I'm unblocked, but SlimVirgin STILL WON'T LET ME EDIT!

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Alternate theory on Niglet

Admins: Meet niglet. Niglet: Meet...

Jane Halliwell

15 Jun 2005 15 Jun '05

12:51 a.m.

These are her words, at the bottom of talk:feces: 'As for page protection, I won't unprotect it at your request, but I'll do so if any other regular editor wants to edit.' This is an abuse of power. She is attempting to control the content of the article, pretending not to take a side in an content dispute, while everything she does favors the pro-censorship minority. Her behavior is a hell of a lot more offensive than any photo. _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

Show replies by date

slimvirgin＠gmail.com

15 Jun 15 Jun

1:06 a.m.

On 6/14/05, Jane Halliwell <hundredpurses(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

...

These are her words, at the bottom of talk:feces: 'As for page protection, I won't unprotect it at your request, but I'll do so if any other regular editor wants to edit.'

I have no intention of feeding User:Eyeon (Jane Halliwell) over her accusations of censorship at [[Feces]], or her conspiracy theory about me being in control of the autoblocker. I'll say only this for the benefit of other editors who don't know the situation. Apart from the provocative editing at Feces, Eyeon has created nonsense articles e.g. [[Dieter Manisprechensie]], now deleted, about a non-existent philosopher, and a quick check through the contribs shows efforts to be provocative in several articles and talk pages, including [[Penis removal]] by inserting another image intended to shock. Feces is protected only against further attempts by Eyeon to cause trouble. If the regular editors on the page want to edit it, whether to include the image or not, I'll unprotect it. I'm not censoring the image. I'm stopping the trolling. Sarah

Tim Starling

3:57 a.m.

New subject: I'm unblocked, but SlimVirgin STILL WON'T LET ME EDIT!

slimvirgin wrote:

...

I'm not censoring the image. I'm stopping the trolling.

You can't stop trolling, only push it from one place to another. Not that that's a bad thing, by all means spread the load. And it's better if we can keep it away from the articles. Jane Halliwell wrote:

...

Her behavior is a hell of a lot more offensive than any photo.

Hi Jane! LOL -- Tim Starling

Gregory Maxwell

4:12 a.m.

On 6/14/05, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Feces is protected only against further attempts by Eyeon to cause trouble. If the regular editors on the page want to edit it, whether to include the image or not, I'll unprotect it. I'm not censoring the image. I'm stopping the trolling.

Shouldn't you be taking this to arbcom rather than unilaterally taking complex measures to control what a user is permitted to edit?

Rebecca

4:35 a.m.

Please, save us the trouble. Let us deal with more worthy cases - people who are actually editing in good faith. Some people are just asking to be banned - sending these people to the arbitration committee just wastes our time, their time, and the time of those that have to provide evidence. -- ambi On 6/15/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 6/14/05, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Shouldn't you be taking this to arbcom rather than unilaterally taking complex measures to control what a user is permitted to edit? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

BJörn Lindqvist

6:49 p.m.

...

Since there is currently an ongoing vote on the talk page, in which the alternative in favour of using the image has a lead, for fairness, I'd like to see the page restored to the verion in which the image is included. It is customary to let the option that has the majority opinion behind it be the protected version. -- mvh Björn

Delirium

6:52 p.m.

BJörn Lindqvist wrote:

...

Actually it's generally customary to protect an arbitrary version, unless there is an overwhelming majority (i.e. only one person versus everyone else). If it's even remotely close, we just protect a random version, so as to avoid continuing edit wars over which version should be protected. -Mark

BJörn Lindqvist

7:10 p.m.

...

I don't think I have *ever* witnessed an admin protect a page to revistion that person did not favour. So it can't be *totally* random. :) I'd say that the custom is to protect to a the version that gets most votes, if the number of votes one casts is proportional to how much social influence one has. But it is a bad custom. Besides, now you have also received a written *request* to change to the majority opinions version. SlimVirgin also said that she would "allow" other persons than Eyeon to edit the page. -- mvh Björn

Angela

10:56 p.m.

