On the other hand, how many people caught in the grips of suicidal
depression or mania are coherent enough to consider all the details.
Yes, it was most likely a hoax, but on the smallest possible chance it was
real, appropriate measures had to be taken. Calling the police was the best
option, as they are the ones most trained to analyze, identify, triage, and
handle these situations in the time-critical fashion that they may be.
Thanks again, y'all.
--Avi
On 10/1/07, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org <
wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> From: "Angela Anuszewski" <psu256(a)member.fsf.org>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 14:56:43 -0400
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: London local available?
> On 10/1/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > They did, thankfully.
> >
> > On 01/10/2007, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/1/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The police just called me back. "It was a young lad's idea of a
> hoax"
> > > > was the expression the officer used to me. Apparently he's been
> given
> > > > a severe talking to.
> > >
> > > So they found the "young lad" alive and well?
> Ok, since it all turned out ok, I feel ok in making this comment...
> something quite didn't pass the sniff test about that note anyway. How
> do you bury yourself if you are already dead??
--
en:User:Avraham
----
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) <aviwiki(a)gmail.com>
Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E
A229
People want examples of how "none of the thousand or so admins wants
to unblock them" doesn't adequately describe the "community" ban
process? How about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/I
ncidents/Blu_Aardvark_and_Mistress_Selina_Kyle
Synopsis: Linuxbeak unblocks Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle.
A whole page of drama-queen histrionics and hissy-fits erupts, with
some prominent admins loudly storming away from Wikipedia in a huff
(they were soon back), and people demanding that Linuxbeak apologize,
admit to a grave error of judgment, and possibly be desysopped or
debureaucratted. The fact that Jimbo apparently supported
Linuxbeak's action was dismissed as irrelevant. Anybody who in any
way supports the unblocking of these individuals is deemed a
supporter of stalking, harrassing, anti-semitism, and other rotten
stuff. They're quickly reblocked.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
"Wily D" wrote
> Realistically, what percentage of AfDs really have the outcome in
> doubt? Maybe 10%?
I'd say much higher: maybe 30%. Things get deleted, not because the topic is unsuitable, but because sources are lacking. When I have got involved in AfD recently, it has only been because people swear that black is white on "notability" in these instances.
>IfDs are much lower - go over those noms, almost
> none actually require discussion. Like anything, SNOW is sometimes
> applied inappropriately - that can always be fixed afterwards.
No, it can't. There was a recent case where the mathematics community got very het up. It took a very thick skin (Michael Hardy's) to protest with an out-of-process revival, and a new AfD. If Carcharoth hadn't intervened then, it would probably have been lost once more. ([[Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture]], if you're wondering.)
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Exactly the right steps were taken here. This is one of the things our
community can be strongest about; even if we get 999 of these that are
hoaxes, the thousandth might well save someone's life.
******
The only thing I would add is a request to handle this with less fanfare.
-Durova
geni wrote
> 5)Systemic bias. [[WP:V]] [[WP:RS]] [[WP:BLP]] yeah all kinda written
> assuming a western setup in terms of documentation.
I agree. And the victors write the history books.
So what do we do?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
"George Herbert" wrote
> I am considering proposing a deletion process change - Increase AFD
> run time so that they run for six business days, ensuring that at
> least one weekend is in the AFDs run time so that people who have work
> during the week and a bit more bandwidth on weekends are sure to have
> a chance to see it.
You'd still have a problem with people who think WP:SNOWBALL can be used to justify almost any sort of early closure.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
"Thomas Dalton" wrote
> > Well, yes, a clearer perspective is provided by the actual ArbCom decision on the Blu Aardvark ban appeal:
> >
> > Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark .
> >
> > This appeal was brought just a few days after the wikidrama described. The page gives a clearer idea of what was involved.
>
> Hmmm... principle 3 does seem to be in direct conflict with the
> standard definition of a community ban... The standard definition
> requires a consensus to ban only, if doesn't require a consensus to
> unban once banned, only that the consensus to ban no longer exist (and
> if there is an admin willing to unblock, then there clearly isn't a
> consensus).
Yes, that's the interesting point about this. Obviously this is meant to damp down wheel wars (a term I don't like, but still). A wheel war had effectively just happened.
Note that the statement by Blu Aardvark starts with the comment that the initial ban was justified. That was never really in dispute in this case. So there is nothing much here that would apply to a case where an indefinite ban was applied, and then another admin comes along, with the reasoning "that indefinite ban was disproportionate". The attempt to unban was an effort of 'rehabilitation' on the site. The reason that this is relevant to WP's overall position is that it is of help to the mission to have declared 'enemies'.
Note also that, in the light of consensus being the criterion, any individual who says "there can be no consensus that does not include me" is actually contradicting the idea of consensus. That is an assertion of a veto. Here we get a little bit closer to the truth. I think it is much closer to the facts, to say that certain admins believe they have a veto on particular unbanning decisions. Still, given that the ArbCom can lift community bans, that still doesn't reflect the facts.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
"Charlotte Webb" wrote
> If
> anybody can potentially be "noted"[2], then "notability" is more or
> less a meaningless term.
> [2] And believe me, anybody can potentially be "noted".
Yup. That's why "notability" has never quite made it to a place above the salt in Wikipedia policies. And why putting it prominently in the shop window, as a criterion for speedy deletion, is asking for trouble. Where there is a basic guideline, for example for bands, it's kind of OK as a placeholder. Otherwise, not.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Marc Riddell wrote
> Do you folks realize this is starting to sound as complicated as the US Tax
> Code! :-)
Absolutely. We run a worldwide, fantastically open operation, with a website that has 10,000,000 freely editable pages to oversee. Facile solutions are not going to work. We should be grateful for any solutions.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
"Thomas Dalton" wrote
> Sounds like you're describing a wheel war. ArbCom is the way to go.
> The reblocking admins would be at least cautioned, and I doubt
> anything would happen to Linuxbeak. ArbCom would then decide once and
> forall whether or not to block.
>
> (Disclaimer: This reply is based purely on the parent email, I am not
> familiar with the incident in question.)
Well, yes, a clearer perspective is provided by the actual ArbCom decision on the Blu Aardvark ban appeal:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark .
This appeal was brought just a few days after the wikidrama described. The page gives a clearer idea of what was involved.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam