FANDOM


Notable quotes

Fred Bauder
Mon, 18 Oct 2010 03:50:12

This list is for people who support the project, not those who are actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways.


Fred Bauder
Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:11:02

This is a public list for discussion of matters which concern and affect the Wikimedia Foundation. It is open to supporters and critics of our projects; to novices and old hands.


MZMcBride
Mon, 18 Oct 2010 05:01:11

There is absolutely no issue with dissent on this list (or on any Wikimedia mailing list). Thoughtful critics and criticism should always be welcome.

MZMcBride


phoebe ayers
Mon, 18 Oct 2010 06:17:28

criticism, especially thoughtful criticism, is of course both welcome and healthy in general in our projects, and personally I would love to see more nuanced and thoughtful criticism as the basis of many more conversations about where the Foundation and projects should go.


Anthony
Mon, 19 Oct 2010 03:24:06

the list should be for people who support the project (Including those who support the project but believe that major changes ought to be made.)


Austin Hair
Mon, 18 Oct 2011 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


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


Fred Bauder
Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:11:02

This is a public list for discussion of matters which concern and affect the Wikimedia Foundation. It is open to supporters and critics of our projects; to novices and old hands.

Fred


Austin Hair
Mon, 18 Oct 2011 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


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


Marc Riddell
Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:34:15

> on 10/22/10 10:11 AM, Fred Bauder [...] wrote:
> This is a public list for discussion of matters which concern and affect the Wikimedia Foundation. It is open to supporters and critics of our projects; to novices and old hands.

I am listening, and do hear what you are saying, Fred. But banishment from something, whether it be from a working project or a country, means that person is being openly, or even surreptitiously, destructive of the body, the substance, of the project or country, not merely being critical of it. Has either of these persons, Greg or Peter, been destructive of the substance of the Project: the body of the Encyclopedia? And could we please stop the disingenuousness of calling what is clearly censorship, "moderation"?

And, when someone's constant (and seemingly only) answer to anyone who doesn't agree with them is to call them a name - like "troll", the accusation should bounce right back to the accuser. In psychology it's called "projection".

Marc


Austin Hair
Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:02:44

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Marc Riddell [...] wrote:
> I am listening, and do hear what you are saying, Fred. But banishment from something, whether it be from a working project or a country, means that person is being openly, or even surreptitiously, destructive of the body, the substance, of the project or country, not merely being critical of it. Has either of these persons, Greg or Peter, been destructive of the substance of the Project: the body of the Encyclopedia?

That is, in fact, exactly what we, the list administrators, finally concluded.

A minor correction, however: it was his contribution to the mailing list we were assessing, not to Wikipedia or any other project. (Though, given that he's been banned from at least two of them, that would have been a much easier case to make.)

Greg Kohs went beyond being merely critical (which is welcome, and even encouraged) to the point of being antisocial and counterproductive. He did so to such an extent that it was actively preventing civil discourse.

> And could we please stop the disingenuousness of calling what is clearly censorship, "moderation"?

Moderation is the technical term for it, and and you can call it "censorship" if you like, but your term carries an obvious bias.

I've been taking time out of my day to regularly log into the list administration interface to make sure nobody's posts were unnecessarily delayed, and I personally haven't rejected a single one from Peter Damian so far. I expect that we'll probably take him off moderation soon, if only to relieve the burden on the administrators.

> And, when someone's constant (and seemingly only) answer to anyone who doesn't agree with them is to call them a name - like "troll", the accusation should bounce right back to the accuser. In psychology it's called "projection".

The funny thing about projection, of course, is that it's so easy to call it out as recursive.

Austin


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


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:32:49

After a cool off period of about 48 hours and considerable reflection, it is my conviction that the posts of two above mentioned editors should be moderated from now on.

Andrew Garrett wrote, Sun Apr 3 10:13:26 UTC 2011, "Your messages are deliberately obnoxious, unpleasant, and off-topic to boot." it is unclear what messages he is referring to, but these are not acceptable terms to classify anybody's messages, unless it is acceptable that others classify Andrew Garrett's or anybody else's messages as "deliberately obnoxious, unpleasant, and off-topic to boot." and therefore asks him or them to "Cut it out, please." "What is good for the goose is good for the gander."

After engaging in a "friendly and polite exchange" with Dan Rosenthal, he saw fit to send me an e-mail, Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:26, concerning "[Foundation-l] Wiki-revolution," using language unbecoming to a gentleman, that I'll not repeat. This kind of behavior cannot and should not be tolerated from members of this list. Should everybody start sending unspeakable messages to other members of the list? I do have experience of exchanging off list messages with other members, but those were used for clarification, to reach a mutual understanding and establish new bridges and avenues of communication. They were used to improve relations with other members and, as a result, improve the peaceful and cordial exchanges that should take place on this list, despite any disagreements and differences of opinion. There can never be any disagreements or differences of opinion as far as the level of education and manners used on this list, and towards members of this list both on and off list. This is no army barracks, farm stables, or brawl among drunkards on the town fairgrounds.

As Dan Rosenthal might wish to present evidence that no harm was intended or done, by making public his message, I authorize that he so does. I have no trouble in reproducing Dan Rosenthal's message on this list, provided he grants me, here, in public, on this list, authorization to do it.

I believe that Dan Rosenthal's action called for more severe sanctions, but I have many reservations concerning all sorts of so called severe sanctions on this list and Wikimedia projects in general. We all know how easily they can be circunvented by the less scrupulous. Therefore, as in the case of Andrew Garrett, my request is that their posts to be moderated from now on. That should be sufficient to prevent Dan Rosenthal from coughing again on this list and hopefully at least make him hesitate before sending unworthy messages off list.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado)


Austin Hair
Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:39:22

As administrators, it's our policy not to take punitive action. We only use moderation to prevent likely repeat offenders from further disrupting the list.

Andrew Garrett (who, as others have noted, was actually defending you—I understand that this isn't something you're used to, after all these years) is not a troll and, while blunt, is generally not disruptive.

Dan Rosenthal is not always the friendliest in his interactions with the list, and has been moderated before, but I see no reason to do so again at this time.

And that's all I intend to say in reply. You don't even get my traditional folksy "guys, be nice" line for this one.

Austin


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


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:02:16

At 16:58 02-04-2011, you wrote:
>If everyone in Tunisia had good internet access, knew how to edit a wiki, and had experience doing so that would be a no-brainer. As it is, a mechanism like that disenfranchises 99.999% of the population. Good goal to work for though.

>Fred

I'm always amazed at the depthness and breadth of knowledge shown on these posts. The precision, accuracy of the quantitative data on which posts to this listed are based, making it one of the most reliable, highly educated and respected fora of the Internet. They are a true mirror of the high intelectual level of the discussions carried on most Wikimedia projects. They are a source of mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence around the world. We should all be proud and/or blessed for having such an elite of contributors to this list. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Tunisia

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


Sarah
Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:51:04

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 19:16, Fred Bauder [...] wrote:
> Machado initiated this matter by posting a sarcastic message directed at me to the effect that I was ignorant.

> I'm sorry if someone has overdone it in responding to him, but the ugliness started with him.

Okay, I missed the sarcasm in that. I thought it was a genuine compliment about the intelligent discussion on this list. If it was a personal attack that puts things in a different light.

Sarah


FT2
Wed, 25 May 2011 08:47:17

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".


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

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.


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

Lack of brotherhood spirit

thumb|300px|right|Empathic civilisation

That doesn't really fly here

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:35

Talking about antisocial... It's quite interesting what I experienced in this very list.

I wasn't aware of the study published in the New Scientist until I read about it here on the list, and appreciate the information very much.

Earlier this month I wrote about my perception of the same inadequate behavior on the Portuguese Wikipedia and the adverse consequences that might have. Not surprisingly I met a pretty derogatory comment and plenty of silence [A total of three list members made four comments]. I certainly don't have the status of the New Scientist. I also don't have, yet, any study to back up my observations.

Nevertheless I'm saddened by the undeniable evidence, that even on this list it is easier to find displeasure than empathy, camaraderie, not to mention friendship. As I was told: That doesn't really fly here.


Marc Riddell
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:47:31

You are not alone in your observations, Virgilio; more agree with you than will admit. It is truly a sad state of affairs.


Nathan
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:01:21

[...]

You're right, though, that exchanges on this list aren't always very friendly. Maybe because very few discussions are actually productive, and outside of cooperative effort most friendly exchanges are more likely to be taken off-list.


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:29:41

[...]

The Foundation can't afford to let a Wikipedia on some obscure language (that is not the case of Portuguese) to run wild and be run by some mob. At some time a flag will go up. What then? I could offer some suggestions, but I was hoping that you all would come up with some useful and tested procedures.

I'm afraid to have to admit that the lack of interest and advice that I got, so far, covers both list and off-list. I wish that would change, again not only for the present case, but what kind of message is this sending to others? How sure can we all be that there aren't or there would not be other cases in the future?

Quite frankly, I would rather be wrong (not a very palatable prospect) but give others the assurance that their voices will be heard, than letting them remember the story of this guy from "somewhere" who blew the whistle and nobody cared.


Ray Saintonge
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:53:37

[...]

One of the problems is precisely that those who don't like being bullied don't post, because that shuts out an entire range of opinions from those who are more thoughtful than loud. There's a problem with just asking questions too. If what you want is a dose of paternalistic pablum, that's exactly what you'll get.


Sarah
Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:36:42

[...] here we see something that happens on this list a lot. Someone questions or disagrees, and they're attacked. Why is that? What is it that makes questioning a bad thing?


Sarah
Fri, 15 Apr 2011 23:02:01

[...] It was David [Gerard]'s comment: "Should you have been consulted?"

I am tired of seeing these comments on this list. It's the first time one has been directed at me, but I've watched other people be treated the same way. It makes no sense. Questioning, disagreement, and transparency are important; it's what Wikimedia is all about, in fact. I know people sometimes go too far, and occasionally gentle rebukes may be needed, but they happen way too often on this list, with very little provocation -- and they're not gentle.

We can't say we want new editors, old editors to stay, and a good atmosphere onwiki, then have these kinds of exchanges.


Krinkle
Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:33:01

[On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 05:46], Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote:
> GTBOS: http://www.youtube.com/v/l7AWnfFRc7g

(by the way)

An equally interesting episode of that by the way is the one about what really motivates us, and the free software movement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc#t=7m30s


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:36:32

Yes, indeed. I didn't send that one because it did not address the question at hand, but it's a great analysis that addresses an important issue relevant to the contributors to all Wikimedia projects. It even fully explains what motivates me. I hope everybody was able to identify themselves with what is presented in the video as well as I did. The video also explains why things are not going the way they were suppose to go. The reason ties in perfectly with my point: an absence if not total lack of empathy. Let's wait to see if there are any further comments. So far we have a one to one tie, not enough to draw any conclusions. I'm very encouraged by the fact that no flame war has erupted so far. These videos (and drawings) are food for thought, not taunts for knee jerk reactions.

There were no further comments

Difficult to get help

No help received

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Fri, 5 Jun 2009 17:16:24

[...] Twice I asked for Cary Bass' advice about posting this message, but I'm sorry to say that I never got an answer.

[...] a non discriminatory policy means that you treat people differently based on their medical condition. NOT treating editors differently, based on their medical condition, is considered DISCRIMINATION.

In the Portuguese Wikipedia, as exemplified by the statement of that administrator bureaucrat, and member of the arbitration committee, there is the exact opposite understanding and interpretation, contrary to what non discrimination is. So far, nobody else has contradicted that position which was only disclosed in response to my questioning.

My point is that this state of affairs in the Portuguese Wikipedia cannot be tolerated, condoned and supported by the resources of the Wikimedia Foundation, generously provided by volunteers and donors keen on improving the general knowledge and welfare of humankind and not the misguidance of a group that actively or with their silence have taken over the Portuguese Wikipedia. Swift and drastic measures need to be taken to stop this.

I believe that as a consequence of the self management of the [Portuguese Wikipedia], it is now being operated and run on a daily basis by a group of people with severe mental, emotional, and behavioral problems, completely out of control and without any kind of supervision and/or regulation. This has been corroborated by several pt-wikipedians. In an attempt to gather a sample of their statements, a non-exhaustive collection was made (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Vapmachado/Adeus_Wikip%C3%A9dia). It was voted for deletion (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:P%C3%A1ginas_para_eliminar/Usu%C3%A1rio:Vapmachado/Adeus_Wikip%C3%A9dia) with arguments from both sides that are outright embarrassing. Maintaining the page won by four votes.

This voting is just one of many examples of rampant disrespect for the five pillars, occurring, unchallenged, on a regular basis on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Mobbing is practiced matter of factly, and promoted openly on discussion pages. Just for your information, please be aware that I was already harassed on the Portuguese Wikipedia ([6]) for bringing up this subject on "foundation-l." I was under the threat of banishment (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Vapmachado#Aviso_2) from the pages where this harassment takes place, by the same administrator bureaucrat and member of the of arbitration committee mentioned in both parts a) and b). When I questioned the voting for violating that Wikipedia is free content, I ended up blocked for six days (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Vapmachado#Bloqueio_2).

I don't think that analysis of much of the goings on in the pt:wiki by competent professionals would give it a clean bill of mental health. It's a crazy world, I know, but the project is of an encyclopedia, not a crazypedia (forgive my hyperbole.) "Pero si muove." Certainly, it does, but at what cost, it is my turn to ask. Is it really as impossible to bring a project like this under control, once it gets spinning on its own axis, as it is to stop the Earth from moving? Or are there enough resources to correct the course?

21 posts later, a straight answer was given to the following request

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:01:35

[...]

It might be worthwhile to open a page where the discussion could be centralized. It would be nice if the page could be bilingual, with one section in English, to open the discussion to the wider Wikimedia community, and another in Portuguese, for those who lack enough command of the English language to participate in the broader discussion.

If anyone would be so kind as to suggest what that page might be and where it could be created, I would be more than happy to participate. Some statements have already been made in this list that require clarification.

Chad
Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:41:48

For lack of anywhere else, start it up at Portuguese language issues or something. I'm not a regular metapedian, so there might be a better place--I just can't think of a *specific* place offhand.

No help received

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:16:56

[...]

There is an almost systematic interference by «Yanguas», a wiki.pt administrator, with the user pages of the students listed on these two pages (further details available):

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Vapmachado/Log%C3%ADstica_2008/Trabalhos_conclu%C3%ADdos

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Vapmachado/Log%C3%ADstica_2009/Trabalhos_conclu%C3%ADdos

besides my own http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usu%C3%A1rio:Vapmachado&diff=19532251&oldid=19375493

I would like to know if there is someone willing and able to help with this situation.

No help received

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Wed, 5 Jan 2011 19:15:37

To all women and men of good faith who are members of this mailing list, please check the following pages:

1) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_adminship/PeterSymonds

2) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:Requests_for_adminship/PeterSymonds

3) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Vapmachado_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_-_ban_request

4) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado#Block

5) http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AVapmachado&type=block

6) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vapmachado

and any further information on the user page:

7) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado

Please let me know:

a) why my request for unblock was never answered,

b) where on page (2) are the occurrences of "harassment,"

c) if after Dec. 23, "he's just returned to do the same thing that lead him to be blocked in the first instance.",

d) where are the occurrences of "continued hostile behavior,"

e) towards what or whom is that "continued hostile behavior,"

f) why my "interesting history" of "cross-wiki" pioneering achievements is never mentioned, a clear violation of a NPOV in decision making.

No help received

Fred Bauder
Sat, 9 Apr 2011 18:47:56

Was there an arbitration case? Or other dispute resolution events? If so, could you share your reactions to the fairness and comprehensiveness of what happened? Please give us some links...


Virgilio A. P. Machado
Sun, 10 Apr 2011 05:37:44

What is the purpose of all those questions? I've always provided that information to this list and if anything ever come out of it, besides being scolded by the list masters for making off-list posts, was to gain a new following of admirers.


Fred Bauder
Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:57:49

The reason to ask is because if there is a problem we might be able to resolve it. At this point I don't know what your problem was or is. You seem to be nursing a grievance; trying to milk it rather than solving it.

I'm sorry if I've not paid perfect attention, but I don't think I've got the tone wrong.


Virgilio A. P. Machado
Mon, 11 Apr 2011 03:36:10

Of course there are problems, some of them in plain English. Is anybody on this list able to do anything about them? I'm sure there is. That is why I have posted here so many times asking for help. Have I received any help? None whatsoever.

It's kind of hard to believe that any assiduous member of this list is totally unaware of my "Request for assistance" posted Jan. 5. That's already more than three months ago. Have I seen any results? You bet. You can see by yourself looking at my Meta talk page from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado#Block all the way down to the declining of my request to unblock "with an expiry time of infinite", on Jan. 16.

Am I nursing a grievance? You bet I am. For three months and still counting. Will I ever forgive? There's nothing to forgive. Will I ever forget? Never. I can assure you that is not in my nature. Once someone gets on my ignore mode it stays there until chickens grow teeth.

Am I trying to milk it? There's nothing to milk. I'm not sure of the exact meaning in which that expression was used, but anyway I look at it, it does not seem very relevant. Nevertheless you can bet that I believe that one day the chickens will come home to roost.

Except for overlooking a bunch of my previous requests for help, including the one above, it seems you were paying perfect attention and you got my tone wright: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore! I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about Meta, the Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!'

What, exactly, is help?

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.


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).

Difficult to engage

No action

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Sat, 29 May 2010 08:26:40

[...] I am indeed a bit short on examples where the community has stand up to the "ignorants" and "fools", in favor of the inexperienced expert or the well meaning do gooder. [...]

To make things easy for the friendly intellectuals that usually post to this list, I'll give two examples for you to play with and have your fun:

1) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards%27_noticeboard/Archives/2010-04#Please_advise

2) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Information_desk#Deletion_of_user_page

Come on guys. Bring it on. Make my day.

No action

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:29:39

All of you that have such a keen interest, deep knowledge and great insights in matters of privacy, what is public and non-public, are cordially invited to lend some of your expertise to my humble request for comment:

Requests for comment/Public or non-public personal information

Everybody else is also very much welcome. Your comment is just as important for me as that of all those that post to this list put together. Yes, I mean YOU, who were always too busy, too shy or too intimidated to voice your opinion. This is YOUR chance to be heard, to voice your opinion. Once you get started, nothing and nobody will stop you.

I regret not having a problem of planetary scope, but small is the nature of most of our daily obstacles, namely those any common mortal has to face at the Portuguese Wikipedia.

P.S. Please don't take this message too seriously. My invitation is plain and simple: I would like to hear from you all. Here, on the page listed above, through my e-mail. Even attempts to insult me are welcome. No guaranty you'll succeed though (here I go again...)

No action

Peter Damian
Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:24:27

[...] Will projects like Wikipedia affect employment in academia? Discuss.

1. One business of academia is research, i.e. the production of primary sources. But use of primary sources is forbidden in Wikipedia, so no change there.

2. Another business is teaching, and the awarding of degrees. Given the choice between a graduate of one of the better universities, and a graduate of Wikipedia, what would you choose? No change there either.

3. Some academics produce material intended for wider publication than the journals and specialised outlets - basic introductions, popular works (Russell made his money from History of Western Philosophy). Wikipedia is allowed to *use* secondary sources. But it can't *produce* them. That is also forbidden by policy - see e.g. WP:RS and the other policy 'pillars'. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. No change there either.

4. So who is Wikipedia putting out of business? There are two classes of writers for encyclopedias. These are the (rather poorly paid) recently graduated staff who compile sources, work with the specialized databases that collect together all the comprehensive information for the 'factual' articles. They are supported by administrative and clerical staff. It is this class of people that Wikipedia is putting out of a job. The other class are those who have a specialism and who write the 'high level' summaries of a whole subject, the big articles that tie the encyclopedia together. These are, or were paid somewhat more. These probably are losing out also. But you see the cost. Wikipedia is good at compiling lists and basic facts. But at articles which require a thread, a conspectus, an overall summary of a big, general, subject, it is hopeless. (As I've pointed out here a few times).

In summary, Wikipedia is hardly making a dent. Where it is making a dent, it is by cheapening the product. No win all round.


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:54:37

[...]

Want to get together on Meta? I have only two more months to go on my very first block there.

Maybe we can come up with a proposal for a multilingual Wikipedia for banned users.

I wonder if Larry Sanger would like to join too.

No action

Mike Dupont
Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:30:44

From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.

People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away because it is uncomfortable.

Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not fair to the people involved.

Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the list.

http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts

Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable, that does make you look balanced and trustworthy.

The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is any merit in what they say.

This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed ones.

Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful, Spam etc, lets call that evil content.

But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not notable.

We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content.

Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted and gone forever without proper process or review.

In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people from information that they want and need in an unfair manner.

Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every television show, is that what you really want?

