I have temporarily revoked Kils' sysop status on en:, someone with developer status on de: may want to do the same. Explanation:
In the last few days, a user named "Viking" has vandalized/downsized a couple of articles he considered "indecent" (especially the [[fisting]] article), threatened people not to question what he is doing if they didn't have "administrator status" and then left (there was a brief discussion of a possible ban). Kils subsequently deleted Viking's user and talk pages and explained it was an "experiment of his children".
I asked him for details, he responded and then *deleted his talk page* before I could read his response. I restored the talk page and there was the following response.
-----------------------
Eloquence: I confirm this - I do not think any had the quality of vandlism, otherwise I would have stepped in. We were concerned that a "handbook type" with direct instructions to certain practises on certain pages was endangering the reputation of wikipeia and of us as visible contributers and cooperators. A first thing many teachers and professors for example do, before they endorse or use a web based project in class or with students/parents, is to search for ugly content within. And there was some, and as we were supported by responses of colleagues with the right background it was beyond the rules of wikipedia - young vikings are often of very spontaneous mannors, I advised them to do things different, but then we are also very democratic. they plan to do it different now - we could have done everything anonymous, but we did not - from that you can deduct that we all are interested in communication and construction - we are all astonished how much time you spent in the wikipedia project (Anerkennung!) you seem to need only very little sleep - best greetings across the ocean (from the USA) from uwe kils - user Kils 18:50 31 May 2003 (UTC)
-----------------------
It seems quite clear that Uwe Kils shares Viking's standard of "decency" regarding Wikipedia articles and feels that material e.g. about specific sexual practices is inappropriate. In light of his actions, I do not trust him to be a sysop anymore.
In spite of my objections, this should normally go through discussion first before the status is revoked, but I am worried that Kils might delete more pages, and it seemed like an appropriate safety measure. I also wanted to allow others to take a look at his user talk page to have a track record, and this was not possible with him being a sysop, because then I could not protect the page or stop him from deleting it. If anyone feels that Kils must be a sysop again, please post.
Regards,
Erik
At 12:08 PM 5/31/2003, you wrote:
I have temporarily revoked Kils' sysop status on en:, someone with developer status on de: may want to do the same. Explanation:
*snip snip*
In spite of my objections, this should normally go through discussion first before the status is revoked, but I am worried that Kils might delete more pages, and it seemed like an appropriate safety measure. I also wanted to allow others to take a look at his user talk page to have a track record, and this was not possible with him being a sysop, because then I could not protect the page or stop him from deleting it. If anyone feels that Kils must be a sysop again, please post.
Well, here's my take.
I doubt that Kils would delete any other pages. He seems to have been overly hasty in his deletion of the Viking pages (because a record ought to be left of the incident), but I believe that his reasoning was semi-sound. He was accepting responsibility for the actions of (it would appear) his subordinates. It sounds like Kils was the sysop that Viking claimed was a member of the Viking group. It also sounds like, while Kils shares the Viking views regarding the safety of children on the net, that he plans on advancing his goals in a different manner. Given that, I see no danger in restoring Kils sysop powers, understanding of course that they should be revoked if he unilateraly enages in any form of censorship. As Kils stated, his concern was that the article was a bit more explicit and "handbook" styled than perhaps was necessary or desirable in an encyclopedia. While I don't happen to agree, it's certainly a valid point. Given that Kils seems to have assured us that the Viking group is now commited to not using User:Viking's tactics, I think Kils status ought to be restored.
-----
Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Dante-
how do you feel about the fact that he deleted his own talk page, thereby not even leaving his explanation of the incident?
Regards,
Erik
At 12:54 PM 5/31/2003, you wrote:
Dante-
how do you feel about the fact that he deleted his own talk page, thereby not even leaving his explanation of the incident?
Regards,
Erik
I don't think it's strictly true to say that he deleted his own talk page. I will take them at their word that there are a group of people that we are discussing here, and that the people at User:Viking were members of the same group as Kils, but are not one and the same person.
