James I of England PROTECTED - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

James I of England PROTECTED

RE: [WikiEN-l] The benefits of...

The benefits of vandalism

Jens Frank

12 Apr 2003 12 Apr '03

10:11 a.m.

Hello, due to an edit war of Susan Mason, Jtdirl and 172 I protected the James I of England article. I reverted the content to pre-edit-war state. Matters should be sorted out before unprotecting. JeLuF

Reply

Show replies by date

tarquin

12 Apr 12 Apr

3:08 p.m.

Jens Frank wrote:

Hello, due to an edit war of Susan Mason,

Susan Mason is banned, no?

Jtdirl and 172 I protected the James I of England article.

How did they managed to create controversy there?

I reverted the content to pre-edit-war state. Matters should be sorted out before unprotecting.

Reply

Geoff Burling

10:38 p.m.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, tarquin wrote:

Jens Frank wrote:

Hello, due to an edit war of Susan Mason,

Susan Mason is banned, no?

I made a post to [[Wikipedia:Annoying Users]] a couple of weeks ago that someone under the name of Susan Mason was posting on Wikipedia again. Should I have also sent an email to this list?

Jtdirl and 172 I protected the James I of England article.

How did they managed to create controversy there?

Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason seems capable of causing controversy anywhere she/he posts. I can't recall James I being associated with anything that would push 172's buttons (off the top of my head, James I is known for being the Scottish king who inherited the English throne, sponsored a well-known translation of the Bible into English, & was considered a leader by the Protestants on the Continent during his reign), so I'm tempted to suspect -- until I see what's happening -- that perhaps it's an editwar between Susan Mason on one side, & Jtdirl & 172 on the other.

>I reverted >the content to pre-edit-war state. > >Matters should be sorted out before unprotecting. >

Geoff

Reply

tarquin

13 Apr 13 Apr

2:24 a.m.

New subject: Susan Mason

AFAIK Susan Mason has not been unbanned by Jimbo. Could a developer block the IP?

Reply

Daniel Ehrenberg

4:03 a.m.

New subject: Susan Mason

this is somewhat off topic, but what does AFAIK stand for? tarquin <tarquin(a)planetunreal.com> wrote:AFAIK... --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

Reply

Lee Pilich

4:07 a.m.

New subject: Susan Mason

At 18:03 12/04/2003 -0700, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

this is somewhat off topic, but what does AFAIK stand for?

As far as I know, it stands for "as far as I know" :) lp (camembert)

Reply

John R. Owens

4:50 a.m.

New subject: Susan Mason

On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, Lee Pilich wrote:

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 02:07:14 +0100 From: Lee Pilich <pilich(a)btopenworld.com> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Susan Mason At 18:03 12/04/2003 -0700, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

this is somewhat off topic, but what does AFAIK stand for?

As far as I know, it stands for "as far as I know" :) lp (camembert)

And while we're at it, before you ask, "AFAICT" stands for "as far as I can tell". ;) See also: [[List of general acronyms]] -- John R. Owens http://www.ghiapet.homeip.net/ Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you! --Londo Mollari

Reply

Brion Vibber

10:50 a.m.

New subject: Susan Mason

On Sat, 2003-04-12 at 16:24, tarquin wrote:

AFAIK Susan Mason has not been unbanned by Jimbo. Could a developer block the IP?

"Susan Mason" connects from AOL (ergo, ever-shifting IPs which are shared by many other AOL users). While on some level I'd *love* to block off all access from AOL anyway, this would prevent a few real contributors from accessing Wikipedia. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Reply

tarquin

12:11 p.m.

New subject: Susan Mason

Brion Vibber wrote:

On Sat, 2003-04-12 at 16:24, tarquin wrote:

AFAIK Susan Mason has not been unbanned by Jimbo. Could a developer block the IP?

"Susan Mason" connects from AOL (ergo, ever-shifting IPs which are shared by many other AOL users).

in that case, we probably have to go for a soft-security option of shunning: watch his every edit, and revert mercilessly & hope he'll get tired & go away i think that should include trolling comments on talk pages too -- don't respond, just revert.

While on some level I'd *love* to block off all access from AOL anyway, this would prevent a few real contributors from accessing Wikipedia.

such as me :-)

Reply

Jesse Alter

14 Apr 14 Apr

6:57 a.m.

New subject: Susan Mason

tarquin wrote:

Brion Vibber wrote:

On Sat, 2003-04-12 at 16:24, tarquin wrote:

AFAIK Susan Mason has not been unbanned by Jimbo. Could a developer block the IP?