On 15/06/05, BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I don't think I have *ever* witnessed an admin protect a page to revistion that person did not favour. So it can't be *totally* random.

The only custom is to always protect the wrong version (<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version>), although the protection policy (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy>) also allows the version not favored by those violating the 3RR to be protected. Angela

Rick

11:49 p.m.

--- BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Actually it's generally customary to protect an

arbitrary version,

unless there is an overwhelming majority (i.e.

only one person versus

everyone else). If it's even remotely close, we

just protect a random

version, so as to avoid continuing edit wars over

which version should

be protected.

What an utterly OUTRAGEOUS comment! Who the HELL do you think you are? To make such a vicious attack on the good names of each and every single admin?! I am appalled, and I, personally, demand an apology! RickK __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html

Gregory Maxwell

16 Jun 16 Jun

12:03 a.m.

On 6/15/05, Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

...

What completely random outrage. I don't see anything claimed about that anyone should be offended about. I am appalled, and I, personally, demand emails to the list that actually make sense!

Rick

4:51 a.m.

--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 6/15/05, Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't think I have *ever* witnessed an admin > protect a page to > revistion that person did not favour. So it

can't be

> *totally* random. > :) I'd say that the custom is to protect to a

the

version that gets most votes, if the number of votes one casts is proportional to how much social influence one has. But it is a bad custom. Besides, now you have also received a written *request* to change to the majority opinions version. SlimVirgin also said that she would "allow" other persons than Eyeon to edit the page.

What an utterly OUTRAGEOUS comment! Who the HELL

you think you are? To make such a vicious attack

the good names of each and every single admin?! I

appalled, and I, personally, demand an apology!

What completely random outrage. I don't see anything claimed about that anyone should be offended about. I am appalled, and I, personally, demand emails to the list that actually make sense!

Of course, you cut off the part that I was p*ssed off about, intentionally, I'm sure. RickK __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Rick

15 Jun 15 Jun

11:03 p.m.

--- Jane Halliwell <hundredpurses(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

...

That last paragraph is certainly an opinion. Your opinion. But it is not necessarily the opinion of others. At least, as far as I am concerned, edit warring is considerably more offensive, as is repeated whining on the mailing list. Consider your behavior. Stop violating the three revert rule, stop trying to get valuable members of the community stripped of their sysop privileges, and learn to edit like a respected member of the community. Even before this began, I mentioned your very odd behavior concerning the use of the feces image on the Administrators' board. Whether you have a fetish or whether you're trolling, I don't know, but your behavior has been slightly bizarre from the very beginning. Now, like I said: Learn how to deal with others and you won't get blocked. Discuss things on the Talk pages and listen to consensus. RickK __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

Jane Halliwell

16 Jun 16 Jun

1:55 a.m.

...

Her behavior is a hell of a lot more offensive than any photo.

That last paragraph is certainly an opinion. Your opinion. But it is not necessarily the opinion of others. At least, as far as I am concerned, edit warring is considerably more offensive,

Edit warring is bad. But it takes two to tango. Why single me out? Look at the history of feces and talk:feces. Blocking me is not justified. Everyone happened to be online at the same time. On both sides of the issue.

...

Stop violating the three revert rule.

I did not violate the 3rr. In fact, NOBODY that day did. And even if they did, that's no reason to continue blocking me from editing that page. The rules are, its a MAXIMUM 24 hour block. SlimVirgin has said she is using the page lock ONLY to keep me from editing it. The effect: She is extending the 3rr penalty for as long as she feels like.

...

Now, like I said: Learn how to deal with others and you won't get blocked. Discuss things on the Talk pages and listen to consensus.

Have you seen the Talk page? I have as many entries in the discussion as any other editor, and public opinion was in favor of my position: 18 to 10 to 2 to 1. _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

slimvirgin＠gmail.com

2:41 a.m.

On 6/15/05, Jane Halliwell <hundredpurses(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

...

Have you seen the Talk page? I have as many entries in the discussion as any other editor, and public opinion was in favor of my position: 18 to 10 to 2 to 1.

