Greetings to everyone.
My wikipedia name is Enviroknot. Up until a few days ago, I did not know why
my time at Wikipedia was met with such hostility, persecution, and horrid
conduct from plenty of users.
A recent emailed admission by one A. Nony Mouse and subsequent contact over
IRC have explained the situation to me. I was caught up in an experiment
that this user conducted using hijacked systems (routers?), in an effort to
root out problems in the behavior of certain wikipedia admins, which
backfired and caused many users including myself to be falsely accused of
being parts of that experiment.
I never understood why I was included in a request for arbitration which had
nothing to do with me, except that it seems to be a common theme in that
users who were involved in any sort of conflict were inevitably accused of
being part of this project.
I believe if you look back at my edits themselves, instead of trying to lump
them in with any conduct you can find, you will see me in a different light.
For your convenience, here is the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Enviroknot
I will be completely honest with you. Up until this point I had completely
given up on Wikipedia, to the point of forbidding my students from citing it
in their papers as I considered it a completely unreliable source. I had
hoped to make it better, and if I have the chance I would do so.
It is your choice whether you will behave in the good faith which you claim
to exercise, or whether you will prove no better than a normal internet
message board system.
Cranston Snord, AKA Enviroknot
P.S. No, it's not my real name, but as an untenured educator I do have to be
careful.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Zoe, a Sysop on Wikipedia, has seriously abused her position of authority and
responsibility at my expense. I have a technical problem on my computer (see
User Talk: Moriori) that has caused some minor problems in messages that I
send. Zoe sent me a message on my user talk (User Talk: Felix Frederick Bruyns)
to tell me not to edit others' messages. I attempted, through a third party, to
communicate with Zoe and clarify the situation. That third party (User:
Dmcdevit), however, failed to communicate my message. I did not send my message to
Zoe directly because I had already responded to many complaints about editing
problems and since one of those complaints came from Dmcdevit, I attempted to
save time by sending only one message instead of two. In clear violation of
the "assume good faith" Wikipedia policy, however, Zoe sent me an official
warning accusing me of deliberate vandalism. I responded by telling her that I
would seek arbitration if she continued to lodge such accusations against me.
She, in turn, blocked me from Wikipedia and claimed that my editing problems
could not possibly have been accidental (Again, See: User Talk: Moriori). Her
official reasons for blocking me were the vandalism that I never committed and my
warnings that I would seek arbitration, which she termed "threats".
Furthermore, finding that I could not reach the administrative noticeboard to plead my
case and not having an individual e-mail address, I resorted to attempting to
start new accounts, but I was still blocked, at one point from my own user
page. In addition, because of my name changes, Zoe accused me of "spamming" and
blocked me for one year. My specific knowledge of her deliberate abuse of power
comes most of all, however, from these comments (emphasis mine): "I have a
very low opinion of spammers. Besides, I'm in the middle of several brush fires
and am quite irritable right now." (User talk: Dragons flight). This clearly
indicates that her abusive behavior towards me is unprofessional and
irresponsible and that she allows her moods to determine her decisions in her very
important role as a sysop, which I assert to be unacceptable. I understand that you
typically delete many messages of this type within twelve hours. I would
request, however, that you take a close look into this particular case, as Zoe's
behavior is causing me, an innocent user, to be the victim of the subjective
feelings of a sysop who obviously does not understand or does not respect the
responsibility of her position. I am not requesting that any punitive measures be
taken against Zoe, but I would strongly request that I be unblocked and
allowed to continue normal activities on Wikipedia. As for the editing problems,
shortly before Zoe initiated her inappropriate actions against me I had decided
to contact a computer expert within Wikipedia the following day to solve the
problem. I repeat, Zoe has abused her power as a sysop and used it express her
personal feelings arbitrarily in a hurtful way towards an innocent Wikipedia
user, and I trust that you will take appropriate action to stop her from any
further persecution of me or of any other well-intentioned users. Thank you very
much. User: Felix Frederick Bruyns
> From: Daniel P. B. Smith [mailto:dpbsmith@verizon.net]
>
> Back in June, I complained that a little particle of misinformation
> from Wikipedia had gotten lodged in my brain, and might potentially
> have affected my car-purchasing decision. Specifically, I was
> referring to an article that characterized the Toyota Echo, as a
> "flop" in the U.S. whose sales had tanked in 2004 and was due to be
> discontinued--despite continuing success in many other countries,
> including Canada.
When Wikipedia fails, this is the typical way it does fail. Someone
makes insufficient effort to balance the article.