"Susan Mason" connects from AOL (ergo, ever-shifting IPs which are shared by many other AOL users).

in that case, we probably have to go for a soft-security option of

shunning: watch his every edit, and revert mercilessly & hope he'll get tired & go away

i think that should include trolling comments on talk pages too --

don't respond, just revert. From my experience with this user, and from speaking with them over other mediums, I really do not think they will get tired and leave. When Susan Mason gets blocked, they will create a new account, and begin posting again. If their history can be a lesson, when Susan Mason is blocked, a new user will be created (who will be useful for a while, and then will grate on someone's nerves eventually), and that user will be a little bit better than the last. Tuf-Kat put it well on my talk page: There really wouldn't be any suspicion that a user is Lir once they begin acting like a useful contributor. Since no amount of reasoning on my part or anyone else's will keep this user off of Wikipedia, and blocking the IP would keep off AOLers, I guess just block Susan Mason, and let them create another account...block it when they commit behaviors that go against Wikipedia guidelines. I will continue to talk with the user of AIM and try to help them understand what behaviors bother people and detract from Wikipedia. --cprompt

Reply

cprompt

8:03 a.m.

New subject: Susan Mason

I'd also like to add that I have had no problems with Susan Mason or Dietary Fiber on the two articles I was watching, that is, "James I of England" and "History of Soviet Union". They were called trolls, they were told to "go get a history book", and they were told repeatedly that their views are wrong. The facts that I did check were correct, and Susan Mason offered to cooperate. When someone said that "regime" explains the Soviet Union better than "government", Susan Mason referred to a dictionary entry, and I noticed that other online dictionaries both say that regime means "the government in power". I told those who had complaints against Susan Mason that they could make their case stronger by outlining which facts and sentences Susan Mason was using were incorrect. Then they could (theoretically) make a compromise, after doing some fact-checking. Instead, I was told that Susan Mason is lying and only pretends to cooperate, and that I was well-meaning but naive. Any posts by Susan Mason were reverted immediately. See archived talk page for History of Soviet Union, and my talk page. --cprompt

Reply

tarquin

12:18 p.m.

New subject: Susan Mason

cprompt wrote:

Instead, I was told that Susan Mason is lying and only pretends to cooperate, and that I was well-meaning but naive.

How to put this .... yup, that's about it. or rather, you're well-meaning but you've not experienced Adam for yourself yet. Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons], to give Susan Mason his real name, does a very good job of sounding amiable and cooperative. Most of us here have fallen for it -- including me. After the "amiable cooperative" phase, there'll be a minor difference of opinion, which you, in your good faith, will put down to a misunderstanding. You'll then try and clear it up, and that's when the fun starts. as far as I'm concerned, he's on auto-revert: I am likely to revert his edits, be they article or talk pages without even bothering to read them first. We've lost too much time, had too much stress over this one single poisonous individual.

Reply

Fred Bauder

1:15 p.m.

New subject: Susan Mason

There seems to be a defacto policy of reverting anything Susan Mason or Dietary Fiber does without engaging in dialog with them. They have been given the status of trolls (based on past behavior allegedly as the user Lir). The problem is that their behavior has gradually improved and you now see the dark side of what was once a reasonable effort to deal with a troublesome user. I was particularly unimpressed by the alleged trolling in the James I article, Dietary Fiber's article seems a bit better than the other. And in fact in the idiolatry article (although it is terribly complicated) they seem to be more on the side of the angels than their opponent. I suspect their status as trolls needs to be reconsidered. However they may be banned at this time. I seem to have lost track of their exact status. Oh now I remember, they would be if they were not AOL. Anyway, with such low status, it is considered ok to revert their edits without considering their content or engaging in dialog with them. Or do I have it wrong? Fred

From: cprompt <cprompt(a)tmbg.org> Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 01:03:36 -0400 To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Susan Mason I'd also like to add that I have had no problems with Susan Mason or Dietary Fiber on the two articles I was watching, that is, "James I of England" and "History of Soviet Union". They were called trolls, they were told to "go get a history book", and they were told repeatedly that their views are wrong. The facts that I did check were correct, and Susan Mason offered to cooperate. When someone said that "regime" explains the Soviet Union better than "government", Susan Mason referred to a dictionary entry, and I noticed that other online dictionaries both say that regime means "the government in power". I told those who had complaints against Susan Mason that they could make their case stronger by outlining which facts and sentences Susan Mason was using were incorrect. Then they could (theoretically) make a compromise, after doing some fact-checking. Instead, I was told that Susan Mason is lying and only pretends to cooperate, and that I was well-meaning but naive. Any posts by Susan Mason were reverted immediately. See archived talk page for History of Soviet Union, and my talk page. --cprompt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

tarquin

4:02 p.m.

New subject: Susan Mason

Fred Bauder wrote:

I suspect their status as trolls needs to be reconsidered.

Any banned user can be reinstated. The generally accepted method is: email Jimbo or this list, ask to be allowed back, explain how you plan to be non-trollish. Adam knows he can do this. However, he just comes back in through a side door - this isn't acceptable behaviour.

Reply

Jimmy Wales

2:46 p.m.

New subject: Susan Mason

cprompt wrote:

Instead, I was told that Susan Mason is lying and only pretends to cooperate, and that I was well-meaning but naive.

