|
Re: Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
> > 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?
That's a false dilemma fallacy. The way round I want it and most
everyone else is: 1. good edits left alone 2. bad edits removed 3. bad
users banned. I can't understand how it would be LESS work to rollback
all Amorrow's edits and then recreate the good ones instead of only
rolling back the bad ones. But its very nice of David Gerard taking
the time to only destroy Amorrow's bad edits. Many vandals have gotten
each and every edit they made rollbacked which means that lots of good
information was lost.
--
mvh Björn
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
 Re: Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
Karl Krueger wrote:
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.
In the general case, it's GFDL, it's still in the history, and if what
you said was a serious concern then no-one would ever refactor or
merge an article. In the specific case, if you look you'll see the
edits are minor maintenance edits.
Although mailing list threads go all over the place, note of a serious
problem vandal is probably not the place to go randomly riffing on
spurious concerns that would completely invalidate how Wikipedia
actually functions; you could at least change the subject line.
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
>>>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?
>
>
> That's a false dilemma fallacy. The way round I want it and most
> everyone else is: 1. good edits left alone 2. bad edits removed 3. bad
> users banned. I can't understand how it would be LESS work to rollback
> all Amorrow's edits and then recreate the good ones instead of only
> rolling back the bad ones. But its very nice of David Gerard taking
> the time to only destroy Amorrow's bad edits. Many vandals have gotten
> each and every edit they made rollbacked which means that lots of good
> information was lost.
>
This is a favourite tactic of some of the more obnoxious trolls that can
be found at Wikipedia Review - do some vandalism with some good edits
thrown in, then sit back and laugh as all are reverted.
--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlphaxContributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP _______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
On 2/16/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) < alphasigmax@...> wrote:
> This is a favourite tactic of some of the more obnoxious trolls that can
> be found at Wikipedia Review - do some vandalism with some good edits
> thrown in, then sit back and laugh as all are reverted.
That's depraved and not even troll-like behaviour. I understand the
basic motivation of a troll to be like a baby with a saucepan - small
amount of action (banging saucepan, or asking an inflammatory
question) produces a large action (noise/attention from family, or
massive flamewar). For a troll to actually create large numbers of
good edits, which are then reverted with a couple of clicks (presuming
that's possible) is the total opposite: large amount of action for
very quick and easy reaction. Who would bother?
Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
On 2/16/06, Steve Bennett < stevage@...> wrote:
>
>
> massive flamewar). For a troll to actually create large numbers of
> good edits, which are then reverted with a couple of clicks (presuming
> that's possible) is the total opposite: large amount of action for
> very quick and easy reaction. Who would bother?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
Becase we end up having conversations like this, which is what the troll
wants.
More specifically, it is harder to ban someone with good edits, which is
also what the troll wants.
Sam
--
Asbestos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
On 2/16/06, Sam Fentress (Asbestos) < asbestos999@...> wrote:
> Becase we end up having conversations like this, which is what the troll
> wants.
The troll wants us to have philosophical discussions about the nature
of trolling? More power to him.
> More specifically, it is harder to ban someone with good edits, which is
> also what the troll wants.
That is more typical troll behaviour. Most successful trolls try and
skirt the borders, so they piss off half the admins, while the other
half is just convinced that they're a little misguided. Step too far
over the line and you won't have any friends to save you.
Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: David Gerard is a Hairy-Chested Love God
On Feb 16, 2006, at 6:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> Although mailing list threads go all over the place, note of a serious
> problem vandal is probably not the place to go randomly riffing on
> spurious concerns that would completely invalidate how Wikipedia
> actually functions; you could at least change the subject line.
>
So could you.
-Phil
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
From: "Steve Bennett" < stevage@...>
To: "English Wikipedia" < wikien-l@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:48 AM
> That's depraved and not even troll-like behaviour. I understand the
> basic motivation of a troll to be like a baby with a saucepan - small
> amount of action (banging saucepan, or asking an inflammatory
> question) produces a large action (noise/attention from family, or
> massive flamewar). For a troll to actually create large numbers of
> good edits, which are then reverted with a couple of clicks (presuming
> that's possible) is the total opposite: large amount of action for
> very quick and easy reaction. Who would bother?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulo_FontaineGuy
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: Advice needed
Guy Chapman wrote:
>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.
>
>
I think it would be a very bad precedent to start deleting (or avoiding
creating) articles on people who are semi-famous against their wishes,
or even exclusively as the result of mean-spirited internet denizens.
The most well-known of such unfortunate victims of internet derision is
the [[en:Star Wars kid]], who even went so far as to sue the people who
leaked the now-famous but previously private video onto the internet. I
don't think that means we ought to delete his article, though.
Mr. Peppers appears to be less well known than the Star Wars kid, of
course, but having a Snopes entry seems to rise to the level of being
semi-notable IMO.
We *do* have to be careful not to allow Wikipedia to be used as a place
to start new fads, or propagate very weak/minor ones, but I'm wary of
taking an ideological stance that we will refuse henceforth to write
articles on people who would prefer to be less known than they are.
-Mark
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: Advice needed
On 2/16/06, Delirium < delirium@...> wrote:
> The most well-known of such unfortunate victims of internet derision is
> the [[en:Star Wars kid]], who even went so far as to sue the people who
> leaked the now-famous but previously private video onto the internet. I
> don't think that means we ought to delete his article, though.
He didn't like the iMac, eh?
> We *do* have to be careful not to allow Wikipedia to be used as a place
> to start new fads, or propagate very weak/minor ones, but I'm wary of
> taking an ideological stance that we will refuse henceforth to write
> articles on people who would prefer to be less known than they are.
