headers
William Pietri | 1 Aug 2007 01:34
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Blocking for article pages only?

cohesion wrote:
> I agree though, if they can't behave themselves why not block them
> completely? It sounds like you're talking about maybe PR people, or
> people that are exclusive POV pushers outside the normal wikipedia
> culture. If that's the case I think it would be very confusing for
> them and probably lead to resentment, creating a type of second class
> editor.

I agree it creates a second class of editor -- at least for the duration 
of the block -- but I hope that it would create less resentment rather 
than more. I imagine that happening in two ways.

First, some people blocked for COI or POV issues really do have 
something useful to say. Take the time we blocked some of the US 
Congress IPs because a handful of staffers misbehaved. Although the 
block may have kept out more puffery, and it was certainly useful in 
sending a signal, we kept a lot of people from even commenting on 
articles, articles where they had expert knowledge. That has to be 
frustrating.

Second, people often just want to have their say. Blocking people to 
prevent harm to articles is already frustrating to people. But I think 
they'll put up with that better if we indicate that we're still willing 
to listen to them, at least as long as they play nice.

My hope is that this will decrease tension on both sides. I think it's 
relatively easy to put up with some yutz on a talk page. The real strife 
comes when they start messing with articles. A mainspace-only ban would 
let us stop the main harm while still letting people participate in the 
community.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
cohesion | 1 Aug 2007 01:41

Re: Blocking for article pages only?

On 7/31/07, William Pietri <william@...> wrote:
> Second, people often just want to have their say. Blocking people to
> prevent harm to articles is already frustrating to people. But I think
> they'll put up with that better if we indicate that we're still willing
> to listen to them, at least as long as they play nice.

Hmm, you may be right :) frustrating for them either way, I suppose,
although partial may be better. I don't deal with blocks much so... I
guess I'm ambivalent about it :)

Judson
[[:en:User:Cohesion]]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
ElinorD | 1 Aug 2007 02:33
Picon

Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?

> On 7/29/07, Steve Summit <scs@...> wrote:
>
> > A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying
> > that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this
> > rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375.

You honestly think that if she said it was false, everyone would go away and
leave her alone, and all the trolling and stalking would stop?

If I were in Slim's position, I would make no comment either. You don't
start answering some of the stalkers' questions, knowing that there will be
more later. Remember that they have found various "identities" for her, and
are still looking. Presumably, they'll come up with a few more in the next
year. What is she supposed to do? Make a statement on this occasion, and
keep silence when they actually guess right?

Q. Is it true that your name is Melissa Davenport?
A. No, that's false.

Q. Is it true that your name is Marjorie Simpson?
A. No, that's false.

Q. Is it true that your name is Jennifer Collins?
A. I refuse to say.

What kind of impression would that give?

E
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
ElinorD | 1 Aug 2007 02:47
Picon

Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?

> On 7/29/07, Steve Summit <scs@...> wrote:
>
> > A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying
> > that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this
> > rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375.

You honestly think that if she said it was false, everyone would go away and
leave her alone, and all the trolling and stalking would stop?

If I were in Slim's position, I would make no comment either. You don't
start answering some of the stalkers' questions, knowing that there will be
more later. Remember that they have found various "identities" for her, and
are still looking. Presumably, they'll come up with a few more in the next
year. What is she supposed to do? Make a statement on this occasion, and
keep silence when they actually guess right?

Q. Is it true that your name is Melissa Davenport?
A. No, that's false.

Q. Is it true that your name is Marjorie Simpson?
A. No, that's false.

Q. Is it true that your name is Jennifer Collins?
A. I refuse to say.

What kind of impression would that give?

E
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Steve Summit | 1 Aug 2007 03:01
Favicon

Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?

ElinorD wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Steve Summit <scs@...> wrote:
>> A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying
>> that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this
>> rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375.
>
> You honestly think that if she said it was false, everyone would go away
> and leave her alone, and all the trolling and stalking would stop?

No, I didn't say that.

> If I were in Slim's position, I would make no comment either.

She's fine to do that, but that's not what I was talking about, either.
Her not answering the question is different from a bunch of third
parties eradicating all the questions.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
jayjg | 1 Aug 2007 05:51
Picon

Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?

On 7/29/07, Steve Summit <scs@...> wrote:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
> > But is there anything to it? Or is it just nasty gossip?
> > If you want to gossip, join the Navy.
>
> There's a fine line to be trodden here.  Certainly, we don't
> want or need to dignify wild rumors with any attention at all.
> But once a story "has legs" (and whether it deserves them or not),
> too-strenuous attempts to deny it only fuel the speculations that
> there *is* a cabal and a cover-up -- and those speculations can
> end up driving more long-term damage than the original, spurious
> accusation would have.
>
> A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying
> that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this
> rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375.  (And there may
> have been other reverters, sorry if I left you out, but evidently
> this issue has become so "serious" that [[User talk:SlimVirgin]]
> has had a bunch of its history deleted.)

Steve, could you point out exactly what I have been "rampantly
reverting" in this regard?

