I've just gotten word that Jason will be going to San Diego tonight to
upgrade the machines! Of course, nothing ever goes wrong with
hardware upgrades, and computers always work, so we can expect to be
fully upgraded and functional very quickly.
Or, reality check, let's all hope for the best. :-)
--Jimbo
Axel wrote
> 4 edits
Here is a list of RK's pure vandalism edits today. In these edits, RK blanks
the page and (optionally) adds insults and profanity.
23:54, 1 Oct 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (While you are
harassing me and slandering Catholics and Jews, this page will be blanked.
What is so hard to understand about this?)
23:53, 1 Oct 2003 User:Eloquence (Stop vandalizing my home page. Your
harassment of me is not acceptable.)
23:47, 1 Oct 2003 User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu
23:45, 1 Oct 2003 User:MyRedDice
23:45, 1 Oct 2003 User:Angela (You win Angela! If you can vandalize my
home page, I can vandalize yours. As long as you keep vandalizing other
people's pages, yours will be too.)
23:43, 1 Oct 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (While censorship,
Jew-baiting and Catholic bashing is being practiced, this page WILL be
blanked.)
23:38, 1 Oct 2003 User:MyRedDice (oK, Martin, you win. I will let you keep
vandalizing my home page. )
16:42, 1 Oct 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation
16:17, 1 Oct 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (WARNING. Anti-
Semitic racists have vandalized this page and protected it.)
That's nine, I think.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
Now that RK knows he can be banned, and will hopefully not continue in his previous course of action. I beg the court show him mercy and allow him the chance to atone himself. He has been punished enough.
I agree with Vicki on this. Anything more than a
short term "emergency" ban needs to be a community
decision. In the case of enforcing an
already-existing ban that community decision has
already been made.
Vicki's stability concerns are very real. RK has been
a sysop. It is certainly conceivable that he would
apply the same interpersonal skills to that role as he
has to his discussions of anti-semitism.
Ec
-------
When has RK been a sysop ?
anthere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
The summary illustrates the problem. RK was acting faster than the decision time of the mailing list. It's the reason why a temporary ban of 12 or 24 hours for something which qualifies as vandalism if done from an anonymous IP is useful. This isn't a punishment for the temporarily banned person; it's a way of stopping things from happening faster than the list members can react. It's also a usful way to cause someone to do what they should be doing when involved in a heavy dispute: take deep breath, sleep on it and come back the next day.
I suggest the following: one administrator or 3 sysops who have not previously been involved in the issue can decide to put the temporary ban in place and raise the matter on the mailing list then or as soon as the request is made. Ban lifted in 12 hours (or 24?) or if 3 people on the list say so, after reviewing the situation, not out of general dislike for bans. Ban not lifted if the list result is longer term ban.
That gives the list the greatest possible notice and cuts the potential for inappropriate use of the capability, while still letting it be used to give the list time to start to react to a rapidly developing situation.
On a different subject, RK is an interesting and tough problem. Some of the hardest choices I've had to make have been when, in dictator position with a philosophy resembling that I've seen Jimbo express here, I've had to decide that the interest of the community is best served by asking or compelling a contributor to depart because their discouraging effect on others does more harm than the good of their contributions. There's some reason to believe that this may apply for RK but the case hasn't been made yet, just claimed. This is just about the toughest decision Jimbo will have to make, so if you think RK needs to be banned for this reason, please gather the case together with a collection of specific examples for Jimbo and others to review.
OK, enough boldness for my first post to this list. I'm the user:JamesDay Alex756 has mentioned a few times in recent discussons on legal issues. Not a lawyer, just a community manager with a keen interest in online community law. More background on my user page.
James
Apologies if I distorted some opinions. This would be
just a mistake :-(
Eloquence opinion : Shortly after I sent a mail to
Jimbo asking him to examine whether RK should be
banned for his obnoxious behavior, RK started
vandalizing several user and talk pages because he
felt *his* talk page was being vandalized. The
vandalism: People placed comments on it. I have
temporarily banned him (and no, I won't read through
his lengthy diatribes which will inevitably follow).
I strongly suggest turning this temporary ban into a
permanent one, at least for a month or so. I oppose
unbanning him until he retracts his "Nazipedia"
remarks.
Jack Nelson : I support this; he went a bit insane
there.
LDan : That's good, but I strongly believe that this
ban should be temporary. Eventually, RK not want to
act like this. Even Lir was unbanned eventually, and
RK was, for the most part, a good user.
