I'm not sure where to put suggestions for pages to delete - I've been
moving info around all day and I'm leaving a trail of outdated empty
entries behind me.
- Bipolar disorder/An older, deprecated, version of this page [now a
redirect, but nobody's going to want to type all that into their
- Harry Potter/Quidditch [moved to Quidditch (Harry Potter)]
- Harry Potter/broom [still has info but totally irrelevant and
duplicated in the Quidditch entry]
Karen AKA Kajikit
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
Love and huggles to all!
Hi all --
Larry, I liked your rule for ad hominem attacks -- and agree with you on
trolls (but also think Lee might be right about outing the trolls). One
thing though...(and I know I should be a grown-up and consider the
source and not be bothered by it...) where do we fit comments like Ed's
-- he agrees with the rule, with the exception that he can continue to
refer to me as his "dear lab rat" ? And yes, I know I probably brought
it on myself for feeding his occasionally troll-like behavior , but
REALLY!!!! <whingeing session over now>
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
On Sunday 14 April 2002 12:01 pm, Jimbo wrote:
> >Larry deserves the most profound and abusive forms of maltreatment
> >imaginable, and not just here online, where he seems to live, but on
> >the street. He is one of those "Stupid White Men" who thinks he can
> >ignore the world to death, profiting from its demise.
> Also, to Chuck Smith,
> >I don't consider you a person,
Yes, this is not at all acceptable -- in fact I've heard of people getting
sued and slapped with withstraining orders for this type of rhetoric. The
offending material also needs to be permanently removed. I think you are the
only one that can do that if it is on the meta though Jimbo.
I disagree. Wishing harm on people is not something that needs to be
spelled out as unreasonable beforehand. I think suspension is a good idea.
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Axel Boldt axel(a)uni-paderborn.de XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
> While childish threats and attacks affect me personally much less than
> substantial criticism, I do recognize that others feel differently. I
> think a policy of banning users for threats and abuse is therefore
> reasonable. However, seeing that the relevant "Rule to Consider" was
> added today on 12:51, and the violations of that rule occurred before
> that date, I would prefer to warn 24 via email first and start the ban
> after the next violation.
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
For the following writings, I am considering to ban 24 for 48 hours,
starting Monday afternoon and going until Wednesday afternoon. This
will be a warning, to be followed by our first-ever permanent ban if
he doesn't behave.
Disagreements on meta.wikipedia.com, and about the content of
articles, if restrained to the appropriate /talk page and appropriate
normal struggle over the text of an article, are annoying but part of
the process. Personal attacks, though, have no place in our
community, particularly personal attacks which hint strongly at
>Larry deserves the most profound and abusive forms of maltreatment
>imaginable, and not just here online, where he seems to live, but on
>the street. He is one of those "Stupid White Men" who thinks he can
>ignore the world to death, profiting from its demise.
Also, to Chuck Smith,
>I don't consider you a person,
I base this decision in part on my research which leads me to believe
that 24 is Craig Hubley, whose writings you may see here:
I am open to alternative points of view, which is why I'm not taking the
banning action right now, but instead waiting until more than 24 hours from
While childish threats and attacks affect me personally much less than
substantial criticism, I do recognize that others feel differently. I
think a policy of banning users for threats and abuse is therefore
reasonable. However, seeing that the relevant "Rule to Consider" was
added today on 12:51, and the violations of that rule occurred before
that date, I would prefer to warn 24 via email first and start the ban
after the next violation.
> None of us ever denied that he's intelligent,
For the record: I did. I conceded that he was informed, though.
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)
> Moreover, 24 isn't acting like a troll, he's acting like a
> defensively intelligent and somewhat socially inept but
> honest person, which is quite different, I believe, though
> many of the symptoms are similar.
None of us ever denied that he's intelligent, and he might
be sincere; but I don't really give a damn about anyone's
intentions. It's /actions/ that matter. He might have the
best intentions in the world, but if his actions do not serve
the project, then we have no choice to defend the project.
It the "symptoms" that count, not the disease.
Also, "honest" doesn't apply. He lies constantly, accusing
of of "censorship" when we edit his drivel even though he's
free to speak his mind on talk pages, meta. and we've more
than once offered to give him his own forum. He had the
astounding gall to day that Larry, a Ph.D. philosopher, wasn't
"qualified" to say what was and wasn't a field of philosophy.
He's made idle threats, and backed down when we called his
bluffs. I won't belabor his nonsense more here--we've done
plenty of that.
I just think it's important that we not let normal standards
of social interaction distract us here--this jerk isn't a
cousin or a friend of a friend we might run into now and then
that we have to treat with tolerance. His intentions, and
his moral worth as a human being are utterly irrelevant. We
have work to do, and he's destructive of that. He's taking
valuable time that we could be using creating articles, forcing
us to babysit his nonsense. I would have just banned him long
ago and taken whatever hit to my own reputation here that would
have resulted, but I'm not as tolerant as Larry or Jimbo.
Just as I was about to sign off, I see this from Mark Christensen.
Apologies, but I can't let this go unanswered: I certainly do not want it
to be thought generally that I am willing to abuse the list for irrational
> From: Mark Christensen <mchristensen(a)HTEC.com>
> I for one don't appreciate this list being used to make personal attacks.
I disagree that it was properly characterizable as "a personal attack."
*Trolls* would certainly want to call the naming and shaming of trolls
"personal attacks" of course; but that implies that the purpose of the
post would be *merely* to vent spleen, and not naming and shaming. That
is not the case here. I am motivated by a *very* strong desire to see
that trolls be treated properly, viz., as trolls; I know, from long
experience (before Wikipedia was ever thought of), that if given proper
attention and respect, trolls can inflict considerable damage to a
community. The first step is to name and shame the trolls. If you
disagree that a person in question is a troll, that is your prerogative;
but you should not accuse *me* of engaging in mere personal attacks,
because that implies that *we could all agree* there were no more to it
than that. Obviously, we cannot all agree that there is more to it than
> I don't know what exactly you are trying to do by making accusations
> about Cunctator, and frankly I don't care. I just don't want to see
> this stuff on the list.
I respect your right to give your opinion on that subject. Given my
position, I obviously must think you are misled, however.
OK, as I said, I'm done here. Mark, if you want, please have the last
I just wanted to let you know that I am now officially done writing about
trolls--I've said pretty much what I wanted to say. I sincerely hope that
it has been helpful rather than harmful. I've got to get back to my own
stuff now, so I'm signing off the list.
Also, fair warning--I'm also done helping to maintain Meta-Wikipedia and
Wikipedia in response to this issue.