Now that summer is over, I will renew my Quarterly Qall for Quality
(oops, typo! ;-) at Wikipedia.
We need a kind of rating scheme or quality assurance system or
certification mechanism. It's not a problem of designing the software
for this. Tim and Erik and Magnus and Brion and all the rest are
superbly capable. But *they* are not going to take the lead in this.
*We* must decide that we want some means of assuring readers that they
are getting reliable information.
Once again, I suggest that we let users "review" a given "version" of
an article and (using a "new" software feature) "mark" that version as:
* "patrolled" (as in Recent Changes "simple vandalism" patrol)
* "accurate" (i.e. "I am personally convinced that Everything
this article says is true and correct."
* "balanced" (i.e., nothing has been left out or downplayed)
For problems:
* "graffiti" (or "vandalism" = someone has messed up this version,
but I don't have the time, inclination or ability to undo the damage)
* "inaccurate" (contains mistakes, which we *hope* they'll mention on
the talk page)
* "bias" (tells one side of a story, especially in a raging controversy)
Now where we take it from here is really up for grabs. Some people won't
even care about these tags. We can set the default to ignore quality
tags unless you "opt in".
RC patrollers might like to know WHO has reviewed a version. If Mav says
he's checked the diff for "simple vandalism", I wouldn't give it a
second thought. He's the champ. He used to check EVERY change (!) when
traffic was slow enough. Now that there are often 100s of edits per
minute, this work needs to be split up. I would be happy to put in an
hour, from time to time, if only I knew "who else" had certified a
certain article version as "patrolled". I'd ignore known troublemakers,
for example. Double check newbies, and not even bother reviewing the
work of people I come to trust.
Knowing that a particular VERSION of an article had been certified as
"balanced" would help Administrators if an edit war flares up. If they
need to protect the article, they could go back to the last version
which had been marked "balanced" by someone they trust. To be fair, they
would almost certainly have to pick a version certified by someone other
than themselves - unless they weren't involved in the dispute.
For the looming print version (or CD / DVD version), we could
automatically choose article versions which have a suitable combination
of Approval Tags and Problem tags. (My own preference would be
"patrolled" and no "graffiti".) A library might insist on "accurate" and
"balanced" with no "inaccurate" or "bias".
We can let people use the tags as a filtering system. When browsing or
looking up information, you might want to see:
* the most recent version which HAS the tags you like;
Or
* the most recent version which DOES NOT HAVE any of the tags you hate
Or
* the most recent version which has all the tags you like and none of
the tags you hate.
But when you went to edit, you'd see the latest version same as before.
Perhaps you'd get a notice saying "This is the latest version. You were
looking at yesterday's / last week's version."
What do you all think?
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:14:27 -0500
From: Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Zoe's Abuse of Power as a Sysop
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<47683e96050907121459d14d88(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
With
any
troublesome user, you need to consider two things -
does the user's
value to
the project outweigh the trouble of dealing with them,
and does the
cost (to
the community) of an admin acting in the spirit of the
law rather than
the
letter of the law outweigh the benefit of a "simple"
solution.
I challenge you to print this on en-Wikipedia's home
page, so that no user can deny realising it nor claim
that readers don't know it. This is so that nobody
thereafter will have any basis go round arguing that
you hide the way you work. So you'll be better off,
won't you?
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 07:42:52 EDT
> From: Bruynsf(a)cs.com
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Zoe's Abuse of Power as a Sysop
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <216.871626d.304edabc(a)cs.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Zoe, a Sysop on Wikipedia, has seriously abused her
> position of
> authority and
> responsibility at my expense. ...
> In clear
> violation of
> the "assume good faith" Wikipedia policy, however,
That's right. There are a long trail of contributors
who have found that autocratic admins never assume
good faith, they assume the axiomatic bad of whatever
you are doing in an article and axiomatic good of
their view against it. Even when they punish only one
side of a 2-sided fight over links, for "link spam",
when both sides have behaved identically. It's only
their own good faith that they demand to have assumed.
> Zoe
> sent me an
> official
> warning accusing me of deliberate vandalism. I
> responded by telling her
> that I
> would seek arbitration if she continued to lodge
> such
> accusations
> against me.
> She, in turn, blocked me from Wikipedia and claimed
> that my editing
> problems
> could not possibly have been accidental (Again, See:
> User Talk:
> Moriori). Her
> official reasons for blocking me were the vandalism
> that I never
> committed and my
> warnings that I would seek arbitration, which she
> termed "threats".