Delirium : I disagree with both a temporary and a
permanent ban. The vandalizing user talk pages and so
on is over the line, but does not warrants a temporary
ban. Other users who did the same, including
EntmootsOfTrolls and BuddhaInside, among others, who
were not summarily banned. I don't see why RK should
be treated differently. As for a permanent ban, while
RK has been somewhat obnoxious in his
complaining about anti-Semitism, several other people
(notably SV) have been equally obnoxious in their
complaining from the other side RK has also added
quite a bit of useful content to Wikipedia, much of it
entirely unrelated to Judaism, Israel, or related
issues.
Vicki Rosenzweig disagrees with the fact a sysop is
doing the banning.
Tim Starling disagrees with the fact a sysop is doing
the banning ("I strongly believe that sysops should
not be capable of punishing other users in this way.
Threats of such actions could greatly increase the
perception of a power structure; a pecking order.") He
apparently disagrees with the banning "RK got angry,
he lashed out at a few users. He didn't replace the
contents of an article with "poo poo"."
Axelbold disagrees with Eloquence banning. He said "RK
rudely and unexcusably replaced four people's user
pages with angry messages, that's all. Wikipedia was
never under attack."
Eclecticology agrees with Vicky : Anything more than a
short term "emergency" ban needs to be a community
decision. I've never been a big fan of banning, and I
make no exception with regard to RK. I support 24
hours as the appropriate banning period. This is an
otherwise productive Wikipedian who has out-of-control
moments. The disrespectful "Nazipedia" comments should
likely be acknowledged as
having come in the midst of a rage. In cases like this
we need some kind of a "mentor" system. In this case
the mentor could be a person whom RK personally
trusts, and to whom he would pay attention. When he
shows signs of going out of control, that person could
say "STOP" or some other agreed secrt word, and get
the appropriate reaction.<br>
To Abe : If people who would otherwise bring sane and
rational opinions to a discussion keep quiet simply to
avoid the wrath of an extremist the project has thus
been diminished.
Gutza : Although I don't agree with Erik about
enforcing a permanent ban, I think the temporary ban
for a day was welcome. RK obviously lost it, he was
calling everybody names, he didn't accept even the
most mildly tempered comments and he started
vandalizing user pages because people were placing
comments on his talk page. So I agree with Erik -- he
just did what he had to in order to chill everybody
down. I don't think a month's ban would solve
anything. RK should either be banned for good (which
I don't support), or receive chill-down kicks (IRC
sense), which I fully support. Goodbye, to the troll
who has been temp-banned.
Anthere : Perhaps temporary is best first. I am sure
it will make him realize that he can't do anything he
wants to, with no punishment ever. Temporary banning
is mostly a way to say to someone "we would like you
to stay with us, but you really have to work on your
behavior". It is a time-break, to allow thoughts. A
temporary banning is also a nice compromise between
those who do not accept that situation any more, and
those who think it is acceptable. And imho, temporary
banning is an option that any sysop could "initiate",
that is just to us, all together, to discuss what
temporary means, and how we could use that time-out.
Matthew Brown :
Gareth Owen : to the comment "Fuck you sick Nazi
bastards" : Come back Special Relativity kooks, all is
forgiven..
Bogdan Giusca : Goodbye, Uncle Leo*! :-)
Mav : Dude! You have any idea how paranoid that
sounds? Just because people disagree with you and you
happen to be a Jew doesn't mean that that are
anti-Semites! Oh, and anybody who disagrees with me is
a homophobic bastard! ;-)
Quercus Robur : Could you stamp about and slam the
door a little more loudly on your way out? A few of my
neighbours didn't quite hear you.
Dante Alighieri : Even worse, accusing the entire
Wikipedia community of /anything/ is patently
absurd.... as a matter of fact, it's something that
bigots usually do... making broad generalizations
about entire groups of people.
Abe : I am going to make strong pleas against any
moves to ban RK or marginalize him. He generates chaos
and a lot of ill-will. He�s often obnoxious (but he
can magnanimously admit that he was wrong). He even
alienates his own supporters, and often attacks
potential allies with great bitterness. ... RK�s
intransigence, and often flat out bizarre behavior,
but it�s an indispensable part of a confluence of
opposing forces required for Israeli-Palestinian
neutrality.
Stan Shebs : We shouldn't be tolerating bad behavior
at all. If we make the excuse that we have to tolerate
it for the sake of content
Ed : While technically correct, I think your ban was
unwise. RK did indeed blank some personal pages, the
C-J talk page, and wrongly accused Martin of using an
alias. I would like to un-ban RK.
KNOTT, Theresa : I think a few days is enough time for
him to cool down. I propose he is unbanned on 5th
October.
