On 5/29/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I was feeling encyclopaedic but uncreative. I looked at recent
> changes, and came across [[Penny Dreadful Players]], moments before it
> got {{db-spam}}'ed. I think I rescued it.
>
> This was a sample of one articles, with one bad result detected. Is it
> always like this?
Gee, talk about having "assume good faith" backfire. Here was the
sequence of events:
1) User:PennyDreadfulPlayers shows up and writes an article about their group.
2) I remove some non-encyclopaedic elements (use of first person, some
boasty claims like having experience "in every area of theatrical
arts", cheesy stuff like "affectionately known as PDP".
3) Another user db-spams it, edit conflicting with me.
4) I remove the db-spam, leave them a note. They apologise.
5) I leave a note to U:PDP, thanking them for their contribution and
explaining the changes I'd made, welcoming them to wikipedia.
6) U:PDP and another user re-appear, removing most of my changes, and
turning it back into a myspace page, with "For more information,
please visit [http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/pdp] or instant message us on AIM
at pdplayeroffice ."
I must be really burnt out and jaded, but this pissed me off. Throw
someone a lifeline, trust them not to do something stupid like
actually justify a label of db-spam, and what do they do? Ignore your
help and do their best to be obnoxious little facebookers.
Grr.
Steve
Gracenotes' RFA has been suspended by the 'crats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes
There is no indication as to what this actually means for the RFA.
Well done to the advocates of BADSITES, and I look forward to the
thorough nobbling of RFA by this means by others who can gather up
some agenda-pushers. I can't wait for the nationalists to get into
this one.
- d.
On 29 May 2007 at 20:29:37 -0400, "Gabe Johnson" <gjzilla(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Heh. [[WP:DUCK]]. Exactly what I was getting at.
AFLAC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
== 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/
On 28 May 2007 at 14:05:34 +0000, "Fred Bauder"
<fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
> Thanks for the heads-up. Bottom line, this guy doesn't get it. How
> hurtful external attacks can be to Wikipedia users. He has minimal
> commitment to taking effective action, maximum commitment to
> dissimulation.
I'm disappointed that you've joined the enraged mob with torches
that's abusing Gracenotes' RfA because he insists on a thoughtful,
nuanced approach to "bad site" linking instead of war-on-drugs-style
zero tolerance. It's especially disappointing given that some of
your own past writings on the topic have seemed to advocate the same
sort of carefully considerate, non-knee-jerk approach that you're
saying he "doesn't get it" for having himself.
But, then, I've also developed some doubts about your own judgment
given your activity on this list last week, when you developed out of
whole cloth an entirely bizarre interpretation of [[WP:BLP]] that
held that this policy could be used as a Harry-Potter-esque magical
incantation by any admin in order to take unilateral action that
would not be permitted to be questioned, debated, reversed, or
subjected to any sort of process or consensus save the unlikely
possibility of a full-blown ArbCom case. The fact that nothing in
the actual wording of the policy itself even hinted at this
interpretation didn't faze you one bit, though you later backed down
after a storm of controversy here.
I guess if you're willing to hand all admins such absolute, nearly
unreviewable power, then it would indeed follow that you then should
insist on imposing political litmus tests on admin candidates to make
sure that this power is only given to the ones who are politically
correct.
--
== 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/
People still put stuff in WP:AFC, and useful things linger there for
*months*. I discovered this when looking up the [[dekatron]] on
Wikipedia. (Vintage electronics only remembered by long-since-retired
techies? Just the thing for Wikipedia!) There was no article. I did a
search and found an article had been lingering in AFC since last
August. It wasn't a great article, but it was much more useful than
nothing. I'm cleaning it up as we speak.
WP:AFC contains stupendous amounts of crap, of course. But then, so
does Wikipedia. So if you're bored and want to extend the encyclopedia
rather than just do administrative noodling, it might be a useful
place to start.
By the way, will anon article creation *ever* be switched back on?
What's the problem?
- d.