I think there should be room for things in places that are not not notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving the project of important information because they are not able to get started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a chance to be heard.

We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust.


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:29:06

Very good. I subscribe to everything you wrote and I'll second any proposal you or anyone else makes in that direction.

No action

Sue Gardner
Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:31:15

Megan Hernandez on the staff is looking out for me, for stories of readers whose lives have been impacted by Wikipedia or the other projects.


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:57:39

Dear Sue,

Better yet, check this out:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado#Block

No action

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Sun, 5 Dec 2010 00:52:05

Recently I put together a text on "A civilized community." It is quite long. Nevertheless, I would welcome any suggestions, comments an/or criticism you might have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Comment_draft

Before that I was engaged in working on Portuguese Wikipedia governance issues, some of which are sorely shared with practically all Wikimedia projects.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues

Needless to say that that work has already been under attack, and has been put on hold by the divine intervention of the Meta administration.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado#Block

The period for my reeducation is drawing to a close. I hope that I'll be automatically unblocked soon. If I have to rely on the enlightened benevolence of the Meta administration I might end up forgotten in the MetaGulag, just like my request for unblock has been left in MetaLimbo for almost two months now.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Requests_for_unblock

Before I forget, you'll find here, without any surprise, why I ended up blocked nine days later, and my unblock request ignored. Another small step for Meta; one giant leap of callousness.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat/Archives/2010-09#Requests_for_comment.2FAzeri_wikipedia

But I digress. Very typical of me. I would very much welcome links, references, bibliography anything that would be helpful in developing a proper governance model for Wikimedia and other virtual projects in dire need of separation of powers, checks and balances and full accountability.

We're not trying to be jerks

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

No fair and public hearing

Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Austin Hair
Mon, 18 Oct 2011 00:05:18

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 Hair
Mon, 19 Oct 2010 17:35:07

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Nathan [...] wrote:
> If it pleases the moderators, might we know on what basis Greg was banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled?

Greg Kohs was banned for the same reason that he's been on moderation for the better part of the past year—namely, that he was completely unable to keep his contributions civil, and caused more flamewars than constructive discussion. [No evidence]

Peter Damian is only on moderation, and we'll follow our usual policy of letting through anything that could be considered even marginally acceptable. [No evidence]

We really are very liberal about this—otherwise you wouldn't have heard from Mr. Kohs at all in the past six months. [No evidence]

I'm sure that my saying this won't convince anyone who's currently defending him, but nothing about the decision to ban Greg Kohs was retaliatory. [No evidence]

I'll also (not for the first time) remind everyone that neither the Wikimedia Foundation Board, nor its staff, nor any chapter or other organizational body has any say in the administration of this list. [Debatable]

I hope that clears up all of the questions asked in this thread so far.


It did not as the discussion that followed shows on Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

The discussion continued under Ban and moderate


Austin Hair
Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:02:44

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Marc Riddell [...] wrote:
> I am listening, and do hear what you are saying, Fred. But banishment from something, whether it be from a working project or a country, means that person is being openly, or even surreptitiously, destructive of the body, the substance, of the project or country, not merely being critical of it. Has either of these persons, Greg or Peter, been destructive of the substance of the Project: the body of the Encyclopedia?

That is, in fact, exactly what we, the list administrators, finally concluded.

A minor correction, however: it was his contribution to the mailing list we were assessing, not to Wikipedia or any other project. (Though, given that he's been banned from at least two of them, that would have been a much easier case to make.)

Greg Kohs went beyond being merely critical (which is welcome, and even encouraged) to the point of being antisocial and counterproductive. He did so to such an extent that it was actively preventing civil discourse. [No evidence]

> And could we please stop the disingenuousness of calling what is clearly censorship, "moderation"?

Moderation is the technical term for it, and and you can call it "censorship" if you like, but your term carries an obvious bias. [Debatable]

Block at all cost

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Thu, 6 Jan 2011 18:08:26

The fact that the sequence of events started at a RfA was purely circumstantial. They could have happened at any other page, where the user would have made some posts that could be used as a pretext for a certain type of other users and administrators to seek and block the user.

Why a pretext? Because the accusing editor or anybody else haven't provided any evidence on which their accusations and block is based, and that they are willing and able to handle a request to unblock in a reasonable and timely fashion, i.e., providing answers to the six items listed a) through f), now on the user's talk page, but that they were aware much earlier, by the accuser's own post on the ban request:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Vapmachado_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_-_ban_request

Neither have they responded to a suggestion, also made on the user's talk page to make the whole matter irrelevant. The users involved have not shown any willingness and openness to dialog, and accommodation. Furthermore, the accusation has been changed, using a privilege that is denied to the user. Given the choice of erasing the strongly oppose vote and his comments on the talk page or being blocked, would the user have any hesitation in choosing the first option? Is a support vote what is so desired? Is unanimity in the voting what's really at stake here? If the editor wants to be administrator that badly, even under these appalling circumstances, and there has not been a single beep as to how he feels about all this "Much Ado About Nothing," what is the problem of extorting one more vote under the threat of an "inmediate & indef block" (sic)? The user would give the "nominee" a thousand votes if he could and if that's what makes everybody happy, get some characters off his back, and let him contribute the best way he can and knows.