But you'll notice no other editor has asked for the page to be unprotected. Sarah

Jane Halliwell

2:59 a.m.

...

Have you seen the Talk page? I have as many entries in the discussion as

any

other editor, and public opinion was in favor of my position: 18 to 10

to 2

to 1.

But you'll notice no other editor has asked for the page to be unprotected. Sarah

And you'll notice that someone asking to borrow a car, doesn't always ask for the ignition key. They just ask to borrow the car. Check the talk page. People have said they want the image back. You deny them because they didn't use admin terminology? _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

JAY JG

3:36 a.m.

...

From: "Jane Halliwell" <hundredpurses(a)hotmail.com>

Have you seen the Talk page? I have as many entries in the discussion

as any

other editor, and public opinion was in favor of my position: 18 to 10

to 2

to 1.

But you'll notice no other editor has asked for the page to be unprotected. Sarah

As I said before, any admin could unprotect the article; there must be at least a couple of dozen who have read these e-mails. Somehow none have, until now, found your arguments for unprotecting to be compelling; perhaps they feel that doing so would simply re-start a revert war, which is what page protection is intended to forestall in the first place. Jay.

Gregory Maxwell

3:48 a.m.

On 6/15/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

...

Eh, more like worried about an admin protect war, ... even less desirable.

Theresa Knott

4:42 a.m.

...

until now, found your arguments for unprotecting to be compelling; perhaps they feel that doing so would simply re-start a revert war, which is what page protection is intended to forestall in the first place.

Eh, more like worried about an admin protect war, ... even less desirable.

I very much doubt that. Certainly the reason that I didn't unprotect the page is because I can see that jane is trolling. I don't for one minute think that If I were to unprotect the page SlimVirgin would reprotect it again. Theresa

Rick

5:11 a.m.

--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 6/15/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

As I said before, any admin could unprotect the

article; there must be at

least a couple of dozen who have read these

e-mails. Somehow none have,

until now, found your arguments for unprotecting

to be compelling; perhaps

they feel that doing so would simply re-start a

revert war, which is what

page protection is intended to forestall in the

first place. Eh, more like worried about an admin protect war, ... even less desirable.

It's amazing how you seem to know everybody else's motives. RickK __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html

JAY JG

3:03 p.m.

...

From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> On 6/15/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

As I said before, any admin could unprotect the article; there must be

least a couple of dozen who have read these e-mails. Somehow none have, until now, found your arguments for unprotecting to be compelling;

perhaps

they feel that doing so would simply re-start a revert war, which is

what

page protection is intended to forestall in the first place.

Eh, more like worried about an admin protect war, ... even less desirable.

It is highly unlikely that Slim would re-protect in the event that some other admin unprotected; she's never done it before, nor does it seem to be in her nature. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing an admin protect war; block wars, but not protect wars. It seems to me that my own hypothesis is far more likely. Jay.

Jane Halliwell

4:12 a.m.

...

perhaps they feel that doing so would simply re-start a revert war, which is what page protection is intended to forestall in the first place. Jay.

SlimVirgin is not using page protection to forestall a revert war. She is using it to prevent me from editing. She is on record as saying she will lift the block if anyone asks her to, with one exception. Me. _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

Phil Boswell

6:46 a.m.

New subject: I'm unblocked, but SlimVirgin STILL WON'T LET ME EDIT!

"Jane Halliwell" <hundredpurses(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:BAY102-F1714989F3AAB040B221FDB9F50@phx.gbl... [snip]

...

Exactly so. You say you have huge support for unprotecting the page and restoring your image. SV's position is: find one other person to request this and she will do so. -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

Jane Halliwell

10:04 p.m.

New subject: I'm unblocked, but SlimVirgin STILL WON'T LET ME EDIT!

...

Exactly so. You say you have huge support for unprotecting the page and restoring your image. SV's position is: find one other person to request this and she will do so. -- Phil

At the bottom of talk:feces, there is now a LIST of people who want her to unblock the article, and she's still refusing. Now, she says she wants a 'consensus'. Jane/Eyeon _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

Sam Korn

10:16 p.m.

