Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow

[David Gerard-2]

This fellow was banned as User:Amorrow for vicious personal attacks
and threats against other users, and again as User:Pinktulip. His
personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other
editors' employers. Fairly obviously, he's *remarkably* unwelcome on
anything to do with Wikipedia.

I'm trying to build up a pattern for a strong complaint, and I'm also
rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand
if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please
email me or leave a note on my talk page.


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Bennett-4]

On 2/15/06, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:
> rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand
> if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please

Why?  Not questioning you, but I haven't heard of doing this before.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

Steve Bennett wrote:
>On 2/15/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

>> rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand
>> if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please

>Why?  Not questioning you, but I haven't heard of doing this before.


It's routine with banned editors to revert everything they do - and
many banned editors mix in good edits, and accidentally hitting those
is a common form of collateral damage from cleaning up after a banned
editor.

So if I revert all and remake the good edits, the good edits stay in
Wikipedia but aren't associated with the banned editor - so that if
others are also following him about, they don't accidentally revert a
good edit. It's a bit more work for me, but hopefully means less work
for others.


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Katefan0]

Because he is a vicious troll who has forfeited the privilege of
contributing with his threats, stalking and intimidation, IMO.

k

On 2/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage@...> wrote:

>
> On 2/15/06, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:
> > rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand
> > if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please
>
> Why?  Not questioning you, but I haven't heard of doing this before.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[jayjg]

On 2/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage@...> wrote:
>
> On 2/15/06, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:
> > rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand
> > if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please
>
> Why?  Not questioning you, but I haven't heard of doing this before.


The point is to make editing Wikipedia difficult for banned editors, without
making doing so difficult for legitimate editors.

Jay.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Bennett-4]

On 2/15/06, jayjg <jayjg99@...> wrote:
> > > rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand
> > > if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please
> >
> > Why?  Not questioning you, but I haven't heard of doing this before.
>
>
> The point is to make editing Wikipedia difficult for banned editors, without
> making doing so difficult for legitimate editors.

My mistake, I had thought David was rolling back edits he had made
prior to being banned.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

On 2/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage@...> wrote:

> On 2/15/06, jayjg <jayjg99@...> wrote:
> > > > rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand
> > > > if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please
> > >
> > > Why?  Not questioning you, but I haven't heard of doing this before.
> >
> >
> > The point is to make editing Wikipedia difficult for banned editors, without
> > making doing so difficult for legitimate editors.
>
> My mistake, I had thought David was rolling back edits he had made
> prior to being banned.
>
> Steve

Amorrow was indef blocked last august so I suspect most of his edits
will have in turn been edited.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

I see a number of serious problems with this approach.

I believe there is a copyright issue since my taking "good edits" and
remaking them in your name you are guilty of plagiarism.  You are not
actually deriving anything as the GFDL allows and you are not correctly
attributing as the GFDL requires.  Conversely, you are actually
deceiving readers about the source of the material and misrepresenting
your own authority.

I would assume that if the policy is to role back all edits from a
banner editor that the best solution is to apply the policy and expect
that independent contributors will take up the slack.

With respect
Steven
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StevenZenith

>Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:18:53 +0000
>From: David Gerard <dgerard@...>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@...>
>Message-ID: <fbad4e140602150918q52c92dafg@...>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>This fellow was banned as User:Amorrow for vicious personal attacks
>and threats against other users, and again as User:Pinktulip. His
>personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other
>editors' employers. Fairly obviously, he's *remarkably* unwelcome on
>anything to do with Wikipedia.
>
>I'm trying to build up a pattern for a strong complaint, and I'm also
>rolling back every edit from him I see (making the edit again by hand
>if it's a good one). If you see any edits fitting the pattern, please
>email me or leave a note on my talk page.
>
>
>- d.
>
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Rob-24]

So if someone removes something from any Wikipedia article and I restore it,
I'm guilty of plagiarism?  IANAL, but I can't imagine that DG is guilty of
anything improper in this case, esp. if he says what he's doing in his edit
summaries.


On 2/15/06, Steven Ericsson Zenith <steven@...> wrote:

>
>
> I see a number of serious problems with this approach.
>
> I believe there is a copyright issue since my taking "good edits" and
> remaking them in your name you are guilty of plagiarism.  You are not
> actually deriving anything as the GFDL allows and you are not correctly
> attributing as the GFDL requires.  Conversely, you are actually
> deceiving readers about the source of the material and misrepresenting
> your own authority.
>
> I would assume that if the policy is to role back all edits from a
> banner editor that the best solution is to apply the policy and expect
> that independent contributors will take up the slack.
>
> With respect
> Steven
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StevenZenith
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Bennett-4]

On 2/15/06, Rob <gamaliel8@...> wrote:
> So if someone removes something from any Wikipedia article and I restore it,
> I'm guilty of plagiarism?  IANAL, but I can't imagine that DG is guilty of
> anything improper in this case, esp. if he says what he's doing in his edit
> summaries.

Plagiarism has nothing to do with law, and is totally about
misrepresentation. So if DG is not misrepresenting the reason for the
edits, and is not claiming that he wrote the material, there is no
issue.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Karl A. Krueger-2]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 05:29:15PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
> So if I revert all and remake the good edits, the good edits stay in
> Wikipedia but aren't associated with the banned editor - so that if
> others are also following him about, they don't accidentally revert a
> good edit. It's a bit more work for me, but hopefully means less work
> for others.

Banned editors are disallowed from editing.  However, banned editors
still hold copyright over their own words.  If you revert their good
contributions and then re-post their own words under your name, you
might be seen as illicitly taking credit for their work.

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger@...>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Rob-24]

On 2/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevage@...> wrote:
>
> Plagiarism has nothing to do with law,


True, but the original poster also claimed it was a copyright issue, which
would make it something of a legal matter.  I simply forgot to completely
repeat his point.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

This is the latest in the on-again, off-again history of Brian Peppers on
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Peppers_%286th_nomination%29

Peppers is a fad on YTMND and Fark, for reasons which are obvious from this
link:

http://pepperstruth.ytmnd.com/

The problem is, he is notable *solely* because a number of people on the net
have chosen to laugh at his freakish appearance, apparently the result of a
congential deformity.

No, even that's not the problem, the *real* problem is that a lot of people
are determined that we should have an article on him, but the sources for
the fact that he is disabled, lives in a n ursing home, poses no threat to
the community and appears only to be on the offenders' register as a result
of an inappropriate contact with a nurse/carer, is from a source which is
less reliable than Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp).

So it seems unavoidable that we will participate in the memtic process,
because we can't say what a lot of us want to say (that Peppers is a
disabled man, suffers from a congenital deformity, was convicted of a
technical offence and is known almost exclusively because his photograph
became an In ternet freak-sho exhibit).

People insist on the article, clamour for the picture, and revert edits
which emphasise Peppers' status as a big-time loser in the lottery of life -
possibly because I can't write these edits in a way whihc adequately coneals
my absolute contempt for those who exploit Peppers' picture ad an object of
derision.

Should I just forget it?  Or ar we (either me or those who want the article
restored) missing some vital point of policy?

Guy



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Sam Korn]

On 2/15/06, Guy Chapman <guy.chapman@...> wrote:

> This is the latest in the on-again, off-again history of Brian Peppers on
> Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Peppers_%286th_nomination%29
>
> Peppers is a fad on YTMND and Fark, for reasons which are obvious from this
> link:
>
> http://pepperstruth.ytmnd.com/
>
> The problem is, he is notable *solely* because a number of people on the net
> have chosen to laugh at his freakish appearance, apparently the result of a
> congential deformity.
>
> No, even that's not the problem, the *real* problem is that a lot of people
> are determined that we should have an article on him, but the sources for
> the fact that he is disabled, lives in a n ursing home, poses no threat to
> the community and appears only to be on the offenders' register as a result
> of an inappropriate contact with a nurse/carer, is from a source which is
> less reliable than Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp).
>
> So it seems unavoidable that we will participate in the memtic process,
> because we can't say what a lot of us want to say (that Peppers is a
> disabled man, suffers from a congenital deformity, was convicted of a
> technical offence and is known almost exclusively because his photograph
> became an In ternet freak-sho exhibit).
>
> People insist on the article, clamour for the picture, and revert edits
> which emphasise Peppers' status as a big-time loser in the lottery of life -
> possibly because I can't write these edits in a way whihc adequately coneals
> my absolute contempt for those who exploit Peppers' picture ad an object of
> derision.
>
> Should I just forget it?  Or ar we (either me or those who want the article
> restored) missing some vital point of policy?

As with most controversial topics, the way out is to absolutely insist
on sourcing.  And sourcing means *quality* sourcing.  Not every fact
needs to be footnoted in the article; a talk page subpage would be
excellent.  If there are no reliable sources, the information (such as
it is) gets deleted.

If anyone questions this, it is supported by all three strands of the
project: policy (WP:V), process (WP:CITE) and the good of the
encyclopaedia (aka common sense).

And if there's no information left, the article must be deleted.

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder]

Here's the content of the article on Wikinfo:

Protected due to privacy considerations.

Fred

On Feb 15, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Guy Chapman wrote:

> This is the latest in the on-again, off-again history of Brian  
> Peppers on
> Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ 
> Brian_Peppers_%286th_nomination%29
>
> Peppers is a fad on YTMND and Fark, for reasons which are obvious  
> from this
> link:
>
> http://pepperstruth.ytmnd.com/
>
> The problem is, he is notable *solely* because a number of people  
> on the net
> have chosen to laugh at his freakish appearance, apparently the  
> result of a
> congential deformity.
>
> No, even that's not the problem, the *real* problem is that a lot  
> of people
> are determined that we should have an article on him, but the  
> sources for
> the fact that he is disabled, lives in a n ursing home, poses no  
> threat to
> the community and appears only to be on the offenders' register as  
> a result
> of an inappropriate contact with a nurse/carer, is from a source  
> which is
> less reliable than Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/ 
> peppers.asp).
>
> So it seems unavoidable that we will participate in the memtic  
> process,
> because we can't say what a lot of us want to say (that Peppers is a
> disabled man, suffers from a congenital deformity, was convicted of a
> technical offence and is known almost exclusively because his  
> photograph
> became an In ternet freak-sho exhibit).
>
> People insist on the article, clamour for the picture, and revert  
> edits
> which emphasise Peppers' status as a big-time loser in the lottery  
> of life -
> possibly because I can't write these edits in a way whihc  
> adequately coneals
> my absolute contempt for those who exploit Peppers' picture ad an  
> object of
> derision.
>
> Should I just forget it?  Or ar we (either me or those who want the  
> article
> restored) missing some vital point of policy?
>
> Guy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

On 2/15/06, Guy Chapman <guy.chapman@...> wrote:
> Should I just forget it?  Or ar we (either me or those who want the article
> restored) missing some vital point of policy?
>
> Guy

The problem is that there are at least three different arguments going
on. The should it exist or not argument. The "if it exists what should
it contain aregument" and it is a current battle ground for the
heavily pro-process vs the not so heavily pro-process groups. All in
all a fun day for all the family.

Just wait for the fight over Haley to begin. Those wishing to do their
pre reading would be advised to cheack US privicy laws with regards to
minors and the mechanics of the YTMND/Myspace relationship.


--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jimmy Wales]

David Gerard wrote:
> This fellow was banned as User:Amorrow for vicious personal attacks
> and threats against other users, and again as User:Pinktulip. His
> personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other
> editors' employers. Fairly obviously, he's *remarkably* unwelcome on
> anything to do with Wikipedia.