The above mentioned behavior makes it very hard to make certain users' good faith believable, mainly when faced with the futility of a previous request for unblock that was never answered (item (a) mentioned above). Just like before, and for the fourth time, the objective is to block the user at all cost, no matter what the reason or its merits. For motives, you'll have to ask those involved. There are people specially trained that could help sort those kind of things. This user does not have the required qualifications.

Honor and reputation attacks

Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Austin Hair
Mon, 19 Oct 2010 17:35:07

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Nathan [...] wrote:
> If it pleases the moderators, might we know on what basis Greg was banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled?

Greg Kohs was banned for the same reason that he's been on moderation for the better part of the past year—namely, that he was completely unable to keep his contributions civil, and caused more flamewars than constructive discussion.

Peter Damian is only on moderation, and we'll follow our usual policy of letting through anything that could be considered even marginally acceptable. We really are very liberal about this—otherwise you wouldn't have heard from Mr. Kohs at all in the past six months.

I'm sure that my saying this won't convince anyone who's currently defending him, but nothing about the decision to ban Greg Kohs was retaliatory. I'll also (not for the first time) remind everyone that neither the Wikimedia Foundation Board, nor its staff, nor any chapter or other organizational body has any say in the administration of this list.


Austin Hair
Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:02:44

I've been taking time out of my day to regularly log into the list administration interface to make sure nobody's posts were unnecessarily delayed, and I personally haven't rejected a single one from Peter Damian so far. I expect that we'll probably take him off moderation soon, if only to relieve the burden on the administrators.


Wishful thinking. It was not going to happen


> And, when someone's constant (and seemingly only) answer to anyone who doesn't agree with them is to call them a name - like "troll", the accusation should bounce right back to the accuser. In psychology it's called "projection".

The funny thing about projection, of course, is that it's so easy to call it out as recursive.

Austin


I believe this is what in this list is called having a civil debate


Peter Damian
Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:21:30

What content reasons was I banned for? 'Behavioural reasons' - I admit have a short temper. Apologies. I have tried to keep my temper here. You are free to look at my posts. In any case, I am closing this account now. I am sorry this has caused so much disturbance.

With every kind wish,

Peter Damian


This is what happened, as far as Peter Damian. No one, not even I, protested. A desirable or convenient outcome, perhaps?

Please read the end of this chapter on Survey about recent ban


Austin Hair
Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:32:06

Just for your information, Houston Navarro has been moderated for being Greg Kohs.


This is what happened, as far as Greg Kohs


Pro tip: bcc'ing a bunch of list subscribers with a fake "[Foundation-l]" subject isn't very sneaky, particularly when the return-path header says "[...] at [...]."


Notice the superiority tone of the Pro tip


Greg, the sooner you grow up, the happier the world will be.

Austin


This is Austin Hair, list moderator and other assorted titles, at his utmost civil discourse


Biased "moderation"

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:50:00

Let's see if I can get this right.

There has been a very entertaining, albeit totally useless exchange on this list, as far as real results are concerned.

I forgot at least one of the rules (probably more) of this list, and (almost) always addressed my comments to the person who made the comment. The exchange went well, was mostly good humored, but that's not how things are supposed to happen here. I apologize for so blatantly disrespecting that list rule, and any other one, that I might not be aware at the moment. I appreciate the patience and understanding of all directly involved, and all the readers who had to endure my misbehavior.

That said, there's no excuse for the overblowing of my comments and hyperbolic references to "personal attacks," by now a concept so overused that it has lost any credibility whatsoever.

Let me quote some examples of what was NOT perceived as "personal attacks":

Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 17:15:29
From: M. Williamson

"he perceives it to be dominated by Brazilians."

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 01:09:08
From: David Gerard

"This is Virgilio's pet around-and-around topic on this list."

(The above line was the sum total of this comment)

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:55:29
From: John Vandenberg

"Thanks Mark."

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:09:30
From: John Vandenberg

"gramatical is spelled wrong.

and 'mistakes' is only true if you consider the Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement of 1990 to be a mistake."

(Notwithstanding this was all that was posted, it led to a pretty pleasant exchange between me and John. Most of the time, big boys don't need to be patronized. We took good care of ourselves. No moderator intervention was necessary.)

Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:59:28
From: Nathan

"It's possible he has more experience with a grammar than you expect."

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 01:09:10
From: M. Williamson

> Before signing off, and before I forget, let me ask another trivial question. It has been a long, long time since you have opened a grammar of any language, hasn't it? That's an easy guess,

"Watch the personal attacks. [...] So I'll thank you to cease your personal attacks."

My whole paragraph was:

Before signing off, and before I forget, let me ask another trivial question. It has been a long, long time since you have opened a grammar of any language, hasn't it? That's an easy guess, considering what a grammar is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar) and that the differences between Brazilian Portuguese and Portuguese of Portugal go way beyond differences in orthography. You'll find a lot of good links here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Portuguese_language_issues, particularly this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Portuguese#Grammar

[...]

To call the attention of ALL participants in the discussion to "Please focus on the comment, not the person making the comment." is absolutely right and appropriate. To make it in a message addressed to me smacks of "personal attack," and since it was made by a list moderator, I would say that is a very serious offense. We all should be aware of our responsibilities. We all have duties and rights here. One wrong, does not justify a worst one. Any moderator that fails to perform his duties appropriately, should take a leave of absence, graciously submitting a request to be relieved of his responsibilities.

