FANDOM


Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 11. (1) Everyone [...] has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

We're not trying to be jerks. Nor do we plan on being jerks. We do hope that you stay, and help us to build a better Wikipedia. There's lots of work to be done, and everyone who's willing to contribute constructively is needed. Including you.[1]

Trolling

Trolling explained

"Trolling" is often used but not very well understood. Let's go straight to "trolling as it pertains to Wikipedia"

We are faced with a not so uncommon ambiguity: "What is a troll?" an essay on Meta-Wiki and "Troll (Internet)", an article on Wikipedia. Let's look at both.

From Meta-Wiki:

Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgment 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent).

There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not necessarily trolls. [my bold]

The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. If a troll gets no response to their spurious edits, then they can hardly be considered a troll at all.

From Wikipedia:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Trolling on Meta

Talk:Requests for comment/Public or non-public personal information
Funny, I thought willets only buried their head in the sand in order to find (and eat) various bugs. If they do so in an ostrich-like attempt at self-preservation, that's a new fact to me. You're not suggesting we eat bugs, are you? I mean, there's some tasty bugs out there, but they're few and far between. I'm quite enjoying my breakfast, which is pretty close to 99% bug free, at the moment. Take care! :) Kylu 11:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Breakfast is like software: it's never 100% bug free. Jafeluv 11:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, quite true, but similarly, if you never actually see the bug, it doesn't really bother you. Quite different from singing to the lightning bugs and one of them flies the wrong direction at the wrong time... Kylu 11:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of trolling on Meta by Kylu and Jafeluv. At the time, Kylu was a Meta administrator, bureaucrat, and steward. Jafeluv was global sysop and within seven months would be named Meta administrator, elected steward, and named bureaucrat


Your unfriendly neighborhood list

Jamaican Jerk Stand Outside Bodden Town Grand Cayman

Austin Hair
Mon, 18 Oct 2010 00:05:18

Hi guys,

After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member. Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l.

Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on moderation for the indefinite future.

Austin


WJhonson
Fri, 26 Nov 2010 01:35:39

The police always think they are doing a fine job and don't need any accountability. All democracies have checks and balances. Those who do not, are police states. Our single hierarchical structure is just such a system with no checks and balances.

The point of having three parts to the US Government is to ensure that if you are harassed by the police you can turn to your legislator, if you are attacked by your legislator, you can turn to a judge. Wikipedia has a single structure. If you are harassed by an admin, you have no recource except to another admin. The police policing the police. I see no justice in that system. Plenty of abuse. If you're not an admin, you have no power whatsoever over a single admin deciding to silence you. And other police simply back them up.

That [...] is the entire nature of the police state. And why a police state is not a system of government under which enlightened people wish to operate. It only takes one run-in of this sort to send the promising editor away. Suggesting this is an appropriate system to retain only shows the sort of disconnect Admins have with Editors.

You assume that any editor who wants to protect themselves from this sort of abuse should become an admin. Tantamount to any citizen wishing to protect themselves from the Police should become a policeman. I find that sort of attitude to be.... alarming.

Will Johnson

Beautiful people

The ultimate hair cut by KnightNephrite

The Beautiful People giving Awesome Kong the ultimate hair cut

Dror Kamir
Sat, 9 Apr 2011 20:33:47

[...] phenomena which resemble this description are very common in articles about conflicts, especially the Middle East conflict. There are groups of editors whose aim is watching an article so it would represent their political view, and these groups often file complaints about editors who try to edit the certain article in a different way, in order to have them blocked or the article put under special protection. The current administrative system of Wikipedia cannot handle these phenomena. Various attempts were made in order to handle this problem, but unfortunately, they just added damage rather than ease the problem. I can understand why Wikimedians with influence are reluctant to deal with problems related to politics. The Wikimedia projects are not political, and any decision about this kind of issues might be perceived as political decision. And yet, the problem is there and it grows and it cannot be avoided forever.