Hmm. We're agreed to not publishing certain salacious details of
famous people on [[WP:LIVING]]. Perhaps we should avoid publishing
anything personal about "famous despite themselves" people - so the
Peppers article could be simply about the internet phenomenon, with
almost nothing (if anything) on the poor chap himself. Unless of
course he actually does anything notable, like sue someone.
Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
On 2/15/06, David Gerard < dgerard@...> 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.
>
> 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.
>
David, is there some kind of "Wanted" poster for this guy? What is his
modus operandi on the wiki, what are his core interests and so on?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
Terri Schiavo and related articles, and pestering certain users who he's
been stalking, basically.
On 2/16/06, Tony Sidaway < f.crdfa@...> wrote:
>
> On 2/15/06, David Gerard < dgerard@...> 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> David, is there some kind of "Wanted" poster for this guy? What is his
> modus operandi on the wiki, what are his core interests and so on?
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|
|
Re: Advice needed
On 2/16/06, Steve Bennett < stevage@...> wrote:
> Hmm. We're agreed to not publishing certain salacious details of
> famous people on [[WP:LIVING]]. Perhaps we should avoid publishing
> anything personal about "famous despite themselves" people - so the
> Peppers article could be simply about the internet phenomenon, with
> almost nothing (if anything) on the poor chap himself. Unless of
> course he actually does anything notable, like sue someone.
>
> Steve
We don't really know anything about brain peppers himself beyond what
is in the database.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
On 2/17/06, Katefan0 < katefan0wiki@...> wrote:
> Terri Schiavo and related articles, and pestering certain users who he's
> been stalking, basically.
>
Originaly Linda Lovelace as well
Rather obsesive can come in from multiple IPs (although I suspect he
is still from earthlink). Has a very noticble writeing style that
tends to deal heavily in conflict methaphores and simli. A classic
example can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linda_Lovelace#Lovelace_as_warfareAs far as I can tell he is more likely to stalk those he views as
female. In fact his whole attidude to those he thinks are female is
rather worrying.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>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.
>
>
That has appeared to be the interim solution.
Is it possible to still allow access? Perhaps, there is a vague idea I
can share. I don't side either way, but I do see a desire to preserve a
pure open content environment.
Wikipedia obviously tests how pure it can stay as an open content
structure. It has, unfortunately, by the nature of blocks shimmered away
from being pure. Can we change this so it can stay purely open content?
Do you wonder if some users test Wikipedia's ability to stay open
content as an advertisement plot to toss mud. If someone builds a system
that can support a greater purity in open content, what does that do to
Wikipedia?
The escalated attempts may also not be an advertisement, but it may be a
way to encourage censorship beyond Wikipedia's control. I look on the
news, and I see how there are stories about censorship of individuals in
certain countries, and this particular idea strikes me to have reason
beyond doubt.
It seems applicable that an encyclopedia could include this behavior.
The encyclopedia is about knowledge, so is there a limit on what
knowledge the encyclopedia includes? In particular, this is directed at
the knowledge on human behavior. This is where I intended to leave the
idea vague. It was just substantially important to be aware of such
issues, as I sent this message.
Respectfully,
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
On 2/17/06, Jonathan < dzonatas@...> wrote:
> Wikipedia obviously tests how pure it can stay as an open content
> structure. It has, unfortunately, by the nature of blocks shimmered away
> from being pure. Can we change this so it can stay purely open content?
Without presuming to speak for Wikipedia, it specifically disclaims
being any kind of experiment in anarchy, idealism etc (see
[[WP:NOT]]). Afaik, it's exactly as open as is useful for building an
encyclopaedia.
Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
Steve Bennett wrote:
>On 2/17/06, Jonathan < dzonatas@...> wrote:
>
>
>>Wikipedia obviously tests how pure it can stay as an open content
>>structure. It has, unfortunately, by the nature of blocks shimmered away
>>from being pure. Can we change this so it can stay purely open content?
>>
>>
>
>Without presuming to speak for Wikipedia, it specifically disclaims
>being any kind of experiment in anarchy, idealism etc (see
>[[WP:NOT]]). Afaik, it's exactly as open as is useful for building an
>encyclopaedia.
>
>Steve
>
Let me clarify "tests." Wikipedia is highly ranked within Alexa, so it
is undoubtedly very popular. It provides a popular medium of
communication. That medium is tested -- not the rules (i.e. anarchy,
idealism, etc). It is obvious that medium is provided to build an
encyclopedia, which is about knowledge. Knowledge is power. Would you
want to see such power to be used as a social weapon. I don't want to
"test" that.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
Re: Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow
On 2/17/06, Jonathan < dzonatas@...> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> >On 2/17/06, Jonathan < dzonatas@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Wikipedia obviously tests how pure it can stay as an open content
> >>structure. It has, unfortunately, by the nature of blocks shimmered away
> >>from being pure. Can we change this so it can stay purely open content?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Without presuming to speak for Wikipedia, it specifically disclaims
> >being any kind of experiment in anarchy, idealism etc (see
> >[[WP:NOT]]). Afaik, it's exactly as open as is useful for building an
> >encyclopaedia.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> Let me clarify "tests." Wikipedia is highly ranked within Alexa, so it
> is undoubtedly very popular. It provides a popular medium of
> communication. That medium is tested -- not the rules (i.e. anarchy,
> idealism, etc). It is obvious that medium is provided to build an
> encyclopedia, which is about knowledge. Knowledge is power. Would you
> want to see such power to be used as a social weapon. I don't want to
> "test" that.
Fairly safe to say that isn't true in this case. I blocked ammrow
quite a while ago.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
signature.asc (562 bytes) 