From them on, an exemplary participation in this list would be the best and only argument to ask to be reinstated as a moderator.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


Ryan Lomonaco
Fri, 10 Dec 2010 23:41:44

This comment slipped by the first time, but I want to bring this up to illustrate a point. Virgilio is referring to an e-mail I sent to him, asking him to cool down in a somewhat heated discussion earlier this week. I sent the e-mail while sleepy and probably could have phrased it better; I also sent the e-mail to Virgilio only, rather than to all the participants, who also could have used a reminder. I've apologized to Virgilio for handling the issue poorly, but this is another example of why it's a bad idea to send an e-mail when not in the right frame of mind!

Proof that we all make mistakes.

-Ryan


Not offering to resign was a BIG mistake


Is this supposed to be funny?

Nathan
Wed, 5 Jan 2011 19:36:11 Request for assistance

M. Williamson
Wed, 5 Jan 2011 20:26:53 Request for assistance

Huib Laurens
Wed, 5 Jan 2011 20:31:02 Request for assistance


George Herbert
Wed, 5 Jan 2011 22:02:49

Neither of these was funny; both were backhanded insults to you.


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Thu, 6 Jan 2011 15:34:56

It is not up to a mere user to decide if some list members are being uncivil. That's the responsibility of the moderators.

David Gerard's mantra (See also David Gerard)

David Gerard
Wed, 5 Jan 2011 22:06:31

I do think you have no understanding whatsoever of how Wikimedia works, in detail or broad overview


Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Thu, 6 Jan 2011 18:08:26

My first instinct is to let the author of this statement live happily with that belief until the end of his time. Why upset his state of bliss and comfort? Live and let live. Some people believe in much worse or more reproachable things.

There's no recollection of any instance where evidence has been provided to support the quoted statement. The user begs to differ and believes that the author of such statement, disseminated in countless occasions and pages, has one of two options: either he provides whatever evidence he has and gives the user equal opportunity for rebuttal in an public forum, or his insistence in stating his "belief" can only be viewed as uncivil and a dissemination of mistrust. One must not forget that the author has recently made an unsavory post about the user (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-December/062850.html) that does not vouch for the good intentions or good faith, for all that it matters, of "a native speaker of BS." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard)

Dan Rosenthal and Andrew Garrett

Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt>
Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:32:49

After a cool off period of about 48 hours and considerable reflection, it is my conviction that the posts of two above mentioned editors should be moderated from now on.

Andrew Garrett wrote, Sun Apr 3 10:13:26 UTC 2011, "Your messages are deliberately obnoxious, unpleasant, and off-topic to boot." it is unclear what messages he is referring to, but these are not acceptable terms to classify anybody's messages, unless it is acceptable that others classify Andrew Garrett's or anybody else's messages as "deliberately obnoxious, unpleasant, and off-topic to boot." and therefore asks him or them to "Cut it out, please." "What is good for the goose is good for the gander."

After engaging in a "friendly and polite exchange" with Dan Rosenthal, he saw fit to send me an e-mail, Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:26, concerning "[Foundation-l] Wiki-revolution," using language unbecoming to a gentleman, that I'll not repeat. This kind of behavior cannot and should not be tolerated from members of this list. Should everybody start sending unspeakable messages to other members of the list? I do have experience of exchanging off list messages with other members, but those were used for clarification, to reach a mutual understanding and establish new bridges and avenues of communication. They were used to improve relations with other members and, as a result, improve the peaceful and cordial exchanges that should take place on this list, despite any disagreements and differences of opinion. There can never be any disagreements or differences of opinion as far as the level of education and manners used on this list, and towards members of this list both on and off list. This is no army barracks, farm stables, or brawl among drunkards on the town fairgrounds.

As Dan Rosenthal might wish to present evidence that no harm was intended or done, by making public his message, I authorize that he so does. I have no trouble in reproducing Dan Rosenthal's message on this list, provided he grants me, here, in public, on this list, authorization to do it.

I believe that Dan Rosenthal's action called for more severe sanctions, but I have many reservations concerning all sorts of so called severe sanctions on this list and Wikimedia projects in general. We all know how easily they can be circunvented by the less scrupulous. Therefore, as in the case of Andrew Garrett, my request is that their posts to be moderated from now on. That should be sufficient to prevent Dan Rosenthal from coughing again on this list and hopefully at least make him hesitate before sending unworthy messages off list.


Casey Brown
Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:42:36

Wow, Andrew was defending you. I'm sure this is going to be the last time he attempts to do such a thing though.

And [Dan Rosenthal] has since stopped after nearly all of the other list members who responded disagreed with his comments, so there's no need to bring it up again and try to cause more problems.


Sarah
Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:49:09

Andrew was sticking up for you, Virgilio, not addressing that comment at you, so that part of things was just a misunderstanding.


Dan Rosenthal
Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:57:25

Andrew was clearly referring to me, lets leave him out of this please.


Austin Hair
Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:39:22

As administrators, it's our policy not to take punitive action. We only use moderation to prevent likely repeat offenders from further disrupting the list.

Andrew Garrett (who, as others have noted, was actually defending you—I understand that this isn't something you're used to, after all these years) is not a troll and, while blunt, is generally not disruptive.

Dan Rosenthal is not always the friendliest in his interactions with the list, and has been moderated before, but I see no reason to do so again at this time.

And that's all I intend to say in reply. You don't even get my traditional folksy "guys, be nice" line for this one.

