Misplaced Pages

Vandalism

Hello George this is CAYA you vandalised my home page and I just wanted to tell you THANK YOU! your welcome back anytime.

Would you? Could you?

Could you, please? I'm busy, I have to go to the PO! :-) Bishonen | talk 11:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

I'm glad you're having to go to the PO. I just had my students read Why I Live at the PO, by Eudora Welty. I'm trying to figure out how one archives those discussions. I know how to delete an article, obviously, but preserving the debate? It changes week to week. Geogre 11:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

autoblocks

you should be able to go directly to the ip block list and remove the autoblocks manually, but I don't think 1 second range blocks actually help, the trick is that autoblocks are completely anonymous, so it's not all that easy to find out which one is the AOL user--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• In this case, I'd say your culprit is User:Vandal vandal vo-vandal fanana nana fo-fandal, I'm assuming since you have administrative privileges set that you should be able to remove the autoblocks, ie unblock #189963, #189979, #189949, and so on--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 13:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I know all of that, except that removing the blocks from the block log takes longer and doesn't work as well as simply re-blocking the IP address for 0 minutes. Further, I don't really want to unblock the vandal name account. As we've discussed on AN/I, the real trick will be to get the autoblocker not to block signed-in users. It's on the to-do list for the developers, as I understand it. When that happens, our sock-puppet blocking will go to hell, but we won't have the AOL problems. Geogre 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ref Desk question re: ethics and reality

I enjoyed your answer to the question about ethics and reality on the reference desk. Thanks for volunteering your time here! --Fastfission 15:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Wow. It was a little bit of a little bit of a lecture I learned from a guy named S. K. Henninger. He invented or discovered a truly pleasing view of literary criticism in a single course. He nailed down three or four questions that we can see all literary critics grappling with. The questions, interestingly, don't change, and how we approach them says a great deal about us. Geogre 15:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Georgia Wikimeets...

Hey Geogre,

There's currently some renewed discussion about whether and how to set up US wikimedia chapter. Among other things this could help better organize meetups, gatherings at large events and cons, and local outreach. I'm notifying people who have been actively involved in local meetups; but of course there are also those who are far from a perfect meetup locale who care about the discussion... if you are interested, there is a quiet mailing-list and a meta-page on the topic, both of which could use input and ideas. +sj + 17:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hey, I see you posted to WP:ANI one minute after I did, in a different thread. I'll take a look at yours now, do please check out mine. Bishonen | talk 11:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

Oh, I see you did. Bishonen | talk 11:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

Yep. I work my way up from the bottom. :-) I hope you weighed in on the "the bad from AOL outweighs any good, let's block the whole ISP!" section. (If you flush out septic tanks all day, you will convince yourself that all people do is poo.) Geogre 11:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Later, sheesh... That took me a long time to write, you know; I have to go out now. And so the notion of my starting a new article ever again recedes some more. Nice to have your support, but what exactly does your "I would have" mean? You would have expounded on it till... what? Bishonen | talk 12:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

Expounded? I would have just undone the blok that TH did and taken no position on what block was reasonable. You undid the bad action and then instituted a proper action. I would have just undone the bad action -- partly, I suppose, because I'm irritable about admins being too free with blocks. So, are you going to second me in telling people not to block AOL? Geogre 12:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Expounded, yes. I meant that you could have done it, rather than say you would. "Would have" is conditional--on what? Anyway, I didn't technically unblock at all, I just blocked for three days. Economy of effort: the shorter block is the one that takes. Only it wasn't that economical, it turns out, because I have immediately started to worry about this technicality — am I really sure the block will expire in three days? Oh, well, if it doesn't, I'll just have to fix it. And yes, I am. Bishonen | talk 12:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

Sheesh. "Would have" if you hadn't already done something else. You undid a bad thing and did a good thing. I would have undone the bad thing and irritated the person who'd done it. Geogre 12:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI II

Well, did you see that I at least commented (yesterday) on yours at "If In The Future If I Should Happen To Have A Complaint"...? Hmmm? Yes, yes, sorry, I am going to check out the AOL thing! Right now! I'm just looking for it now! Bishonen | talk 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