> Furthermore, finding that I could not reach the
> administrative
> noticeboard to plead my
> case and not having an individual e-mail address, I
> resorted to
> attempting to
> start new accounts,
That's right, you weren't spamming or trying to break
rules, you were trying to get around an unfairness to
access a page that in name you are entitled to use!!
You are frustrated by the extreme corruption that a
block imposed arbitrarily by 1 person blocks your
access to the community issues pages where you could
contest it and whatever issue caused it.
> "I have a
> very low opinion of spammers. Besides, I'm in the
> middle of several
> brush fires
> and am quite irritable right now." (User talk:
> Dragons
> flight). This
> clearly
> indicates that her abusive behavior towards me is
> unprofessional and
> irresponsible and that she allows her moods to
> determine her decisions
> in her very
> important role as a sysop, which I assert to be
> unacceptable.
Yes, it does.
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:51:31 -0500
> From: Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Zoe's Abuse of Power as a Sysop
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <47683e9605090610511e5acbf5(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Felix
>
> You really need to look at how you address people
> and
> address conflict.
> Your
> complaint about Moriori was posted, verbatim, in
> dozens of separate
> places.
> Posting the same message in a
> whole lot of places is considered spamming.
Isn't it also considered doing his best to resolve his
issue by maximising its reach in the community and the
feedback it can get?
> Other users do not constitute "official channels",
That proves it unfair that blocks block use of the
various types of dispute-res page.
> This is a
> community, not a
> structured bureacracy. Yelling at people never
> helps.
> You say that when
> you
> told Zoe that you would "seek arbitration" she
> called
> it a "threat". It
> is a
> threat.
Now, this is key. If you announce you are going to try
to stand up for yourself, in terms of the rules
indeed, in any way at all, - that counts as a threat.
But when an admin threatens you with ban unless you
kowtow to his POV over an article, that doesn't count
as a threat. That is this project exploded, once and
for all.
> Creating new accounts to bypass a block is strictly
> forbidden. What's
> the
> point of blocking someone for misconduct if they can
> just come back
> under a
> new name? You have asked that "punitive action" be
> taken against Zoe,
> but
> Inserting hard
> returns into people's
> comments is considered vandalism.
What are "hard returns"?
> If you had come here and pleaded your
> case,
PLEADED!! PLEADED!!!! Listen to this.
>accepted
> responsibility for what you had done wrong,
He didn't think he had done anything wrong. In the
real world you don't confess unproved guilt as the
first round of "pleading" to make anything happen at
all.
> Your
> actions met the definitions of "vandalism" and
> "spamming", even if you
> did
> not intend them to.
So did he know they did? The definitions aren't made
obvious on a level plane to everyone, as per the open
policy that all rules are warpable in the project's
interests.
> And a word to the wise - people
> who
> want to get into
> vendettas should really start with an easier target
> than Raul/Mark.
> Other
> than Jimbo and the Stewards, I dount there is anyone
> more
> powerful/influential in En.
This is a clear statement that differences of personal
influence affect the outcomes of cases. Is that any
basis for presenting the public with written information?
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
[[User:Lucky 6.9]] and I have been discussing this possibilty: What if one was able to proect a deleted/nonexistent page? The same page would not be created over and over if it has no place in Wikipedia. When the clueless newbie/troll/vandal goes away, it can be unprotected, just like normal. The best defense for this is the fact that the {{deletedpage}} template would become obsolete. In addition, it would be a relief on the servers (even if it's minor). Any thoughts?
--Ryan
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.comhttp://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
== Blocked for [[WP:3RR]] ==
You have been blocked for twenty-four hours in response of a
[[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]] violation on the article
[[Homosexuality]]. If you have any questions, please reply on this talk
page, or [[Special:Emailuser/Bratsche|email me]]. Please refrain from
edit warring when you return. [[User:Bratsche|<font
color="#006666">Bratsche]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bratsche|<font
color="#FF6600">talk]] | [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font
color="#339900">Esperanza</font>]]</sup> 04:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
:This block is flatly in error, and I am almost certain it reflects a
prior animosity (about an unrelated issue) by administrator
[[User:Bratsche]]. A look at the edit history of [[Homosexuality]]
will '''plainly''' show that I have not reverted four times on the same
issue (nor on any issue, during ''any'' 24 hour period). I ''have'',
however, made more than four edits on a variety of different sections
and wordings. This isn't even close to a 3RR violation!