As I said, the deletion of the page was a Bad Thing, but it can be undone. Assuming that Kils understands why that was a mistake, as I assume he will if we explain it to him, I see no danger in restoring his sysop powers. After all, the only unreversable action that a sysop can take is the deletion of pictures which really isn't that big of a deal anyway. If he begins to abuse his powers, take them away for good. But, as I see it, Kils hasn't really done anything too terrible. It's probably just been (and PLEASE forgive me for this one) a cultural misunderstanding.
-----
Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Dante-
At 12:54 PM 5/31/2003, you wrote:
Dante-
how do you feel about the fact that he deleted his own talk page, thereby not even leaving his explanation of the incident?
Regards,
Erik
I don't think it's strictly true to say that he deleted his own talk page.
You misunderstand me. I was not referring to the [[User:Viking]] deletion. He deleted the page [[User talk:Kils]] after he responded there to my query regarding the Kils/Viking relationship, even before I could read the response. I restored the page and revoked his sysop status to prevent him from deleting it again, at which point he reverted it to a prior revision. I restored the response and protected the page, to have an open track record for this discussion. Kils then posted on my page (in German) that he did not want his talk page to "link to pornographic pages" and asked me, in very formal language, to delete it. Of course there is no link to any pornographic page on the talk page, just his response which I posted here.
That he may have deleted the Viking experiment without prior discussion, I can understand. But normally pages should be listed on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] first, and in this case, he really just used his sysop privileges to remove something which, for whatever reason, he did not want to be publicly visible.
Regards,
Erik
At 01:19 PM 5/31/2003, you wrote:
You misunderstand me. I was not referring to the [[User:Viking]] deletion. He deleted the page [[User talk:Kils]] after he responded there to my query regarding the Kils/Viking relationship, even before I could read the response. I restored the page and revoked his sysop status to prevent him from deleting it again, at which point he reverted it to a prior revision. I restored the response and protected the page, to have an open track record for this discussion. Kils then posted on my page (in German) that he did not want his talk page to "link to pornographic pages" and asked me, in very formal language, to delete it. Of course there is no link to any pornographic page on the talk page, just his response which I posted here.
That he may have deleted the Viking experiment without prior discussion, I can understand. But normally pages should be listed on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] first, and in this case, he really just used his sysop privileges to remove something which, for whatever reason, he did not want to be publicly visible.
Regards,
Erik
Oh, oh, OH!!
Yes, I most certainly DID misunderstand you... let me go look at the deleted Kils talk page. Hmmm... yeah. That is considerably more damning. Personally I'd still like to give him the benefit of the doubt, given that he's been a good contributor.... but it certainly doesn't look good. I support at least a temporary revocation of his sysop status and think that the best thing Kils can hope for is a message to the list explaining his actions.
-----
Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Dante Alighieri wrote:
That he may have deleted the Viking experiment without prior discussion, I can understand. But normally pages should be listed on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] first, and in this case, he really just used his sysop privileges to remove something which, for whatever reason, he did not want to be publicly visible.
I should add that I'm not particularly comfortable with the page in question, [[fisting]], myself. Let me tie this back to some concerns raised by LittleDan last week or the week before about accessibility in schools, etc.
I've always come down on the side of including such content, and I haven't changed my position on that. Even so, I do think that there are some legitimate concerns, and that the tradeoffs we face here are not trivial.
--Jimbo
Jimmy-
Dante Alighieri wrote:
That he may have deleted the Viking experiment without prior discussion, I can understand. But normally pages should be listed on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] first, and in this case, he really just used his sysop privileges to remove something which, for whatever reason, he did not want to be publicly visible.
I should add that I'm not particularly comfortable with the page in question, [[fisting]], myself.
Any more or less so than any of the other articles in [[List of sexology topics]]?
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote: > I should add that I'm not particularly comfortable with the page in
question, [[fisting]], myself.
Any more or less so than any of the other articles in [[List of sexology topics]]?