Dror K


Risker
Sun, 10 Apr 2011 03:20:08

I know our project has far, far too many complex and even contradictory policies, guidelines, and miscellaneous pages that result in "alphabet soup" messages that even experienced users find almost impenetrable. I pity the newbie who gets a "welcome" message that leads them to the Manual of Style, for example. Featured article writers "discuss" what it really means on a regular basis, so there's little hope an inexperienced editor will be able to follow the contradictions in it.

Risker/Anne


Dror Kamir
Sun, 10 Apr 2011 04:34:47

I can give plenty of problematic behaviors of veteran users toward new users on the English Wikipedia. I don't know whether simplification of rules and guidelines are the way to deal with them (although I'm all in favor of simplification). Here are just a few of these behaviors as examples (and I might repeat things I wrote in my previous messages). I don't know if these issues have been addressed on the strategy project. There are so many subjects there, that we might have lost the forest for the trees.

1. A new user provides new information without adhering to the recommended style. Most chances that the edit be reverted by a veteran user rather than stylized to be in line with the rest of the article.

2. New user provides interesting new information without providing sources. Most chances that this edit be reverted and the user considered disruptor, rather than someone check the new contribution against sources. The new user might have read this information and lost access to the source, he might know something from personal experience, but don't know how to source it. The right move on behalf of a veteran user would be to find a source, or at least move the new information to the talk page with a request that anyone who has access to a relevant sources would provide them, but this seldom happens.

3. A veteran user does not like the contributions of a new user. S/he files a complaint about the new user being a sockpuppet. The new user is almost immediately blocked without knowing why (as s/he doesn't even know what sockpuppet it), without being able to defend himself, and without knowing to whom s/he can appeal.

4. A veteran user "hijacks" an article (either because s/he feel attached to it, seen many vandalism on this article before or even have a certain political opinion which s/he wants to promote). S/he prevents edits to this article from new users. Most chances are that the new users would be the ones blamed for disruptive behavior than the veteran user.

Dror K

Backstabbing

thumb|300px|right|Backstabbing

Behind your back

Removed Vapmachado's section per request [2]. I wonder why he didn't want that view on the main page? Kylu 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like he just wants to ramble. You're being so nice (too nice IMO) to post stuff on his behalf, and now he wants it reverted... wtf? [my bold] Seb az86556 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but recall that I'm the one that is the antagonistic and demanding steward/admin/bureaucrat/whatever! I'm also slowly getting used to being too young/too old, uneducated, rich/poor, or a {{tl|RandomSexualOrientationSlur}} {{tl|RandomEthnicSlur}}, but I'm sure that'll be completely unrel...oh, he already brought up "educating" me, huh. Kylu 21:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unprofessional talk on Meta, between Kylu and Seb az86556[3], [4], and [5]. At the time, Kylu was a Meta administrator, bureaucrat, and steward. Talk took place behind Vapmachado's back and was about a discussion on another talk page, 9 August 2010.


The name of the game

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Wed, 25 May 2011 03:34:53

[...] if someone, under the false pretenses of helping you can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will. That's the name of the game here, as it has been extensively documented on reliable sources, which makes this statement verifiable, as required.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


FT2
Wed, 25 May 2011 04:14:40

Oh dear. This just lost a lot of respect (whatever respect is remaining).

So if someone (anyone?) can cause another person problems, they will? I must remember that as the default expectation of society, or Wikipedia communities at least. Documented as being that extreme by reliable sources no less.

Instead of complaining, you might like to notice how your own attitudes lead to fairly predictable results, and a genuine, noticeable and enduring change of them changes the results.

FT2


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Wed, 25 May 2011 05:30:29

Oh my! That's news for you? Let's see. Just a sample from firsthand experiences.

1) From Meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado#Updated_request_for_assistance

"The work on Meta was being done in an orderly manner until the disruption provoked and caused by those same people mentioned above. The user is the same. Trouble only started after the interference of the same people from the Portuguese Wikipedia on Meta. Their votes can be seen popping up on the RfA. There has never been a single block on any other Wikimedia project where these editors do not have any influence. The obvious conclusion is that the hostile behavior stays with that people, not this user."