Just a thought - how much is the nofolow decision affecting Google rank
of BLPs?
-Jeff
--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly
because you kind of get the impression she
sang every song either about or to her cats.
They seem to be the driving force in most of
her creative process." - Chuck Klosterman
Marc Riddell wrote
> I was reviewing some television programming I have on tape, and came across
> an interview with the extraordinary dancer, choreographer and company
> director, Paul Taylor. In this interview with Jeffrey Brown on "The News
> Hour with Jim Lehrer" he said: "Sometimes I think a company's morale is more
> important than the choreography."
>
> He was speaking about his own company of dancers; I think this should give
> us pause when we are considering our own community of editors.
"Except for the point, the still point,
There would be no dance, and there is only the dance."
The 'point' is still the encyclopedia.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Situation: Sockmaster, very persistent, has been going for a month
plus, editing from a major city's public library system using IP
accounts initially but creating up to several named accounts per day
more recently.
Articles have been semi-protected in many cases, but... I am wondering
if it would be considered abusive to do a "can't create new users from
these addresses" IP block on the range of IPs used for those
libraries.
That's not "all edits blocked", just "can't create new accounts".
Comments?
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
John Lee wrote:
> If such is the case, then there's a very tangible difference
> between the two
> sides. The first side would still support the removal of relevant
> links to
> Daniel Brandt's site from a SIGNPOST article (this really happened
> not too
> long ago, and is what first drew my attention to this silly
> season), while
> the second side would not.
Here's my Solomonic solution: I propose that from now on, everyone
refer to Daniel Brandt as "Baniel Drandt," and all links to his
website must be entered beginning with "hppt" instead of "http."
Anyone who violates this rule will be required to crawl around on
their hands and knees for an hour, singing "I'm a bad Wikipedian" in
pig-Latin.
It would be silly, to be sure, but no more silly than the current
expectation by the Banipedians that they have the right to order
everyone else around.
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|
https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/
custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107
--------------------------------
What happens if you let this go is that valued contributors feel isolated and quit because we seem indifferent to the attacks and harassment which is being made. These folks signed up to edit an encyclopedia not for battle.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sheldon Rampton [mailto:sheldon@prwatch.org]
>Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 09:15 AM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy
>
>Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> This sort of thing, banning links to external sites, if done at
>> all, needs to be limited to sites that extend their activities
>> beyond criticism of Wikipedia to actions that hurt individual
>> Wikipedia users. The blog seems to focus on publicizing Will
>> Beback's real name which she got from ED. She is offended at his
>> interactions with her when she edits.
>
>Actually, banning links to external sites should not be done AT ALL.
>I don't care if the external site in question is run by someone who
>has a personal dungeon where they flay Wikipedia users with flaming
>razors. Banning links to their site is just bad policy, no matter
>what they are doing. If they are doing something ILLEGAL that "hurts
>individual Wikipedia users," they can be prosecuted for it in an
>actual court of law, but banning links to their site just turns
>otherwise sensible Wikipedians into stupid bureaucrats and makes
>things worse. It also invites the question, "What makes Wikipedia so
>damn special?" As the essay that was recently posted here points out,
>Wikipedia has no problem linking to Nazi websites and a host of other
>sites that promote violence, hurt people and break the law. It's
>ridiculous and embarrassing to have a policy that says "we don't care
>who else you hurt as long as you don't hurt Wikipedians." Finally,
>the question of what it means to "hurt" someone is impossible to
>define adequately for the purpose of making this policy practical --
>especially since some people can be very thin-skinned about criticism.
>
>This is the sort of situation where I think it would be good if Jimbo
>stepped in and played God to put an end to this nonsense.
>
>--------------------------------
>| Sheldon Rampton
>| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
>| Author of books including:
>| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
>| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
>| Mad Cow USA
>| Trust Us, We're Experts
>| Weapons of Mass Deception
>| Banana Republicans
>| The Best War Ever
>--------------------------------
>| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
>| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
>|
>| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
>|
>https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/
>custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107
>--------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>