Regards,
Erik
No, some of those topics are perfectly acceptable and should have articles, such as homosexuality and AIDS. I would fight against an article on fisting, but I already pledged not to. --LittleDan
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
Erik Moeller wrote:
I should add that I'm not particularly comfortable with the page in question, [[fisting]], myself.
Any more or less so than any of the other articles in [[List of sexology topics]]?
That's a long list, and so let me list some examples of what I am personally comfortable with. But let me stress that I'm NOT making any policy here, I'm just arguing as an ordinary wikipedian, trying to help explore these issues thoughtfully.
Some of the terms there are scientific terms, others are sociological, but some are slang terms, generally used primarily for shock value.
[[backdoor entrance]], a slang term I guess, redirects to [[anal intercourse]]. What purpose does that redirect serve? Well, it serves *some* purpose, I suppose, but does that purpose outweigh the cost?
[[blow job]] is a slang term, but unlike [[backdoor entrance]], it is a very very *common* term. To me that commonness adds points towards inclusion.
[[snowballing]]?
I'm just not sure about some of these things.
Now, please do keep in mind that I'm personally not uncomfortable with these terms. If you think that's it, you should probably poke around Bomis a bit, ha ha. But I am not so sure that we are currently handling these things in the best way for Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
Jimmy-
That's a long list, and so let me list some examples of what I am personally comfortable with. But let me stress that I'm NOT making any policy here, I'm just arguing as an ordinary wikipedian, trying to help explore these issues thoughtfully.
Some of the terms there are scientific terms, others are sociological, but some are slang terms, generally used primarily for shock value.
Hmhm. My take on this:
1) Slang terms - more appropriate for Wiktionary. Redirects can make searching easier, though, and should IMHO be left in place if the terms are not made up. In the list of sexology topics they look a little out of place; perhaps they should be separated from the other article titles under the heading "Slang terms".
2) Unusual sexual behavior - definitely encyclopedia material. If a substantial number of people practice it, it should be described in as much detail as possible. But stuff like "snowballing" may be better discussed in the context of a larger article, because it seems fairly uncommon (?).
In general, I think that the "things should not look out of place" notion is preferable to an arbitary moral standard. Do you expect to read the word "blowjob" when you read about Bill Clinton in an encyclopedia? Do you expect it when you browse the articles in the category "sexual behavior and related jargon"?
Regards,
Erik
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I should add that I'm not particularly
comfortable with the page in
question, [[fisting]], myself.
Any more or less so than any of the other articles
in [[List of sexology
topics]]?
That's a long list, and so let me list some examples of what I am personally comfortable with. But let me stress that I'm NOT making any policy here, I'm just arguing as an ordinary wikipedian, trying to help explore these issues thoughtfully.
Some of the terms there are scientific terms, others are sociological, but some are slang terms, generally used primarily for shock value.
[[backdoor entrance]], a slang term I guess, redirects to [[anal intercourse]]. What purpose does that redirect serve? Well, it serves *some* purpose, I suppose, but does that purpose outweigh the cost?
[[blow job]] is a slang term, but unlike [[backdoor entrance]], it is a very very *common* term. To me that commonness adds points towards inclusion.
[[snowballing]]?
I'm just not sure about some of these things.
Now, please do keep in mind that I'm personally not uncomfortable with these terms. If you think that's it, you should probably poke around Bomis a bit, ha ha. But I am not so sure that we are currently handling these things in the best way for Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
I think all of those redirect articles are just unnecessary. There is already (I think) a policy to use the technical terms for everything, or atleast the semi-technical terms, so those slang expressions don't fit, and the links (as well as the article text itself) should reflect this. If somebody (for some reason) searches for 'blow job' and doesn't get any title results, he can just scroll down a little and see the article on 'oral sex' (this isn't an issue yet but I know someone will bring it up). If someone links to 'blow job' and creates a page, someone should quickly delete the page and change the link to [[oral sex]]. This really shouldn't be an issue. Just imagine a 7-year-old looking for an article on blowing bubbles, so she searches for "bubble blow" and gets an article on oral sex in the title search. --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
Actually, the rule of thumb is to use the most commonly used name. So Blow Job would be a more than appropriate redirect to Fellatio.