In this particular case, we have escalated it to legal.  And, yes, if we
have different levels of unwelcome (and we do), David's characterization
as him being "remarkably" unwelcome is remarkably apt.

Block on sight, revert on sight.



--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Phil Boswell]

"Guy Chapman" <guy.chapman@...> wrote in
message news:001a01c63285$a62e01f0$030010ac@......

> This is the latest in the on-again, off-again history of Brian Peppers on
> Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Peppers_%286th_nomination%29
> Peppers is a fad on YTMND and Fark, for reasons which are obvious from
> this
> link:
> http://pepperstruth.ytmnd.com/
> No, even that's not the problem, the *real* problem is that a lot of
> people
> are determined that we should have an article on him, but the sources for
> the fact that he is disabled, lives in a nursing home, poses no threat to
> the community and appears only to be on the offenders' register as a
> result
> of an inappropriate contact with a nurse/carer, is from a source which is
> less reliable than Snopes
> (http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp).
> Should I just forget it?  Or ar we (either me or those who want the
> article
> restored) missing some vital point of policy?

So why are those facts not the mainstay of the article?

The YTMND feature seems to quote some reasonably sources, which can surely
be checked.

So check them, use them to lock down the article to solidly-referenced
facts, and repel all boarders who want to add anything extra without proper
references. Using the photograph in some form seems to be unavoidable, since
that is one of the main reasons for which he has become known: even Snopes
displays it.

Simply attempting to have no article on a subject which has caused so much
bother is against the principle of having a free encyclopedia. People will
want to come to Wikipedia to get the straight facts (bit of a Friday moment
on a Thursday :-) and if we don't have anything they are likely to add it
themselves, in the spirit of the place.

Having "jackbooted thugs" suddenly stomping all over them for creating an
article "which everybody knows is stoopid" will not make good PR.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Phil Boswell]

"Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger@...> wrote in message
news:20060215223318.GA4712@......

> On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 05:29:15PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
>> So if I revert all and remake the good edits, the good edits stay in
>> Wikipedia but aren't associated with the banned editor - so that if
>> others are also following him about, they don't accidentally revert a
>> good edit. It's a bit more work for me, but hopefully means less work
>> for others.
>
> Banned editors are disallowed from editing.  However, banned editors
> still hold copyright over their own words.  If you revert their good
> contributions and then re-post their own words under your name, you
> might be seen as illicitly taking credit for their work.

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by
others, do not submit it."

Dude, the words have been submitted under the GFDL. Provided that DG notes
in his edit summary that he is restoring a good edit by a bad editor, the
number of legs upon which a claim might stand rapidly approaches zero.

Which way round do you want it? Do you want all edits by a bad editor to be
removed, even if they contribute good information? Or do you want even their
bad edits to be left alone?

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

On 2/16/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell@...> wrote:

>
> "Karl A. Krueger" <kkrueger@...> wrote in message
> news:20060215223318.GA4712@......
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 05:29:15PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
> >> So if I revert all and remake the good edits, the good edits stay in
> >> Wikipedia but aren't associated with the banned editor - so that if
> >> others are also following him about, they don't accidentally revert a
> >> good edit. It's a bit more work for me, but hopefully means less work
> >> for others.
> >
> > Banned editors are disallowed from editing.  However, banned editors
> > still hold copyright over their own words.  If you revert their good
> > contributions and then re-post their own words under your name, you
> > might be seen as illicitly taking credit for their work.
>
> "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed
> by
> others, do not submit it."
>
> Dude, the words have been submitted under the GFDL. Provided that DG notes
> in his edit summary that he is restoring a good edit by a bad editor, the
> number of legs upon which a claim might stand rapidly approaches zero.
>
> Which way round do you want it? Do you want all edits by a bad editor to
> be
> removed, even if they contribute good information? Or do you want even
> their
> bad edits to be left alone?
>
> HTH HAND
> --
> Phil
> [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Phil is right.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l