>It's easy to look at every single edit. I did it.
>(Yes, Erik, Lir put in the link to good taste first,
>after Clutch had put it on her user talk page.)
>There's no doubt in my mind that vandalism was at work.
>This is not name-calling; I do not say this gratuitously.
>These sorts of changes to a user page are unprecedented,
>and they were done repeatedly, despite admonition
>from several other Wikipedians. Normally bannable.
>However, we made an exception, because we hate Lir.
I don't hate Lir, and I was very tempted to ban Clutch. My previous oath to
avoid banning as much as possible would have stopped me, even if my lack
of developer access didn't.
We'll have to ask Brion or someone who has access to the server.
Although Jimbo gave me "developer" rights last week, I still haven't figured out how to do things like RESTART THE MACHINE.
From: Zoe [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 4:51 PM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Help accessing Wikipedia?
The Wikipedia seems to be inaccessible right now. Anybody know what's wrong and if it's something that's going to be fixed any time soon?
Yes, of course, you can take that off.
From: Zoe [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] User pages
What about the case where Lir attributed a quote to me on her User page that I never made?
Should we have a link and terse copyright notice on every article in
I don't personally see this as being required by the license (read
carefully the parts about compilations and copyright notices, and
think of the website as a compilation). But even if it is not, we
might still think this is a good idea, to emphasize to newcomers that
this is a free (in the GNU sense) project.
See, for example:
Very nice looking, approaching a commercial quality level. Yet,
nowhere is it made clear that this text is available under the GNU
I would recommend a notice somewhere on the page near this:
>This page has been accessed 17682 times. The page was last modified
>08:57 Nov 24, 2002.
This email was inspired by Bryce's actions and complaints.
If participation in Wikipedia ever gets so problematic that we have to appoint a court and hold trials, I really will leave -- permanently.
I neither wish to be a judge and hear cases, nor be hauled in front of one and put on trial.
But there has to be away to stop "vandalism" -- even if that way is imperfect.
Could we possibly stop re-visiting every issue, on this mailing list?
I have to say that I would be against any type of mechanism to protect
your user page, even if it is voluntary. I mean how can we expect people
to use wikipedia to research information, if we don't even trust the
system enough to let our user pages be edited. As I think Jimbo said, we
want to keep away from the feeling of owning pages. However much works you
put into an article, it is not yours. The whole concept of wikipedia is
anyone can edit whatever they want, now obviously with a user page I think
most of us would leave it be, but vandalism to user pages can be dealt
with just as easily as to encyclopedia articles.
There are only 10 types of people in this world;
Those that know binary...and those that don't
Bryce is apparently "extremely pissed". I'm not yet sure why. No
policies have changed. But we can't have people sticking invariant
sections with copyright notices willy-nilly throughout the site.
----- Forwarded message from Bryce Harrington <bryce(a)neptune.net> -----
From: Bryce Harrington <bryce(a)neptune.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:15:26 -0800 (PST)
To: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
Subject: Re: [zoecomnena(a)yahoo.com: [Wikipedia-l] Oregon City, Oregon]
I am extremely pissed that the copyright statement was deleted.
If the policy of Wikipedia has changed such that authors are not longer
allowed to retain copyright of their work, then I want no part of this.
Go ahead and delete my contributions. This is just wrong.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I'm curious about this notice. Do you mind if we remove it? If not, I'm afraid
> the best choice for us is to simply remove your contribution completely from this
> page. But I know you're one of the good guys, so maybe there's something here that
> I haven't thought of?
> Generally, I would say that posting separate copyright notices like
> this in the articles is something we can't have, simply for the sake
> of usability and simplicity.
> ----- Forwarded message from Zoe <zoecomnena(a)yahoo.com> -----
> From: Zoe <zoecomnena(a)yahoo.com>
> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:28:03 -0800 (PST)
> To: wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Oregon City, Oregon
> Bryce Harrington has attached a copyright notice to the [[Oregon City, Oregon]] page. Since the time of the copyright notice, Ram-Man's bot went in and added several paragraphs, making the vast majority of the article not part of Bryce's copyrighted material. There is nothing on the page which indicates which parts are copyrighted by Bryce and which are not.
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
> ----- End forwarded message -----
----- End forwarded message -----
Well, I've had words with Clutch -- both publicly and privately. I don't think the v-word applies. And name-calling, once it's gotten people's attention, is best dropped quickly. (that's a hint, Erik :-)
I think Jimbo protected the [[user:Lir]] page, and I'm happy to revert it to something nice and agreeable. (I seem to remember going through something like this Friday, too.)
From: Erik Moeller [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: The v-word (was: [Wikipedia-l] User pages)
Ed and Jimbo,
*sigh* Clutch is a vandal, there's no doubt about it. Even when Lir was
still unbanned, he kept changing her page, linking to articles about "good taste"
to help her develop "the good taste she lacks", kept reverting her attempts
to restore the page and threatened to do so until Lir would "call him uncle"
(and not in the uncle Ed sense, I presume). Now that Lir is banned, he is,
against the explicit will of others, changing Lir's page to contain the links
he used to offend her, I presume as a last demonstration of his power.
This is vandalism of a user page -- it's identical to me editing Ed's page
and inserting some snide remarks about the Unification Church and "Moonies",
making it look like Ed wrote them. That's why everyone kept reverting Clutch's
changes, but he is patient enough to re-insert his version again and again.
Now we have basically justified Clutch's vandalism by protecting the
*vandalized* version of the page which links to the "how to develop good taste" etc.
which Clutch deliberately inserted.
I don't care much about Lir's page, but I care about antisocial behavior.
Rules should be enforced consistently, as Larry said. Please restore Lir's last
version of the page and protect that one, instead of Clutch's vandalized
I've dealt with trolls a number of times, and I know one when I see one.
Don't let Clutch pull your leg. He's an experienced troll. SoftSecurity won't
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Toby said, "...we hate Lir."
I think you're speaking for yourself, there, pal.
I've been amused, angry, annoyed, astonished, bewildered, confused, downtrodden, enlightened, etc., all through the alphabet.
But I don't hate anyone on Wikipedia.
How about giving admins the ability to throw up a "Please read this" message.
Something like this:
* User submits an edit
* Wikipedia accepts the edit, and...
* Sends user to a "You have an urgent administrative message" page.
User can then:
* Click on the "Read message" button, or
* Just ignore it
We can think of variations, like, send the user directly to the message page, rather than the "you have a message waiting". Another, for egregious cases, would send the user to the "message waiting" or 'please acknowledge this' page after EVERY edit, until the click an OKAY button.
From: tarquin [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 6:43 AM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] a way to contact IP users
(this is a general feature suggestion, BTW, though it's a case on En
that's reminded me of it)
Someone on En: is adding pages on actors with just dates of birth. it's
not vandalism, but admins have deleted many of these, because they're
such tiny stubs they're basically worthless.
it's not the first time that we get users who make many well-meaning
edits, but make mistakes that leave us a lot to clean up.
This reminds me of something I suggested ages ago -- we need a way to
contact unregistered users to politely point of where they're putting a
My suggestion was this:
* on the IP contributions page, add a "alert this user" dialog box, or a
link to one
* that user will then see the message text above above every edit box
This could save us a lot of cleaning up work. I also worry that these
people may get discouraged and leave when they find we've deleted their
additions -- we may be losing potentially valuable contributors.
Wikipedia-l mailing list