-- Michael Becker
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Ehrenberg Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 9.32 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Sex articles on wikipedia (was: Kils sysop status temporarily revoked)
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I should add that I'm not particularly
comfortable with the page in
question, [[fisting]], myself.
Any more or less so than any of the other articles
in [[List of sexology
topics]]?
That's a long list, and so let me list some examples of what I am personally comfortable with. But let me stress that I'm NOT making any policy here, I'm just arguing as an ordinary wikipedian, trying to help explore these issues thoughtfully.
Some of the terms there are scientific terms, others are sociological, but some are slang terms, generally used primarily for shock value.
[[backdoor entrance]], a slang term I guess, redirects to [[anal intercourse]]. What purpose does that redirect serve? Well, it serves *some* purpose, I suppose, but does that purpose outweigh the cost?
[[blow job]] is a slang term, but unlike [[backdoor entrance]], it is a very very *common* term. To me that commonness adds points towards inclusion.
[[snowballing]]?
I'm just not sure about some of these things.
Now, please do keep in mind that I'm personally not uncomfortable with these terms. If you think that's it, you should probably poke around Bomis a bit, ha ha. But I am not so sure that we are currently handling these things in the best way for Wikipedia.
--Jimbo
I think all of those redirect articles are just unnecessary. There is already (I think) a policy to use the technical terms for everything, or atleast the semi-technical terms, so those slang expressions don't fit, and the links (as well as the article text itself) should reflect this. If somebody (for some reason) searches for 'blow job' and doesn't get any title results, he can just scroll down a little and see the article on 'oral sex' (this isn't an issue yet but I know someone will bring it up). If someone links to 'blow job' and creates a page, someone should quickly delete the page and change the link to [[oral sex]]. This really shouldn't be an issue. Just imagine a 7-year-old looking for an article on blowing bubbles, so she searches for "bubble blow" and gets an article on oral sex in the title search. --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
M.Becker: Actually, the rule of thumb is to use the most commonly used
name. So
Blow Job would be a more than appropriate redirect to Fellatio.
Is there an article on "teabagging" yet? Should'nt someone with some expertise in that practice write a stub? I heard we had "felching" already.
-SM
LittleDan wrote:
I think all of those redirect articles are just unnecessary. There is already (I think) a policy to use the technical terms for everything, or at least the semi-technical terms, so those slang expressions don't fit, and the links (as well as the article text itself) should reflect this. If somebody (for some reason) searches for 'blow job' and doesn't get any title results, he can just scroll down a little and see the article on 'oral sex' (this isn't an issue yet but I know someone will bring it up). If someone links to 'blow job' and creates a page, someone should quickly delete the page and change the link to [[oral sex]].
Wouldn't it be easier to redirect [[Blow job]] to [[Oral sex]] so that we'll never need to delete such a page? This is standard Wikipedia practice in other areas; we shouldn't make exceptions for sex.
This really shouldn't be an issue. Just imagine a 7-year-old looking for an article on blowing bubbles, so she searches for "bubble blow" and gets an article on oral sex in the title search.
She won't. Check it out for yourself! She *will* get it in the article search, but deleting [[Blow job]] won't change that.
-- Toby
--- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com wrote:
I don't think it's strictly true to say that he deleted his own talk page. I will take them at their word that there are a group of people that we are discussing here, and that the people at User:Viking were members of the same group as Kils, but are not one and the same person.
But only a sysop can delete a page, which means that it had to be Kils who did it, not Viking.
Zoe
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
--- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com wrote:
At 12:08 PM 5/31/2003, you wrote:
I have temporarily revoked Kils' sysop status on
en:, someone with
developer status on de: may want to do the same.
Explanation:
*snip snip*
In spite of my objections, this should normally go
through discussion
first before the status is revoked, but I am
worried that Kils might
delete more pages, and it seemed like an
appropriate safety measure. I
also wanted to allow others to take a look at his
user talk page to have a
track record, and this was not possible with him
being a sysop, because
then I could not protect the page or stop him from
deleting it. If anyone
feels that Kils must be a sysop again, please post.
Well, here's my take.
I doubt that Kils would delete any other pages. He seems to have been overly hasty in his deletion of the Viking pages (because a record ought to be left of the incident), but I believe that his reasoning was semi-sound. He was accepting responsibility for the actions of (it would appear) his subordinates. It sounds like Kils was the sysop that Viking claimed was a member of the Viking group. It also sounds like, while Kils shares the Viking views regarding the safety of children on the net, that he plans on advancing his goals in a different manner. Given that, I see no danger in restoring Kils sysop powers, understanding of course that they should be revoked if he unilateraly enages in any form of censorship. As Kils stated, his concern was that the article was a bit more explicit and "handbook" styled than perhaps was necessary or desirable in an encyclopedia. While I don't happen to agree, it's certainly a valid point. Given that Kils seems to have assured us that the Viking group is now commited to not using User:Viking's tactics, I think Kils status ought to be restored.
No, if Kils is Viking, then hih sysop status DEFINATELY shouldn'y be restored. Sysops *really* shouldn't make pseudonyms or intimidate others. But I haven't seen enough evidence that Kils is Viking. --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
Daniel-
No, if Kils is Viking, then hih sysop status DEFINATELY shouldn'y be restored. Sysops *really* shouldn't make pseudonyms or intimidate others. But I haven't seen enough evidence that Kils is Viking.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Read my first post in this thread.
Regards,
Erik
I support this. Sysop is only a technical matter, and threatening people with it in any way is very unbecoming. The rest of this is a bit confusing to me, but nonetheless, as a temporary measure, this is fine with me.
Erik Moeller wrote:
I have temporarily revoked Kils' sysop status on en:, someone with developer status on de: may want to do the same. Explanation:
In the last few days, a user named "Viking" has vandalized/downsized a couple of articles he considered "indecent" (especially the [[fisting]] article), threatened people not to question what he is doing if they didn't have "administrator status" and then left (there was a brief discussion of a possible ban). Kils subsequently deleted Viking's user and talk pages and explained it was an "experiment of his children".
I asked him for details, he responded and then *deleted his talk page* before I could read his response. I restored the talk page and there was the following response.
Eloquence: I confirm this - I do not think any had the quality of vandlism, otherwise I would have stepped in. We were concerned that a "handbook type" with direct instructions to certain practises on certain pages was endangering the reputation of wikipeia and of us as visible contributers and cooperators. A first thing many teachers and professors for example do, before they endorse or use a web based project in class or with students/parents, is to search for ugly content within. And there was some, and as we were supported by responses of colleagues with the right background it was beyond the rules of wikipedia - young vikings are often of very spontaneous mannors, I advised them to do things different, but then we are also very democratic. they plan to do it different now - we could have done everything anonymous, but we did not - from that you can deduct that we all are interested in communication and construction - we are all astonished how much time you spent in the wikipedia project (Anerkennung!) you seem to need only very little sleep - best greetings across the ocean (from the USA) from uwe kils - user Kils 18:50 31 May 2003 (UTC)
It seems quite clear that Uwe Kils shares Viking's standard of "decency" regarding Wikipedia articles and feels that material e.g. about specific sexual practices is inappropriate. In light of his actions, I do not trust him to be a sysop anymore.
In spite of my objections, this should normally go through discussion first before the status is revoked, but I am worried that Kils might delete more pages, and it seemed like an appropriate safety measure. I also wanted to allow others to take a look at his user talk page to have a track record, and this was not possible with him being a sysop, because then I could not protect the page or stop him from deleting it. If anyone feels that Kils must be a sysop again, please post.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l