Austin


According to Casey Brown, Sarah, Dan Rosenthal and Austin Hair, a list moderator, with no opposing statements from the other two moderators or any other member of the foundation-l mailing list:

  1. "Your messages are deliberately obnoxious, unpleasant, and off-topic to boot. Cut it out, please." (from Andrew Garrett's message, written, Sun Apr 3 10:13:26 UTC 2011) contains a sample of acceptable terms that can be used to defend a member of this list. It is not clear if it depends on who's been attacked and/or the attacker. Apparently it depends.
  2. Just like Dan Rosenthal, please feel free to e-mail messages to other members of this list using the foul language of your preference. That will be no reason for being moderated, unless one of the moderators feels like moderating you.

Got it?

Great. Apparently I didn't. I got moderated for an indefinite period. Was I defending somebody? No. Was I attacking anybody? No. What then?

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 02:48, M. Williamson wrote: "This is an interesting allegation, I would be quite interested to see some examples of this taking place." and On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 01:20, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam@fct.unl.pt> answered:

The evidence is in.

Wanton vandalism

Your move.

Did I got moderated for taking too long to answer? No. I got moderated because, according to what Austin Hair wrote, Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 19:49:

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.

But, this time, I got his "Best regards, Austin"


All work and no play

Vanity Fair

David Gerard
Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:02:23

[Announcing he just got a] shiny new BlackBerry 9300.


Martijn Hoekstra
Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:10:14

[Announcing he has a] HTC desire.


Chris Keating
Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:10:36

[Announcing he has a] Android.


Sue Gardner
Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:53:17

[Announcing she has a] Droid Pro. [...] (The Pro is the so-called Blackberry killer, the one with the excellent physical keyboard.)


Ignorance at the highest levels

Ting Chen
Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:13:56

Hello all,

Olaf Simons, a literature researcher and Wikipedian, wrote a mail on the mailing list of the German chapter about his experience both as a researcher and as a Wikipedian. I find his experience very insightful and got his allowance to forward the mail here, because I think these experiences are could also be very interesting for the folks here. We had here also from time to time (and not before long) discussions about the relations between researchers and Wikipedia. I will give a shortend summary in English about his mail, please use a translator for details (after all, I believe this is an international mailing list).

Olaf wrote about two incidents where he got into conflict in his two roles.

  • In the first case he was the main author of the article Roman (novel) [1] in de-wp. Some time later after he worked on this article he was asked by an print literature encyclopedia (Enzyklopädie der Frühen Neuzeit) to wrote an article about the novels of the time between 1470 and 1800. He reused his earlier article from de-wp, shortend the content very strongly and submitted his article. Only at the last editorial process the publisher noticed that the article is "copied" from Wikipedia. Although the no texts are directly copied from de-wp (and Olaf was the author for both articles), one can notice that the argumentations are very similar. After the publisher discovered the similarities he rejected the article from Olaf.
  • In the second case Olaf rewrited the article Aufklärung (Enlightening) [2]. While he was working on the article other Wikipedians gave their own inputs, which Olaf thought could be problematic or at least debatable. He found himself very reluctant in tell his colleagues that the article on Wikipedia was written by him, because it is now a mixed product and contains content that he may not support, and his colleagues would not be so precise to find which part was exactly written by him and which part by the others. And he fears that his colleagues could think that he follows certain schools although he is not.

I think it is very important for us to understand the difficulties academics face if they want to join the Wikimedian community. And maybe we should rethink about our strategy and approach on working with academics.

Greetings
Ting

[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman
[2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufkl%C3%A4rung


Tim Cheng doesn't know anything about publishing in academia, but even worse he doesn't have the foggiest idea of what Wikipedia is about.

You might know all about these things yourself, but let me give you my POV anyway.

Some colleagues are able to "recycle" their research through several publications, but they have to do a bit more than cut, copy, and paste. Journals require original articles never published before. So what they do is write somewhat different versions of the same article, some emphasizing one or another point of their research, and get them published over and over again. What the print literature encyclopedia did was to find that what Olaf Simons submitted had already been published and, quite right, rejected it. Yep, not everybody is successful at this game, and the material has at least to have the appearance of being original.

The other example is ridiculous to say the least. If Olaf Simons worked on the article with other editors, the article is not his. It was written by "Wikipedia contributors" and nobody in his right mind, specially Tim Cheng should consider otherwise.

He got one thing write, though: "we should rethink about our strategy and approach on working with academics," except for the "maybe." We all know that Wikipedia is full of horror stories involving academics that were send off packing by the Wikipedia "intelligentsia."

For statistical purposes consider my modest example:

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Vapmachado

Portuguese Wikipedia, after being subject to the most atrocious behavior from administrators and their minions, and always standing up to them: banned indefinitely
Wikimedia Portugal: banned indefinitely
Wikimedia Brasil: banned indefinitely
wikipt.lists.wikimedia.org: banned indefinitely
Windows Live Messenger group mgroup63721@hotmail.com: banned indefinitely
(all these, of course, are run by the same crowd)
Wikitionary: user page deleted http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Information_desk/Archive_2010/January-June#Deletion_of_user_page
Meta: blocked for 3 months, request to unblock ignored http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado#Block all in retaliation for comment made nine days before http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat/Archives/2010-09#Requests_for_comment.2FAzeri_wikipedia)