Bj�rn Lindqvist : I won't lie, I'm QUITE HAPPY that RK
is banned now. Sure he added a lot of important
information to religious topic and so on, but please!
He has called everyone that has ever been in a
dispute with him an anti-semite. Not only those
contributors who debate with him in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict as I firsth thought, even
contributors who has praised his work and/or are Jews
themselves have gotten the stamp "anti-semite". It is
no fun for one who has spent a lot of time and effort
fighting racisim to be called that again and again and
again. ... But I get offended by RK, a countless
number of anons get offended by RK and many
contributors have left WP because of RK's antics. It's
impossible to edit articles in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict because if you do, RK will be there reverting
and calling you an anti-Semite. It is not fun and is
one of the reasons why I don't spend as much time on
WP anymore.
<br>And it isn't like he hasn't been warned. He has
been varned many many times, he got countless more
chances than for example EofT did but he has never
listened, not changed the slightest. He has gotten his
chances and he has burnt them all. It is time to say
goodbye.
Angela : I don't think that was a good idea. The last
thing we need is block/unblock wars. There was a lot
of objection to the EofT ban, but it would be very
wrong for any sysop to simply go and unblock the
account.<br>
To Ec mentor proposition : I'm not convinced you could
find such a person. RK regards all comments to him as
personal attacks. All I said to him was that Martin's
comment should not be regarded as vandalism and I
explained why Martin may have put what he did on RK's
page. RK then accused me of being a vandal for having
made such a comment.<br>
To Abe defense : No, we can not let RK be RK if this
means allowing such abominable behavior. To suggest
that Wikipedia can not be NPOV without RK's help is
ridiculous. And it's not just the Israeli-Palestinian
articles that you mention that he is doing this
on.<br>
To Bj�rn feeling offended : I think this is the part
172 and others are missing. A lot of people complain
about RK, but there are doubtless many more people who
do not and simply respond by avoiding editing any
pages that RK edits (myself for one), or worse leave
Wikipedia.<br>
About banning : I don't understand why the banning
procedure has to be different for IPs and logged in
users. Oppose unbanning him until he retracts his
"Nazipedia" remarks. I fully support a permanent ban.
RK has been discussed ad nauseum and it was about time
someone did something about it.
Adam : Now that RK knows he can be banned, and will
hopefully not continue in his previous course of
action. I beg the court show him mercy and allow him
the chance to atone himself. He has been punished
enough
Robert comment :
Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.
After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and
this was PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards
began harassing me and vandalizing my home page. You
lied about him and his edits, falsely accused me of
saying things that SV wrote, and then attacked me?
Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?
Then you harassed me on my own home page, and then
BANNED me when I pointd out that such behaviour is
wrong?
Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.
Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews,
who privately write me that they all agree with me,
but
publicly refuse to say their names.
Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is. I am gone. But from
now on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that
it allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those
who speak out against hatespeech.
You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a
well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.
Goodbye.
-------
I can't help feeling sad.
Anthere
Robert RK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
I feel like the guy who pulled the plug on a bar-room jukebox, trying to
get the guys to stop fighting over what song to play next. Then the
bouncer threw out the biggest hothead of them all when he started
knocking over tables, as various partrons shouted their encouragement or
hooted their derision. The next day, the owner saunters in and all he
says is that he's not going to reprimand the bouncer.
This does not give me a good feeling about the project. And I know a lot
of others don't like the dark, smoky atmosphere of Jimbo's Bar and
Grill.
We need a better system.
In light of comments from Erik (aka Eloquence), Axelboldt, Vicki R.,
Gutza, Abe, and I hope I haven't left anyone out...
Our next question is:
* Shall we set a date for ending the temporary ban? Or,
* Shall we ask Jimbo to endorse a permanent ban?
Ed Poor
Ops, sorry,
I realize that this was not posted to the list.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex R." <alex756(a)nyc.rr.com>
To: "Brion Vibber" <brion(a)pobox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikilists and GDFL
> From: "Brion Vibber" <brion(a)pobox.com>
>
> > Alex, every version of every page that has been released under the FDL
> > through this project *has been released under the FDL*.
>
> Has been? So when it was released it could be used and that use is
> covered, but not someone coming later and picking and choising
> out of the page histories.
>
> > redistributed by anyone who received it under that license, and
> > Wikipedia's servers continue to redistribute them under that license as
> > part of Wikipedia.
>
> The link is not stable, they would have to change the link once it
> goes into the page history. Does anyone do that, i.e. this page is
> from a Wikipedia article named: [[fair use]]. Not, this page is
> stored in the page history. Didn't I read someone someone suggesting
> that stable URLs are very important to content continuity? That does
> not occur once a page goes into history, the URL changes at that point.
