUR COMPUTER'S DATESTAMP. You're screwing up everybody's message sorting because all your messages show up as being from 1997.
Sort by "order received" or view as threads?
But yeah, this is really bizzare...
I have my mail client set the way I like it. I'm not gonna change it just to accommodate one guy who doesn't bother to correctly set his computer clock, even after people let him know politely.
Philip Welch wrote:
Ray, I've asked you privately, and I know I'm not the only one. FIX YOUR COMPUTER'S DATESTAMP. You're screwing up everybody's message sorting because all your messages show up as being from 1997.
I've seen these messages on the list, but this is the first time anyone has said it was me. Oh well, it's no big deal, so there's no need to shout. :-(
Ray, I've asked you privately, and I know I'm not the only one. FIX YOUR COMPUTER'S DATESTAMP. You're screwing up everybody's message sorting because all your messages show up as being from 1997.
I've seen these messages on the list, but this is the first time anyone has said it was me. Oh well, it's no big deal, so there's no need to shout. :-(
Thanks. I recall (and my records confirm) that I emailed you privately about this yesterday afternoon, but if you didn't get the message for some reason, no hard feelings.
Philip Welch wrote:
Ray, I've asked you privately, and I know I'm not the only one. FIX YOUR COMPUTER'S DATESTAMP. You're screwing up everybody's message sorting because all your messages show up as being from 1997.
I've seen these messages on the list, but this is the first time anyone has said it was me. Oh well, it's no big deal, so there's no need to shout. :-(
Thanks. I recall (and my records confirm) that I emailed you privately about this yesterday afternoon, but if you didn't get the message for some reason, no hard feelings.
Sorry, but it looks like I didn't even notice that it was a private message since it continued a thread that was already on the list. We did have a brief power outage Friday night; that must have done it.
Ray
On 2/6/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Ray, I've asked you privately, and I know I'm not the only one. FIX YOUR COMPUTER'S DATESTAMP. You're screwing up everybody's message sorting because all your messages show up as being from 1997.
<whisper>actually it sorts ok in gmail</whisper>
Steve
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
We already have a stupidity patrol. Appeal to Jimbo if things get out of hand.
And in the aftermath of the absurd wheel war that went on tonight over this stupid thing, I ended up temporarily desysopping 5 admins for wheel warring over it. I had never done this before, I had to make myself sysop first to even do it.
Geez, what a night.
--Jimbo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard stated for the record:
Someone created {{User pedophile}}. While almost anyone would think this was created as a vehicle for trolling and personal attacks, the creator actually did create it for the purpose of finding and blocking paedophiles from editing, since *of course* they would put it on their own page.
Would it violate WP:POINT if I included the box in my page, then permablocked the fool who tried to block me for including it?
- -- Sean Barrett | I'm sure there's a way to say "fuck off, sean@epoptic.org | you drooling idiot" in Diplomatian. -d
"Sean Barrett" sean@epoptic.org wrote in message news:43E677FA.2050006@epoptic.com...
David Gerard stated for the record:
Someone created {{User pedophile}}. While almost anyone would think this was created as a vehicle for trolling and personal attacks, the creator actually did create it for the purpose of finding and blocking paedophiles from editing, since *of course* they would put it on their own page.
Would it violate WP:POINT if I included the box in my page, then permablocked the fool who tried to block me for including it?
Again for the record, and for the avoidance of doubt, and for the benefit of anyone who has managed to avoid noticing the enormous ForestFire this incident has caused, and assuming good faith on your part...
ObVious: Yes
HTH HAND
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
What happens is that really really stupid ideas get floated and discussed, but people who aren't stupid avoid the discussions because their brain will fall
out if they try ...
There is also the devil-may-care crowd --inbetween stupid and smart -- who see the need to make themselves useful despite the cost to themselves --brain falling out, etc. But its the same thing with any controversial issue. Such is the foolish quest to make people better informed.
With that said, it might be best to avoid using pejoratives to refer to people, David. Youre English; surely you can craft your concepts with a bit more wit. I of course am no stranger to the need for clarity, but if were going to take it to that level, then you're talking about a kind of overhaul of current WP structure and WP culture. Same canine complaining --different context.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
David Gerard wrote:
What happens is that really really stupid ideas get floated and discussed, but people who aren't stupid avoid the discussions because their brain will fall out if they try ... so then the people who like the stupid idea consider they've formed a 'consensus' amongst all those interested, and think it's the will of the community to push the really stupid idea.
I think we really, really need a Wiki Stupidity Patrol to go to really dumb discussions and attempt to inject sense into them.
It seems that any baby who sucked on that breast might get a mouthful of silicone.
Ec
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Someone created {{User pedophile}}. While almost anyone would think this was created as a vehicle for trolling and personal attacks, the creator actually did create it for the purpose of finding and blocking paedophiles from editing, since *of course* they would put it on their own page.
Someone went "wtf" and killed it. Then someone else RECREATED it. Then it was put on TFD. Then someone else killed it. Then someone else recreated it *because it was in the process*.
A sample of the depths of Wiki discussion can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#Blocking_self-identified_pedophiles
What happens is that really really stupid ideas get floated and discussed, but people who aren't stupid avoid the discussions because their brain will fall out if they try ... so then the people who like the stupid idea consider they've formed a 'consensus' amongst all those interested, and think it's the will of the community to push the really stupid idea.
I think we really, really need a Wiki Stupidity Patrol to go to really dumb discussions and attempt to inject sense into them.
Actually, all of the above is kinda funny and kinda tragic. And much as I admire you in volunteering to lead the Stupidity Patrol in their spiffy uniforms, David, I think that you're just putting a bandaid on a major problem. More work and an ongoing battle between the stupids and the self-nominated non-stupids, which probably equates to just one set, if you tot up the points of view of the participants. Very few people (apart from me) will publicly admit to being publicly stupid.
The "major problem" is that anyone can edit Wikipedia, even if they are stupid or ignorant or unable to see anyone else's view but their own.
The Wikimethod for getting rid of stupid or ignorant or malicious edits to articles is that the edits pop up on the watchlists of people who know better, and they fix the bad edits, hopefully in a patient and productive manner and with due reference to sources.
On policy matters like this, perhaps the problem isn't that people won't dive in to fix obvious stupidities, but that ordinary editors assume that management is looking after it because that's what management is for, and management doesn't want to get involved.
If you don't want to get involved, and I can appreciate that you have better things to do than be continually stamping out stupid little fires, why not get (say) half a dozen editors you trust to have sensible heads on their shoulders, point them in the direction of the stupid little problem and ask them to keep an eye on it. Pick a different half-dozen each time. Think of it as an unofficial jury duty. Solid, steady, experienced editors are going to do the right thing, quench the flames, monitor the situation and if things get out of hand, they will call for assistance from their own resources. In effect, they put the thing on their watchlists.
Maybe this amounts to the same thing as your Stupidity Patrol, but the appearance of a posse of citizens using common sense arguments would work better than some SWAT team who would inevitably lose patience and fall back on their appointed authority.
Peter (Skyring)