New subject: I'm unblocked, but SlimVirgin STILL WON'T LET ME EDIT!

Oh for heck's sake. I have unprotected it, but if the revert war restarts, I shall protect again. Sam On 6/16/05, Jane Halliwell <hundredpurses(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

...

Exactly so. You say you have huge support for unprotecting the page and restoring your image. SV's position is: find one other person to request this and she will do

so.

-- Phil

At the bottom of talk:feces, there is now a LIST of people who want her to unblock the article, and she's still refusing. Now, she says she wants a 'consensus'. Jane/Eyeon _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

slimvirgin＠gmail.com

10:27 p.m.

New subject: I'm unblocked, but SlimVirgin STILL WON'T LET ME EDIT!

On 6/16/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Oh for heck's sake. I have unprotected it, but if the revert war restarts, I shall protect again.

With respect, Sam, I feel that for you to unlock the page was to give into the trolling of this mailing list. I placed a note on the talk page of the article only an hour ago asking whether people wanted the page unlocked. So far, there was one for and one against, not counting Eyeon, and it would have been nice to wait to see what the others wanted. However, I won't interfere. Eyeon would be delighted if she could cause us all to fall out. Sarah

Jane Halliwell

11:04 p.m.

New subject: I'm unblocked, but SlimVirgin STILL WON'T LET ME EDIT!

...

One for, and one against, not counting Eyeon... and not counting the unblock request in SPUI's email which you ignored... and not counting the request to return the image by Mr. Tan in the header directly above yours... and not counting the four requests that are implicit in voting to return the image after the page was locked... and not counting the unblock request on your talk page... no wait, that one was me, and I don't count. and not counting the prior polling results, because they came before you blocked the editing. and not counting Niglet or Fecologist, because they're not allowed to participate until they can prove they aren't me. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

JAY JG

10:35 p.m.

New subject: I'm unblocked, but SlimVirgin STILL WON'T LET ME EDIT!

...

From: Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> Oh for heck's sake. I have unprotected it, but if the revert war restarts, I shall protect again.

And thank goodness that picture of a giant yellow turd has been restored to the top of the article. It only took 9 minutes from your unprotecting it. Wikipedia was simply a laughingstock as an encyclopedia for every second that graphic and extremely important picture of a human bowel movement was missing. In addition, the bright yellow colour really peps up what might otherwise have been a dull read. Jay.

Sam Korn

10:52 p.m.

New subject: I'm unblocked, but SlimVirgin STILL WON'T LET ME EDIT!

In case you hadn't realised, debate had begun (ha!) to centre on the page protection, rather than the issue at hand. Perhaps a bit of discussion might ensue now? If it doesn't, then protection can be reapplied. I just don't like debating the veracity of a page's protection, rather than the page itself. Sam On 6/16/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

...

From: Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> Oh for heck's sake. I have unprotected it, but if the revert war

restarts,

I shall protect again.

slimvirgin＠gmail.com

10:56 p.m.

New subject: I'm unblocked, but SlimVirgin STILL WON'T LET ME EDIT!

On 6/16/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

No, Sam, the debate on the talk page about protection, and on this list, was entirely Eyeon-centered. This is all Eyeon-controlled, please see that. It's almost a case study in trolling. Sarah

JAY JG

10:57 p.m.

New subject: I'm unblocked, but SlimVirgin STILL WON'T LET ME EDIT!

...

From: Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> In case you hadn't realised, debate had begun (ha!) to centre on the page protection, rather than the issue at hand. Perhaps a bit of discussion might ensue now? If it doesn't, then protection can be reapplied. I just don't like debating the veracity of a page's protection, rather than the page itself.

You have a good point, but forgive me for not being able to hide the fact that I think the whole debate is ridiculous, particularly when it's about including that particular image. Jay.

Sam Korn

11:07 p.m.

New subject: I'm unblocked, but SlimVirgin STILL WON'T LET ME EDIT!