:In fact, ''I'' reported [[User:66.216.226.34]] for 3RR violation
around a phrase about the APA/DSM in that article. A number of users
other than me reverted this anon editor on the same issue (I did so a
couple times, but not four). Moreover, as soon as someone else first
restored the prior version from the anon editors POV change, I
requested on the anon's talk page, in the edit comments, and at
[[Talk:Homosexuality]] that the editor take the suggested change to the
talk page. S/he refused, until after I reported the 3RR; when the anon
finally brought it to the talk page, the clear consensus of editors was
that the new language was not appropriate. Several users tried to
address a core element of the anon editors proposed change, and I
''did'' help tweak that... but not by reversion in '''any''' case, only
by moving forward. [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the
Lotus-Eaters]] 04:56, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Moreover... looking around Bratsche's user page, another editor
questioned the block; and looking there, Bratshe's general animosity
towards me is readily apparent. I really think this matter reaches
admin abuse, but really I just want to get the annoying block removed
(I wouldn't be so petty as to report it to mediation if it is not
repeated).
Yours, David (Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters)...
> * "patrolled" (as in Recent Changes "simple vandalism" patrol)
> * "accurate" (i.e. "I am personally convinced that Everything
> this article says is true and correct."
> * "inaccurate" (contains mistakes, which we *hope* they'll mention on
> the talk page)
These two tags aren't a bad idea; however, accuracy is a subjective term,
often. Is it accurate in the mind of the tagger, or accurate in the mind of
the encyclopedia? Also, the problem with dating occurs, because an article
on, say, [[Ayn Rand]] may be accurate today. But if she writes a new book,
or converts to communism, or kills 5 people in New Hampshire, the article,
while still factually true, needs to be fixed. Tagging would not solve many
problems there.
> * "graffiti" (or "vandalism" = someone has messed up this version,
> but I don't have the time, inclination or ability to undo the damage)
That's what, hopefully, users use IRC for. Alternatively, there are pages
(Administrators' Noticeboard, while not the ideal place, would be a good
start) to report vandalism that has been left unchecked.
> * "balanced" (i.e., nothing has been left out or downplayed)
> * "bias" (tells one side of a story, especially in a raging controversy)
Again, balance and bias is subjective, perhaps even more so than accuracy.
[[George W. Bush]], while usually a great article, is occasionally tagged
with a "neutrality/NPOV" notice. While, occasionally, the progression of
time will result in the article gaining biased information, more often it's
just a disgruntled person, who either supports Bush and doesn't like
information that tends to go against him, or absolutely hates Bush, and is
mad because his/her Xanga blog link about how "bush sux0rs!" keeps getting
removed. Controversy would be even worse if there were an official status
for this.
--
Sincerely,
Ral315
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ral315
Back in June, I complained that a little particle of misinformation
from Wikipedia had gotten lodged in my brain, and might potentially
have affected my car-purchasing decision. Specifically, I was
referring to an article that characterized the Toyota Echo, as a
"flop" in the U.S. whose sales had tanked in 2004 and was due to be
discontinued--despite continuing success in many other countries,
including Canada.
I challenged this, and Michael Turley responded that "The Echo is a
failure, and is being discontinued." He referenced http://
www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0501/14/B02-58761.htm which indeed
says "Toyota to pull compact Echo from lineup in '06"
Yet I just got my October 2005 copy of Consumer Reports, and right
there on page 14 the Toyota Echo is billed among the "New and
Notable: Cars to Watch in 2006-2007." They say "It should continue as
a fuel-efficient small car... Small cars often grow with redesigns so
you may see a longer, wider Echo and possibly a hatchback version."
So, just what's going on? I'm not really complaining about Wikipedia
here, since what it says is backed up by "The Detroit News Auto
Insider," but if the Echo is being replaced by an improved Echo--
that's not exactly my idea of a "flop" that's been "discontinued."
By that measure, every refreshing of a car model line could be
described as a "flop."
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:18:46 -0500
From: Jeff Heikkinen <jeff.h(a)shaw.ca>
Subject: [Wikien-l] Looking at the real world
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <431A1336.4010607(a)shaw.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed;
charset=ISO-8859-1
> You agreed to the license independantly of any of
t>he
>other BS you keep spewing;
Wrong. I did not agree to the dishonourings of process
that took place. Nobody in the outside world thinks
you have a case in claiming that a license agreement
applies to contributors at the same time as not
applying to your running of the site.
You have had your defense in front of the community
>>that you keep
>demanding.
Where?
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com