More importantly, they're talking about English Royalty is one of the active threads toward the bottom. I think Queen Elizabeth should weigh in! (PS I've read If on a winter's night a traveller -- oh! oh! teacher call on me I'm ever so smart!) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I kept wanting to make some nasty Italo Calvino comment on that. (I didn't think it was that heavy a novel, really. I could never understand why all the goatee freaks were high on it. Those dopes had never read Tristram Shandy or A Tale of a Tub, I concluded. I like the novel quite a bit, but it's not...like, cosmic, you know?) Bish, you've got to see the attitude. Seriously, people we know were saying, "AOL? The bad coming out of it far outweighs the good." It's the kind of statement that screams at you, just like "I blocked indefinitely for a personal attack, but I'll remove it if he apologizes." It's just too outlandish. Geogre 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Queen Elizabish hath waxedth eloquenth. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

So, Bish, you see? The guy who started the thread knew better and was ready to give up, but then all these folks jumping in saying, "Block the whole ISP! It's worth it!" We don't block any ISP. We don't block even a school library when it demonstrates 0 good edits and 100's of bad edits in a day without heavy discussion of it. But AOL? Hell yeah, man! AOL nubies! I'm so sick of teenaged poseurs parroting the anti-corporatism of the first computer generation. (I never did see the royalty, so I've got to click on that.) Geogre 18:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did see your contribution to the AOL thread, but that "Foo" user had decided, for the second time, to announce that he thought it was wonderful to block AOL, as fighting vandalism was way more important than any contributions from any AOL users. Now I suppose I need to be watching the actions of these people so that I can unblock AOL when either of them do it. It's just so unspeakably numbskulled! Geogre 18:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Checked your e-mail lately? Bishonen | talk 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

Uhhh, 10 minutes ago. I'll check again. Geogre 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Indeed, I've been calculating what will be most precise and which weapon is sharpest. Geogre 18:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Checked your e-mail lately? Bishonen | talk 19:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

I have now, but I was offline for an hour or two. Geogre 21:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. You answered the wrong question. :-(. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC).

I would. It's certainly like me. Geogre 21:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to answer the right question now. Geogre 21:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews

I was advised by deathphoenix to peruse this way and if this doesn’t work, I’ll think about changing course.

About notability what in your mind does make an organization notable?

Bloger 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. Generally, if a group is mentioned/discussed outside of its immediate context, I would say that it has achieved notability. (Supposedly, the notability guideline was based on my essays, but that doesn't mean that it is always exactly as I say it is.) An encyclopedia exists to explain things. Since people, for example, in the Hassidic community of NYC wouldn't need to know what the "Mitzveh tank" is (they'd see it often enough), we'd need an article if the group operating it achieved notoriety and mention by some other context. If we see that the Village Voice is mentioning it, we need an article, as those readers may need further explanation. If we see 60 Minutes doing a story on the group, then we really need an article. Although it sounds abstract, what I mean by saying that an item requires discussion in an alien context is somewhat simple: it means that something needs to be known well enough that there are people curious about it who are not attached to it. Geogre 21:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So I want to understand clearly, did I advance the case on verifiability, and I now have to make the case for notability?

Bloger 20:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My recommendation was and remains that you work on the article in your user space to make it AfD-proof. That means verifying the organization's existence and establishing that it's a notable organization. To do that, you need the references in newspapers, which you have and which you are working on translating, and then some indication that the world outside of that branch of Judaism is noticing and curious about the organization, that the organization is having an effect on the world. If you can do that, you'll have addressed the concerns most likely to be raised by voters/reviewers. Geogre 21:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I made the translation already its available here User:Bloger/True Torah Jews notability.

Second,Deathphoenix mentioned something about ratings, is high ratings a notability factor? In other words if many people hit the site does it mean that it has an effect?