It's ridiculous, yes. However, I could find no real reason for not keeping the page protected, other than a fear of trolling. So far, there has been no revert war. I hope that will still be the case when I wake up tomorrow morning. If it isn't the case, then I'm sure the page will be reprotected. Sam On 6/16/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

...

You have a good point, but forgive me for not being able to hide the fact that I think the whole debate is ridiculous, particularly when it's about including that particular image. Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

JAY JG

4:24 p.m.

...

From: "Jane Halliwell" <hundredpurses(a)hotmail.com>

perhaps they feel that doing so would simply re-start a revert war, which is what page protection is intended to forestall in the first place. Jay.

I imagine she thought you might revert immediately once the protection was lifted, which, of course, would re-start the war. Is it possible you were planning to do that? Jay.

SPUI

4:33 a.m.

slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote:

...

On 6/15/05, Jane Halliwell <hundredpurses(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

Have you seen the Talk page? I have as many entries in the discussion as any other editor, and public opinion was in favor of my position: 18 to 10 to 2 to 1.

But you'll notice no other editor has asked for the page to be unprotected.

I'll ask then. Please unprotect the page so I can restore the picture.

Jane Halliwell

9:18 p.m.

New subject: SlimVirgin not honoring SPUI's request

...

>>Have you seen the Talk page? I have as many entries in the discussion as >>any >>other editor, and public opinion was in favor of my position: 18 to 10 to >>2 >>to 1. >> >>Eyeon/Jane

...

>But you'll notice no other editor has asked for the page to be >unprotected. > >SlimVirgin

...

I'll ask then. Please unprotect the page so I can restore the picture. SPUI

SlimVirgin has not honored her promise to lift the block when another editor asked. About 18 hours have passed since SPUI's request. She received it via email and a notice was placed on her talk page. She's been online and contributing, so there is little question she got the message. Eyeon _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Nathan Reed

9:22 p.m.

New subject: SlimVirgin not honoring SPUI's request

I'm completely disinterested, really, but I don't know why you can't take a few days, cool off, and reapproach this Feces subject (if you wish) later. Why not work on some other articles in the interim? -N. On 6/16/05, Jane Halliwell <hundredpurses(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

...

>>Have you seen the Talk page? I have as many entries in the discussion as >>any >>other editor, and public opinion was in favor of my position: 18 to 10 to >>2 >>to 1. >> >>Eyeon/Jane

>But you'll notice no other editor has asked for the page to be >unprotected. > >SlimVirgin

I'll ask then. Please unprotect the page so I can restore the picture. SPUI

fun＠thingy.apana.org.au

10:32 p.m.

New subject: SlimVirgin not honoring SPUI's request

Jane Halliwell (hundredpurses(a)hotmail.com) [050617 07:18]:

...

Of course, it doesn't rely on just one person. There are hundreds of admins who could unprotect the page. None have done so. I wonder why that is. - d.

JAY JG

3:33 a.m.

...

From: "Jane Halliwell" <hundredpurses(a)hotmail.com> I did not violate the 3rr. In fact, NOBODY that day did. And even if they did, that's no reason to continue blocking me from editing that page. The rules are, its a MAXIMUM 24 hour block.

As far as I can tell, you're not blocked at all. Rather, the page is locked. That means it's locked for everyone. And there's no maximum 24 rule on page locks.

...

SlimVirgin has said she is using the page lock ONLY to keep me from editing it. The effect: She is extending the 3rr penalty for as long as she feels like.

Well, any other admin could unlock it if they wanted. And what exactly is that "penalty" again? You're not being allowed to add a picture of a giant yellow turd to a Wikipedia article? Perhaps we should alert Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. Jay.

Jane Halliwell

3:55 a.m.

...

Perhaps we should alert Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. Jay.

I'm not asking for a lot. Don't mock people who ask for help. God help you if you ever need any. _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

Gregory Maxwell

4:05 a.m.

On 6/15/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

...

Perhaps we should alert Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International.