I would say that _in this particular case_ you were well-meaning but naive. Susan Mason is, as far as we have been able to determine, the same person who has been banned on multiple occassions for repeated bad behavior and a complete unwillingness to reform. Yes, he can sometimes act o.k., just long enough to get a little bit of political support, but ultimately it blows up into a waste of time. --Jimbo

Reply

Jimmy Wales

2:40 p.m.

New subject: Susan Mason

tarquin wrote:

AFAIK Susan Mason has not been unbanned by Jimbo. Could a developer block the IP?

That's right. Susan Mason/Lir/Vera Cruz is banned. --Jimbo

Reply

Zoe

13 Apr 13 Apr

2:24 a.m.

I was curious about that myself, especially since he's seemed to have been writing as Dietary Fiber lately. Zoe tarquin <tarquin(a)planetunreal.com> wrote:Susan Mason is banned, no? --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

Reply

Lee Pilich

2:54 a.m.

New subject: SM is DF (was James I of England PROTECTED)

Cynic that I am, I feel pretty confident that Susan Mason and Dietary Fibre are indeed the same person - see this comment that Susan Mason left on a talk page recently (it was later deleted): http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventio… It says in part: "the list of World War II people wouldn't exist if I hadn't created it", referring to [[List of people associated with World War II]]. In fact, as Deb pointed out, Dietary Fibre started that page; Susan Mason has never edited it at all. lp (camembert) WikiKarma: [[Quatuor pour la fin du temps]] At 16:24 12/04/2003 -0700, you wrote:

I was curious about that myself, especially since he's seemed to have been writing as Dietary Fiber lately. Zoe tarquin <tarquin(a)planetunreal.com> wrote: Susan Mason is banned, no?

Reply

Daniel Ehrenberg

4 a.m.

New subject: SM is DF

This is against all of my principals, but I think a developer should check if Susan Mason, Lir, and Dietary Fiber are all using the same IP adress for a some edits. They probably aren't (for the reasons that IP banning isn't that effective) but if they are similar (ie same ISP) then I think we would have significant evidence to believe that they are the same person. If they are, then I think a cookie solution would really help (well, hurt really) the people that are difficult like Susan Mason. Lee Pilich <pilich(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: Cynic that I am, I feel pretty confident that Susan Mason and Dietary Fibre are indeed the same person - see this comment that Susan Mason left on a talk page recently (it was later deleted): http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventio… It says in part: "the list of World War II people wouldn't exist if I hadn't created it", referring to [[List of people associated with World War II]]. In fact, as Deb pointed out, Dietary Fibre started that page; Susan Mason has never edited it at all. lp (camembert) WikiKarma: [[Quatuor pour la fin du temps]] --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

Reply

Stephen C. Carlson

7:02 a.m.

New subject: SM is DF (was James I of England PROTECTED)

At 12:54 AM 4/13/03 +0100, Lee Pilich wrote:

Cynic that I am, I feel pretty confident that Susan Mason and Dietary Fibre are indeed the same person - see this comment that Susan Mason left on a talk page recently (it was later deleted):

For what is worth, I looked at the edit times of Susan Mason and Dietary Fiber and they do not overlap, which is pretty amazing if they were separate people since both of them are pretty heavy editors. (They also don't get into edit wars with each other.) Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

Reply

Luc Van Oostenryck

11:55 p.m.

New subject: SM is DF (was James I of England PROTECTED)

On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 12:02:36AM -0400, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

At 12:54 AM 4/13/03 +0100, Lee Pilich wrote:

Cynic that I am, I feel pretty confident that Susan Mason and Dietary Fibre are indeed the same person - see this comment that Susan Mason left on a talk page recently (it was later deleted):

For what is worth, I looked at the edit times of Susan Mason and Dietary Fiber and they do not overlap, which is pretty amazing if they were separate people since both of them are pretty heavy editors. (They also don't get into edit wars with each other.) Stephen Carlson

Please, don't give them such idea. It happened one time on sci.astro.amateur, a multi-account troll was fighting against himself in a hopeless attempt to prove that X, Y & Z were different persons! -- Looxix

Reply

Oliver Pereira

6:40 p.m.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, tarquin wrote:

How did they managed to create controversy there?

Susan Mason changed the text of [[James I of England]] to give the king's English title before his Scottish title, changed the word "king" to "British Monarch", and added a quote to the bottom of the article which the king apparently once made. Apparently this was "trolling". This is obviously some strange usage of the word "trolling" that I wasn't previously aware of. On the talk page, I have asked the parties involved to refrain from posting tirades against individual contributors and tell us what the problem with the article is. Hopefully when they have calmed down, they will be able to do so. (On the talk page, that is, not the mailing list.) Oliver +-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+

Reply

7720

days inactive

7722

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

21 comments

15 participants

tags (0)

participants (15)

Brion Vibber
cprompt
Daniel Ehrenberg
Fred Bauder
Geoff Burling
Jens Frank
Jesse Alter
Jimmy Wales
John R. Owens
Lee Pilich
Luc Van Oostenryck
Oliver Pereira
Stephen C. Carlson
tarquin
Zoe