Bloger 22:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

His excellency/Amibidhrohi

George, I didn't block him because he attacked me, I blocked him because he attacked Usher, in both cases. If you have missed that point, well, I guess I didn't make it clear. As to the attacks on me that he made after I blocked him, he wasn't removing the attacks, and he has not. His charge that my admin actions were motivated by racism were what was left after he removed what he regarded as inappropriate. He has since repeated and expanded those attacks on me on his talk page. Anyway, do as you please. I'm going to try really hard to have nothing more to do with any of it. Best regards, Tom Harrison 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I did make a mistake, and I apologize for that. I'm sure you've gotten the point that I wanted to make. It's my opinion that we should be impersonal and blind in our sanctions and watchful for opportunities and occasions where mercy is needed, and the Personal Attack "semi-policy" bothers me because we're on an endlessly slippery slope, there. It has no definable trigger mechanism or any method of assuring proportionality in response and seems to me not to be designed to enforce proper civility as much as to punish alledged offenders. That's why I think, if there is to be a block on its basis, it needs to come from more than one person. I know that you were drawn in, and I don't have any faith in HE at all, but I think that an indefinite block (which may be called for) should come from ArbCom and not a single admin. Geogre 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope you will correct your comment on ANI, so people do not go away thinking I blocked him in retaliation. I look forward to working with you on something more pleasant. Thanks for your honest sincerity, Tom Harrison 02:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, in this case and in that of User:Israel shamir, you've counseled against long-term blocks, and have also spoken of the dangers of inevitably subjective, if not entirely arbitrary, construals of "hate speech". I'd be curious to hear your opinions of this thread, to which Bishonen refers. How would you have ruled?Timothy Usher 10:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much the same as with HE. If a person is contributing legitimate edits, even if their worth is questionable, then I do not agree with an indefinite block without ArbCom. Additionally, I believe that using someone's "hate speech" on his or her user page as a justification is not valid, if the user is contributing in article space, for an indefinite block. Blocks given out by solo admins should be short. Anything huge needs to come from ArbCom, unless some clear threshholds are passed. One is that it is a vandalism-only account. Another is that it is an inappropriate user name. Another is that they are doing nothing but disruption. Lastly, one is someone using Misplaced Pages as a web host (putting commercial activities on a user page, making a user page into a band's site, editing only one's user pages and never contributing to articles or name space). Other than that, process is involved for the very simple and profound reason that things like 6 month blocks and beyond have to come from the most impartial and sluggish bodies we have. Geogre 11:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, thank you for your comments. While I have stepped back from the issue, and from Misplaced Pages in general, as per your suggestion, I feel the need to explain why I'd adopted what must have seemed to you an inappropriately strident tone towards Bishonen.

Bishonen was very quick to draw sweeping conclusions about the meaning of the inappropriate images in question, and about the personal value of their displayer, and argued immediately for an indefinite block: this against a user with a history of (mostly) good-faith contributions and a clean block log, not even a warning. Unlike HE/Amibidhrohi, there was no history of harrassment, user page vandalism, relentless personal attacks, denunciations of other ethnic groups, etc. I defended this user against this draconian sanction, to Bishonen's palpable dissatisfaction. It's reasonable to suppose that she conluded that for this, I somehow meritted the subsequent abuse, and that His excellency's/Amibidhrohi's behavior was and is in some sense justified by the FNB image posts; a sense entirely consistent with, if not demonstrable solely by, her actions and comments regarding his latest block.

It would seem that FNB has been driven from Misplaced Pages from the two-minute hate on ANI, while the abusive user Bishonen defends insists upon maintaining an attack section on his user talk page - the content is fine, they're my words and I stand by them, but the section title is inappropriately personalized and deliberately inflammatory - did I mention also false? For a variety of reasons, Misplaced Pages should not allow user talk pages to be appropriated as dedicated platforms for denouncing individual editors. Bishonen's lack of action continues to support the reasonable hypothesis I've outlined.

I hope that sheds some light on my previous comments in this regard, and why I see no good reason to retract them. If and when I see one, I'll reconsider. Feel free to disagree.

Again, thank you for your considered response. Might you be willing to append a similar post to the FairNBalanced report on ANI?Timothy Usher 22:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Colley Cibber: verifiability

Hey. I have rendered my part of Colley Cibber completely verifiable, IMO. (And without any ten footnotes, I can assure you.) Would you like to add any inline cites or other means of verification for the Dunciad part? Bishonen | talk 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Mine are textual citations. The interpretive elements are just...true. I could prove them by citing lines, explaining what they mean, explaining why the meaning is part of another meaning.... Anyway, I'll provide citations in the form of references to the text. Geogre 16:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)