This sort of disrespectful language reflects poorly on the project. It's not acceptable to bait people with such jabs just so you can yell 'look see' when the victim meets your incivility with more incivility. If you really think the user in question is a troll and therefor not deserving of a basic level of respect then you need to take the only action that has ever been effective in stopping trolls: Ignore them.

JAY JG

4:04 p.m.

...

From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> On 6/15/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps we should alert Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International.

This sort of disrespectful language reflects poorly on the project.

No, hysterical rhetoric about pictures of turds generating huge numbers of unecessary e-mails to a list already inundated with these kinds of e-mails reflects poorly on the project, and that needs to stop.

...

It's not acceptable to bait people with such jabs just so you can yell 'look see' when the victim meets your incivility with more incivility.

That wasn't baiting, that was mocking; with any luck, it will stop futher impassioned e-mails repeating the same thing ad nauseam. If it doesn't work, I'll have to resort to mass deletion of unread e-mails, as I have had to do so many times in the past.

...

If you really think the user in question is a troll and therefor not deserving of a basic level of respect then you need to take the only action that has ever been effective in stopping trolls: Ignore them.

If I didn't think they were a complete troll I would indeed have ignored them. Instead I tried to bring them to their senses, and to spare the endless rounds of debate on a topic that's been thoroughly covered. Jay.

Gregory Maxwell

4:15 p.m.

On 6/16/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [only replying in part because I too am tired with the thread...]

...

Okay so you're mocking someone and expecting them to say, "Oh, you know .. you're right, I'm a complete moron and I'll change my ways", or "now you've hurt my feelings and I'll go away". How often does that work? Human nature says we respond when we are attacked. At best such behavior fuels the fire, and at worst it encourages ill will and makes you look like a jerk. I don't believe that you can solve your email volume problem by sending more emails. Try a threading mail reader.

JAY JG

5:55 p.m.

...

From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> On 6/16/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [only replying in part because I too am tired with the thread...]

That wasn't baiting, that was mocking; with any luck, it will stop

futher

impassioned e-mails repeating the same thing ad nauseam. If it doesn't work, I'll have to resort to mass deletion of unread e-mails, as I have

had

to do so many times in the past.

No, I'm mocking someone in the hopes that they'll see how ridiculous they are, and will shut up rather than exposing themselves to further embarassment.

...

Human nature says we respond when we are attacked. At best such behavior fuels the fire, and at worst it encourages ill will and makes you look like a jerk.

"Jane" has been attacking for a long time now, my e-mail isn't going to make that any worse. And it is defending trolls, rather than defending Wikipedia, that makes people look like jerks.

...

I don't believe that you can solve your email volume problem by sending more emails.

I'm going to help solve it by not responding to your e-mails on this topic either. Jay.

Jane Halliwell

8:51 p.m.

New subject: A promise

...

I don't believe that you can solve your email volume problem by sending more emails.

I'm going to help solve it by not responding to your e-mails on this topic either. Jay.

If you honor this promise, I will donate ten dollars to the Wikimedia Foundation in your name. Eyeon/Jane _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

Taco Deposit

10:41 p.m.

New subject: A promise

An interesting, revealing statement. TD -----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jane Halliwell Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 3:52 PM To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A promise If you honor this promise, I will donate ten dollars to the Wikimedia Foundation in your name.

S.M.Sabri S.M.Ismail

17 Jun 17 Jun

12:35 a.m.

New subject: A promise ... Jay to Gregory

From: "Jane Halliwell" <hundredpurses(a)hotmail.com

...

I don't believe that you can solve your email volume problem by

sending more emails.

I'm going to help solve it by not responding to your e-mails on this topic either. Jay.

If you honor this promise, I will donate ten dollars to the Wikimedia Foundation in your name. Eyeon/Jane

Jane's cut&paste makes it appear that Jay was promising Jane, whereas Jay was talking to Gregory. I do not wonder whether Jane did this purposely or not. :-/ From: "JAY JG" <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, 17 June, 2005 1:55 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] I'm unblocked, but SlimVirgin STILL WON'T LET ME EDIT!