2) From Wikimedia Outreach:
http://human-rights-in-cyberspace.wikia.com/wiki/The_Outreach_debacle

"Please edit those pages as though they were your own wiki. Make yourself at home on the Outreach wiki." Wrote Lennart. Wow! I was in awe. This project and/or these guys had the right stuff." "When I revisited Wikimedia Outreach, my user page had been deleted, my own name suppressed from my message and replaced by (Redacted)." Later, my user page was restored with this quite amazing summary: "restoring per request, it appears this user intended to out himself, removing personal address". It was decided that "Apartado 313, 2826-801 Caparica" is my personal address. Well I regret to have to let you know that "Apartado 313, 2826-801 Caparica" is not my "personal address". It's one of my many mailing addresses. "Apartado" is the Portuguese word for Post Office or P.O. Box, and I can assure you that I never lived there.

From the Portuguese Wikipedia:
http://human-rights-in-cyberspace.wikia.com/wiki/The_crusaders_against_education_I

3) http://human-rights-in-cyberspace.wikia.com/wiki/The_crusaders_against_education_I#Melhoria_de_predefini.C3.A7.C3.A3o

Em engenharia, quando a obra não é executada de acordo com o projecto é um caso sério. Na Wikipédia chama-se «ajudar». «Em Roma, sê Romano.» É assim. Uma pessoa põe o seu «espírito criativo» a funcionar, é «ajudada» e pronto, lá se foi o que planeou para o «galheiro». Já se tinha agradecido, portanto, é tocar para diante e esperar por melhores dias ou que o «ajudante» vá de férias. Não há nada que um vulgar editor faça que um atento administrador, burocrata e membro do conselho de arbitragem não possa desfazer. Nesta Wikipédia o que não falta são ajudas. Se alguém encontrar por aí a definição de «período para discutir o mérito da página», agradece-se desde já.

4) http://human-rights-in-cyberspace.wikia.com/wiki/The_crusaders_against_education_I#O_Emplastro_I

With all the details of the "help" I got to be blocked for the first time. Moral of the story: I'm currently banned and my "helper" is King on the Portuguese Wikipedia, a fine example of a "meritocracy."

Even in these modest examples, if you find anything not verifiable, please let me know.

5) "Furthermore, if someone, under the false pretenses of helping you can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will. That's the name of the game here." Another example:

"Instead of complaining, you might like to notice how your own attitudes lead to fairly predictable results, and a genuine, noticeable and enduring change of them changes the results." FT2

"That does not mean that there are not isolated cases of injustice. Such users need to patiently and persistently bring their situation to the attention of the community." Fred

Could some "consensus" be reached on this matter?

[...]

Any further questions?

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


FT2
Wed, 25 May 2011 08:47:17

Yeah. It's news for me. You really need to be careful not to replace "sometimes" by "always". We have a few hundreds of thousands of active editors over time. So obviously there are some cases where we can see things went badly. What I'm missing is the step from that to " if someone... can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will". A bit of a difference.

This is the kind of logic that (in racists) goes: "A dark skinned man nudged me on the street and didn't say sorry" ----> "all dark skinned people are rude" ----> "Dark skinned people will fuck you over if they can".

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Nor do most people here. That is possibly why other people aren't agreeing with you very much either, or jumping to your support here.

FT2


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Wed, 25 May 2011 18:59:12

I'm sorry for not being as brilliant as you are, but I have read my message over and over and can't find any "always" there.

I haven't made any mention of the number of active editors. I don't know what you mean when you say that "obviously there are some cases where we can see things went badly." Nobody ever said that about what you and others like you have done to me.

You can't miss "the step from that to " if someone... can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will"." Just retrace your own steps. Please point an occasion, a message you haven't use to take another stab at me. For what purpose? I know. Doesn't anybody here?

I never made any racist comments, and it saddened me very deeply that you found it appropriate to use that as an example, therefore associating me with that kind of behavior. I do not use the kind of language that you so proudly display, again in a despicable attempt to associate me with the kind of people who do. I wonder how such a nice person such as yourself can resort to that kind of behavior and be so welcome and so highly regarded. That's why you can't be my buddy, pal, friend and why you do have so much trouble feeling any kind of empathy. "Nor do most people here. That is [...] why other people aren't agreeing with you very much either, or [standing up] to your support here."

My apologies to the list for the personal tone of this message, but I believe things were getting a bit out of hand.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Thu, 26 May 2011 23:59:09

Thank you guys. I knew you wouldn't let me down. You outdid yourselves. On this illustrious mailing list where from «you know who» all the way to the neighborhood young kid posts, I made an apparent innocuous statement that included: "if someone, under the false pretenses of helping you can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will. That's the name of the game here," Now, check the archives. Do you find there a kind and/or nice word? NO. Do you find posts by four volunteers who made a point of proving me right? YES. I'm absolutely sure they were doing their best to help, weren't you? Of course you were. It's not nice to make personal attacks, right? Right.

Y'all have a nice day.

Virgilio A. P. Machado (Signing with my true Wikimedia credentials, now go find a reliable source)
Executive Editor, Logística a Logistics wikibook in Portuguese
The One and Only Editor to ever develop and complete academic projects on the Brazilian Wikipedia


FT2
Fri, 27 May 2011 08:47:17

You appear to have a different definition of "kind or nice word" than I'm used to.

The words have been posted to help you. That is both kind (because it helps) and nice (because it was volunteered, taking up time from my life, for your potential benefit alone). I cannot control if you find them helpful, if you are predisposed to a way of thinking that forces you to ignore or dismiss them, or anything else. None the less they are my understanding of the factual information you probably need to consider to obtain what you are describing.

What is not "kind" or "nice" is to say things that provide unlikely expectations that will eventually be dashed. For example, agreeing with a perception that I didn't find accurate because it would please you.

FT2


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Sat, 28 May 2011 01:57:01

[...]

I love English lessons. They take me way back to my youth. Of course everybody is entitled to his own definitions of kind and nice, but for "kind" I'll stick to "having or showing a friendly, generous, and considerate nature," and for "nice," "pleasant; agreeable; satisfactory." If you were trying to be both kind and nice, I appreciate that, and regret not having recognized it. Please don't let me forget to let you know whenever you do succeed, but spare me of "taking up time from [your] life, for [my] potential benefit alone." Please don't. Nobody will believe you, and neither will I.

From then on, I have no idea of what you were writing about.

[...]

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado
Executive Editor, Logística a Logistics wikibook in Portuguese
The One and Only Editor to ever develop and complete academic projects on the Brazilian Wikipedia

Citation needed

thumb|300px|right|Why Wikipedians are the Weirdest People on the Internet?

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Wed, 25 May 2011 03:34:53

[...] if someone, under the false pretenses of helping you can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will. That's the name of the game here, as it has been extensively documented on reliable sources, which makes this statement verifiable, as required.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


M. Williamson
Wed, 25 May 2011 20:08:22

Virgilio, the statements that you made seemed to indicate that you believed that your own situation was typical and that the results you claim for your situation are inevitable in all cases:

"Furthermore, if someone, under the false pretenses of helping you can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will. That's the name of the game here, as it has been extensively documented on reliable sources, which makes this statement verifiable, as required."

That includes an "if...then" statement, which implies (to me) that there are no exceptions to this supposed rule of universal treachery.

So what you have done is taken this thread, which was much more general, and focused it onto your specific case, with the claim that what you have supposedly suffered is not just an isolated case, but a universal, and on top of that you claimed that this "fact" has been "extensively documented on reliable sources". I'm still waiting to see "reliable sources" to prove that treachery is not only common, but *universal* in our projects.

-m.


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Thu, 26 May 2011 23:59:09

Thank you guys. I knew you wouldn't let me down. You outdid yourselves. On this illustrious mailing list where from «you know who» all the way to the neighborhood young kid posts, I made an apparent innocuous statement that included: "if someone, under the false pretenses of helping you can turn things from bad to worse for you, they will. That's the name of the game here," Now, check the archives. Do you find there a kind and/or nice word? NO. Do you find posts by four volunteers who made a point of proving me right? YES. I'm absolutely sure they were doing their best to help, weren't you? Of course you were. It's not nice to make personal attacks, right? Right.

Y'all have a nice day.

Virgilio A. P. Machado (Signing with my true Wikimedia credentials, now go find a reliable source)
Executive Editor, Logística a Logistics wikibook in Portuguese
The One and Only Editor to ever develop and complete academic projects on the Brazilian Wikipedia


M. Williamson
Fri, 27 May 2011 17:42:49

I'm not sure any of us had the stated intention of helping you. What, exactly, were we expected to be helping you with?


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Sat, 28 May 2011 01:57:01

No, of course there was no intention, stated or otherwise, to help. That was exactly my point, in case you missed it. If you have to ask about how you are expected to help, you can't afford to do it. You are out of your depth and out of your league (absolutely no offense intended).

I love English lessons. They take me way back to my youth. [...]

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado
Executive Editor, Logística a Logistics wikibook in Portuguese
The One and Only Editor to ever develop and complete academic projects on the Brazilian Wikipedia


After an auspicious start,[6] Mark Williamson was very helpful.[7] and [8]. Then, Mark Williamson made a couple of comments[9] and [10] that were questioned in the "take no prisoners" style[11], [12], and [13]. They got Mark Williamson upset.[14] Later an attempt was made to put the comments in full perspective,[15] but, admittedly, Mark Williamson's feelings might have been unwittingly hurt.

Payback time stated one month later[16], which met the inevitable rebuttal[17]. Mark Williamson's and another list member posts met this comment from a fellow list member: "Neither of these was funny; both were backhanded insults to you."[18]

A few months later, Mark Williamson would strike again,[19], with questionable success,[20] and again[21], with about the same level of success.[22]

Finally, on June 1st, Mark Williamson insisted on factual evidence[23]. Later that same month (June 24), having gathered enough evidence in a presentable format, a post was made to such effect[24].

Please bear in mind that an effort was being done to do the best to conform to the list rules[25] and, accordingly, the post was not addressed to Mark Williamson, but to his comment/request. The posts can be read in the right sequence on these sections: The Wikipedia-Ready Essay and Showdown.

There was a not very surprising reaction from Austin[26] alleging incivility and/or trolling in that post of June 24. More than six weeks later, still nothing had been heard from Mark Williamson. So, a message was written to Mark Williamson. Mark Williamson might have missed that post, thought it was related to something else, and might not even have opened the link included.

It was stated that it would be a privilege to continue talking with Mark Williamson about "why academic projects were not welcome and their contributions are being vandalized, almost systematically, at the Brazilian Wikipedia." Mark Williamson's attention was also called to the fact that a post had been made before on the foundation-l mailing list about that strange phenomena.[27]

In the mean time, and assuming that the exchange was taking place between two decent, honest and honorable persons, complete trust was declared on Mark Williamson that he would post to the foundation-l mailing list, and make his best efforts to straighten things up. As a third party, it was explained to Mark Williamson, the belief was that Mark Williamson was in a better position to clear what appeared to be an unfortunate misunderstanding and explain that there was no incivility and/or trolling in the June 24 post, but a straight answer to a simple request Mark Williamson had made. In closing, it was written to Mark Williamson that he was welcome to use any part of that message or its entirety.

That message was dated, August 7, 2011, and to this day, there has been no answer from Mark Williamson, much less a post to the foundation-l mailing list, one way or another about Austin's alleged incivility and/or trolling. Trust was misplaced on Mark Williamson who, "according to his user page, has at least a basic grasp of something like 17 languages." "Any six year old [Portuguese] child has a basic grasp of Portuguese grammar [...] even before they enter elementary school. Basic grasp of any other 16 languages is not required", but they are well into learning what is decent, honest and honorable.

Mark Williamson "has more experience with a grammar than you expect." In fact, he "reads grammars every day" and his "bookshelves are filled with grammars of various languages." Grammars are not the most referenced works on decency, honesty and honor. "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."