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 94 comments |
headers
K P | 1 Aug 2007 06:25
Picon

Re: Blocking for article pages only?

On 7/31/07, William Pietri <william@...> wrote:
> cohesion wrote:
> > I agree though, if they can't behave themselves why not block them
> > completely? It sounds like you're talking about maybe PR people, or
> > people that are exclusive POV pushers outside the normal wikipedia
> > culture. If that's the case I think it would be very confusing for
> > them and probably lead to resentment, creating a type of second class
> > editor.
>
> I agree it creates a second class of editor -- at least for the duration
> of the block -- but I hope that it would create less resentment rather
> than more. I imagine that happening in two ways.
>
> First, some people blocked for COI or POV issues really do have
> something useful to say. Take the time we blocked some of the US
> Congress IPs because a handful of staffers misbehaved. Although the
> block may have kept out more puffery, and it was certainly useful in
> sending a signal, we kept a lot of people from even commenting on
> articles, articles where they had expert knowledge. That has to be
> frustrating.
>
> Second, people often just want to have their say. Blocking people to
> prevent harm to articles is already frustrating to people. But I think
> they'll put up with that better if we indicate that we're still willing
> to listen to them, at least as long as they play nice.
>
>
> My hope is that this will decrease tension on both sides. I think it's
> relatively easy to put up with some yutz on a talk page. The real strife
> comes when they start messing with articles. A mainspace-only ban would
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Adrian | 1 Aug 2007 08:09

Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?

Steve Summit schrieb:
> ElinorD wrote:
>   
>> On 7/29/07, Steve Summit <scs@...> wrote:
>>     
>>> A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying
>>> that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this
>>> rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375.
>>>       
>> You honestly think that if she said it was false, everyone would go away
>> and leave her alone, and all the trolling and stalking would stop?
>>     
>
> No, I didn't say that.
>
>   
>> If I were in Slim's position, I would make no comment either.
>>     
>
> She's fine to do that, but that's not what I was talking about, either.
> Her not answering the question is different from a bunch of third
> parties eradicating all the questions.
>   
At this point I feel compelled to chime in with stating that this thing 
starts to go from boring to annoying. I, like many others I guess, am 
admittedly envious of that Aston Martin full of neat little gadgets 
which a position with the secret service affords, but SlimVirgin doesn't 
constantly rub it in my face, so I'm willing to forgive her for that. I 
think you can tell that I'm trying to bring some of the initial mildly 
amusing flavor back to the drama, because that was it's only really
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Lee | 1 Aug 2007 09:34
Picon

Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?

On 7/30/07, Blu Aardvark <jeffrey.latham@...> wrote:
>
> Here's my opinion on the matter.
>
> First, Slashdot is not a reliable source. Thus, links in article space
> are thoroughly inappropriate except for in articles related to the
> subject. Second, the question must be asked - who is adding these links,
> where are they adding these links, and what is their motive for doing
> so? True, there are some established users who are clearly acting in
> good faith to call this slashdot drivel to the attention of other
> editors, but is doing so actually necessary? Does it benefit Wikipedia
> at all?
>
> I think it's safe to say that SlimVirgin is well aware of the piece. I
> think it is also safe to say that SlimVirgin is highly upset by the
> piece, and considerably bothered by the fact that her fellow editors
> deem it necessary to call the piece to the attention of her and other
> editors.
>
> It's a hit piece, a hack job masquerading as journalism. As I've posted
> on Slashdot myself, it may be true that she is who the article claims
> her to be, and the evidence may be sufficient to draw such a conclusion.
> It may be true that she has an active conflict of interest on Wikipedia,
> and the evidence may be sufficient to draw this conclusion as well. But
> there is not enough evidence to convict her of being affiliated with a
> government agency - I've seen better and more believable conspiracy
> theories advocated by the GNAA.
>
> But yet, not only do slashdotters find it necessary to call attention to
> the piece, Wikipedians do as well. Can you understand why some people
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Steve Summit | 1 Aug 2007 15:17
Favicon

Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?

jayjg wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Steve Summit <scs@...> wrote:
>> A single, simple statement on Slim's user or talk page, saying
>> that the rumor is false, would be much better than all this
>> rampant reverting by ElinorD, Jayjg, and Crum375.
>
> Steve, could you point out exactly what I have been "rampantly
> reverting" in this regard?

Between 03:22 and 22:12 on July 27, at least 8 questions about
That Slashdot Thread were posted by various users on Slim's talk
page, and systematically removed by you, ElinorD, and Crum375.

Though one or two of the questions were snide, I have to assume
that at least a few of them were in good faith: editors unaware
of Slim's storied history, who came across the Slashdot thread
and thought she might like to know about it.

I suppose "rampantly" might have been a smidge too strong.
The point remains, however, that a group of editors unilaterally
decided, without explanation, that a certain question was
Absolutely Forbidden on Slim's talk page.  I understand the
reasoning behind the deletions, of course, no need to rehash all
that now, but my own feeling is that the cure may have become
worse than the disease.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 80 comments |

Gmane