...

From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>

I don't believe that you can solve your email volume problem by sending more emails.

I'm going to help solve it by not responding to your e-mails on this topic either. Jay.

regards, sabre23t =^.^= -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.1 - Release Date: 13.06.05

Andrew Venier

16 Jun 16 Jun

4:40 p.m.

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

...

On 6/15/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps we should alert Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International.

I was kind of confused to see this post right after this one: Gregory Maxwell wrote:

...

Oh I know, we'll have a wikisockpuppet test: We will send ninjas to go kill the suspected puppeteer, and if the socks never edit again we'll know we were right!

Gregory Maxwell

5:51 p.m.

On 6/16/05, Andrew Venier <avenier(a)venier.net> wrote:

...

Gregory Maxwell wrote: >This sort of disrespectful language reflects poorly on the project. >It's not acceptable to bait people with such jabs just so you can yell >'look see' when the victim meets your incivility with more incivility.

...

I was kind of confused to see this post right after this one:

...

Gregory Maxwell wrote: >Oh I know, we'll have a wikisockpuppet test: >We will send ninjas to go kill the suspected puppeteer, and if the >socks never edit again we'll know we were right!

I have certainty made mistakes before, but I don't see where I am criticising anyone with the above. I was pointing giving an exagerated example of how the only means we have to detect a good sock with certanty are bound to cause more harm then they stop. Had I been replying to someone complaining about sockpuppets, I could see how my words would have been read as mocking. But in this case, who could I been mocking? ... In any case the sockpuppet issue is actually a hard one, and I don't think anyone with the courage to wade those waters is deserving of mockery, ... even if I disagree with their conclusions or methods.

Andrew Venier

8:53 p.m.

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

...

On 6/16/05, Andrew Venier <avenier(a)venier.net> wrote:

I was kind of confused to see this post right after this one:

Gregory Maxwell wrote: >Oh I know, we'll have a wikisockpuppet test: >We will send ninjas to go kill the suspected puppeteer, and if the >socks never edit again we'll know we were right! > >

As far as I am concerned, both statements (yours and JayJG's) were plain and simple sarcasm. You were apparently mocking anyone who cares to address sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. And for future reference, the disingenuous "Oh I know," is a big tip-off to sarcasm.

Jane Halliwell

5:54 p.m.

New subject: Incivility and hypocrisy

...

>JAY JG wrote: > >>Perhaps we should alert Human Rights >>Watch or Amnesty International.

...

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

...

>This sort of disrespectful language reflects poorly on the project. It's >not acceptable to bait people with such jabs just so you can yell >'look see' when the victim meets your incivility with more incivility.

Someone implying hypocrisy wrote: >I was kind of confused to see this post right after this one: >

...

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> >>Oh I know, we'll have a wikisockpuppet test: >>We will send ninjas to go kill the suspected puppeteer, and if the >>socks never edit again we'll know we were right! But there is no hypocrisy. Gregory Maxwell was using hyperbole to illuminate an unfairness in the process. This is civil discourse. Jay JG was ridiculing someone for daring to ask for help. Very different. _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

JAY JG

6:49 p.m.

New subject: Incivility and hypocrisy

...

From: "Jane Halliwell" <hundredpurses(a)hotmail.com> Jay JG was ridiculing someone for daring to ask for help. Very different.

No, I was ridiculing someone for using hysterical rhetoric to attack an admin and repeatedly troll the list. A couple of e-mails were enough; your point has been made, by you, many times. Move on. Jay.

6924

days inactive

6926

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

50 comments

19 participants

tags (0)

participants (19)

Andrew Venier
Angela
BJörn Lindqvist
Delirium
fun＠thingy.apana.org.au
Gregory Maxwell
Jane Halliwell
JAY JG
Nathan Reed
Phil Boswell
Rebecca
Rick
S.M.Sabri S.M.Ismail
Sam Korn
slimvirgin＠gmail.com
SPUI
Taco Deposit
Theresa Knott
Tim Starling