Mission accomplished

thumb|300px|right

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 00:58:48

Now that my attention has been drawn to that section, I wonder if that explains why the academic projects were not welcome and their contributions are being vandalized, almost systematically, at the Brazilian Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


M. Williamson
Wed, 1 Jun 2011 02:48:00

Professor Machado:

This is an interesting allegation, I would be quite interested to see some examples of this taking place.

-m.


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:20:19

The evidence is in.

Wanton vandalism

Your move.

Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)
Executive Editor, Logística, a Logistics wikibook in Portuguese
The One and Only Editor to ever develop and complete academic projects on the Brazilian Wikipedia


Austin Hair
Fri, 24 Jun 2011 19:49:09

I'm not sure whose move it is, exactly, so I hope you'll forgive me if I'm out of turn.

You've been given more chances than usual, Virgilio, but I'm afraid enough is finally enough. The list administrators will be monitoring your next several posts until we're convinced that you can maintain a decent civility:trolling ratio.

Best regards,

Austin


After an auspicious start,[28] Mark Williamson was very helpful.[29] and [30]. Then, Mark Williamson made a couple of comments[31] and [32] that were questioned in the "take no prisoners" style[33], [34], and [35]. They got Mark Williamson upset.[36] Later an attempt was made to put the comments in full perspective,[37] but, admittedly, Mark Williamson's feelings might have been unwittingly hurt.

Payback time stated one month later[38], which met the inevitable rebuttal[39]. Mark Williamson's and another list member posts met this comment from a fellow list member: "Neither of these was funny; both were backhanded insults to you."[40]

A few months later, Mark Williamson would strike again,[41], with questionable success,[42] and again[43], with about the same level of success.[44]

Finally, on June 1st, Mark Williamson insisted on factual evidence[45]. Later that same month (June 24), having gathered enough evidence in a presentable format, a post was made to such effect[46].

Please bear in mind that an effort was being done to do the best to conform to the list rules[47] and, accordingly, the post was not addressed to Mark Williamson, but to his comment/request. The posts can be read in the right sequence on these sections: The Wikipedia-Ready Essay and Showdown.

There was a not very surprising reaction from Austin[48] alleging incivility and/or trolling in that post of June 24. More than six weeks later, still nothing had been heard from Mark Williamson. So, a message was written to Mark Williamson. Mark Williamson might have missed that post, thought it was related to something else, and might not even have opened the link included.

It was stated that it would be a privilege to continue talking with Mark Williamson about "why academic projects were not welcome and their contributions are being vandalized, almost systematically, at the Brazilian Wikipedia." Mark Williamson's attention was also called to the fact that a post had been made before on the foundation-l mailing list about that strange phenomena.[49]

In the mean time, and assuming that the exchange was taking place between two decent, honest and honorable persons, complete trust was declared on Mark Williamson that he would post to the foundation-l mailing list, and make his best efforts to straighten things up. As a third party, it was explained to Mark Williamson, the belief was that Mark Williamson was in a better position to clear what appeared to be an unfortunate misunderstanding and explain that there was no incivility and/or trolling in the June 24 post, but a straight answer to a simple request Mark Williamson had made. In closing, it was written to Mark Williamson that he was welcome to use any part of that message or its entirety.

That message was dated, August 7, 2011, and to this day, there has been no answer from Mark Williamson, much less a post to the foundation-l mailing list, one way or another about Austin's alleged incivility and/or trolling. Trust was misplaced on Mark Williamson who, "according to his user page, has at least a basic grasp of something like 17 languages." "Any six year old [Portuguese] child has a basic grasp of Portuguese grammar [...] even before they enter elementary school. Basic grasp of any other 16 languages is not required", but they are well into learning what is decent, honest and honorable.

Mark Williamson "has more experience with a grammar than you expect." In fact, he "reads grammars every day" and his "bookshelves are filled with grammars of various languages." Grammars are not the most referenced works on decency, honesty and honor. "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."


Lip service

In Portuguese

Lack of manners

NEXT

Human rights

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [...]. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."[50]

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

[...] the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

[...]

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

[...]

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance [...]

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 11. (1) Everyone [...] has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.


Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any [...] group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.