> I think that is very significant.
>
> > It is the very essence of what we're trying to do that material from the
> > project can be reused and redistributed under that same free license. To
> > claim that this should be taken away after another revision has been
> > made is to pervert the system, to demolish the community editing system,
> > to strangle the right to fork, to pull the rug of liberty from under the
> > feet of reuse.
>
> But a Wiki is about change and collaboration. I think that such a
> literal view of free resuse means that Wikipedia can for ever be
> associated with outdated and poorly edited pages. No! The point
> is that if someone finds a Wikipedia page they can change it and
> improve it, not decide to make fun of us (or hail to the glory of the
> by gone age when pages were really good). They have to re-edit
> that is what Wikipedia is about, not linking to old page histories.
>
> > In short, I can only assume we're misunderstanding each other badly,
> > because I can't believe anyone would try to make the argument that
> > legitimately edited, publically released, FDL-licensed past revisions
> > are no longer redistributable under the terms of the license that they
> > have been released to the world under. That would be to argue against
> > everything this project stands for.
>
> Publically released? Not everythiing on the internet is "publicly
> released".
> True it is all available and the liberal availability of fair use on the
> internet means that people can get prior versions, but does that mean
> that they are the authorized versions? The GFDL requires that the
> current version of an article some how be acknowleged. I think that
> is pretty clear.
>
> Also we are not talking about third parties. Most of my argument
> was about the duties of the Wikipedia community amongst its
> fellow coauthor community and the obligation we have towards each
> other in relation to the public. There is an us and them. We have
> contributed we share a coauthorship bond, we have duties towards
> each other. Third parties do not, we should not encourage them to
> act in a way that compromises our collaboration.
>
>
> I think that when someone uses a page history file they might have
> a strong case for fair use, but the more I think about it the more I
> think that so doing they are violating both the spirit of Wikipedia
> and the letter of the GFDL.
>
> > The arguments about it being _unfair_ to later contributors to not use
> > their work don't make any sense to me, and appear to explicitly reject
> > what the project's use of the FDL license explicitly embraces: the
>
> The key word is develop. The GDFL was written for manuals. It was
> not envisioned to be used in a collaborative social software content
> collaboration project. Anyone could read lots of things into the license,
> as both you have I have done. I think we have both demonstrated
> that there are lots of problems with the GFDL. What should
> have been done is someone should have written a license that was
> clearly written with such a collaborate project in mind, but now it
> is not possible to do so as the license is permanently grafted onto
> more than 150,000 articles (and that is in English only).
>
> > ability to reuse and if desired separately develop free encyclopedia
> > materials under a free license.
>
> Even without the FDL people can develop separate encylopedias.
> Encyclopedias are compendiums of knowledge. Anyone can take
> the knowledge of Wikipedia and re-use it. I see no problem with that
> that is allowed under copyright law, fair use is a lot more flexible than
> I think most people here understand. Copyright law on the internet
> is fairly weak because it is so easy to copy materials and most
> people who post on the internet would have a difficult time in policing
> their copyright, even if they assert copyright they use it anyway.
>
> I think that if you look at most of the downstream users of
> Wikipedia material you will find that they do not comply with the
> letter of the FDL anyway; if some contributor wanted to they could
> probably get these materials yanked off the internet because their
> rights are being violated under the license.
>
> I have not found one cite where they do cite at least five
> of the principal authors of the material on their site, they do not have
> any clear link back to the Wikipedia page that they have reproduced
> (though most link back to Wikipedia, they have confused Wikipedia
> with all of its diverse contributors). Even within Wikipedias there
> are many translations of articles. These translations are violations of
> the GFDL because they do not respect the original authors' rights as
> stated under the GFDL.
>
> The text of the GDFL is a complex license that many people do not
> understand and do not know how to apply, that is pretty clear.
> I once had some clients (software developers) who entered into
> a contract with an information producer. They all downloaded some
> contract they had found on the internet. Both my clients and the
> producer had no idea what the contract meant, they had assumed it
> applied to them because they heard that the site that posted the
> contracts was used by software developers. The only problem was
> that the factual circumstances differed much from what software
> developers did. The result? No one knew what their rights were,
> or their responsibilities and not even lawyers could straighten it out.
> Lawyers are not miracle workers, when something is confusing or
> wrong, confusing, inappropriate or poorly drafted the lawyers
> cannot necessarily fix it.
>
> Alex756
>
>
> Goodbye.
>
> Robert RK
Could you stamp about and slam the door a little more loudly on your way
out? A few of my neighbours didn't quite hear you.
Graham (Quercus robur)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/2003