| Revision as of 18:03, 8 May 2006 editMonicasdude (talk | contribs)3,505 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:40, 8 May 2006 edit undoSam Korn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,849 edits →regarding "civility": if it's not licensed, i don't want it. in any case, I'm not particularly interested. I'm awayNext edit → | ||
| Line 361: | Line 361: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| == regarding "civility" == | |||
| I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester, Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Misplaced Pages -- behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling reason to punish me. | |||
| I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Misplaced Pages mailing list where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse. | |||
| As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community. I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's supposed commitment to civility. They form no part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the impact, or to respond on equal terms. | |||
| It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than almost any other segment of a society. More likely to be the victims of physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly when their needs are greatest. In the relatively rare instances when they have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen, particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group sexual assaults. | |||
| The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly or privately, or not. | |||
| I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything else could. | |||
| ] | |||
| Not licensed, no rights released | |||
Revision as of 19:40, 8 May 2006
Thank you
Hi,
I just wanted to say thank you very much for kindly taking a look at our problem. I had a look at the vandalism templates, but could not see how to use them as the vandal had no talk page, just an IP address; the persistence of this individual felt very offensive and uncomfortable. Many thanks again. Professor S F Smith 18:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. IP addresses do also have talk pages, at "User talk:IP address". Cheers, Sam Korn 21:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1
|
|
WikiProject Musical Artists
I was just wondering why you removed the (albeit incorrect) link to the ] WikiProject from {{Infobox musical artist}}. The project is just getting started, and I thought that was a pretty reasonable way of not only attracting more people to it, but also to indicate that there are some somewhat-standard guidelines in place for the article and infobox.
As it turns out, that infobox has come under question as late anyway, and it's currently up for discussion at WikiProject Musical Artists/Article guidelines. As I said, we're looking for people to help out with this project, so if you have any input, it'd be much appreciated. B.Mearns, KSC 19:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for the insight! B.Mearns, KSC 12:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Userbox issue.
If I can say this without sounding like a seven year old, I wasn't talking to you.
You could've said it another way, like maybe "Sorry for the confusion, but I was talking to the other user". Politeness and diplomacy are never bad things in Misplaced Pages. Please assume good faith, as I wasn't sure who you were talking to. People do make mistakes in Misplaced Pages. — 
natha(?)nrdotcom 22:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- My apologies. My tone was intended to be light. I thought my indentation and threading made my point fairly clear. I am sorry if you were offended. The odious page has now been removed from my watchlist anyway. Sam Korn 22:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Cricket Quiz
In your own time Sam! I'm sure you've just forgotten to post a new question, being busy with AS Level revision as you will be. Do try and come up with a non-stats question though. --Wisden17 16:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou
Damn, man, I feel like a fool. All that effort to fall at the last...
Many thanks! Steve block talk 21:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Agapetos Arbitration
I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Misplaced Pages, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- JoshuaZ retracted this in evidence because it was erroneous, but failed to mention it on your talk page. agapetos_angel 07:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's highly inaccurate. I qualified the evidence in question. The user wasn't an employee but was specifically asked by an employee. See my evidence section and Standon's for details, and Agapetos, please don't put words in my mouth. JoshuaZ JoshuaZ 13:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration : Terryeo
Why do you accept the arbitration when ChrisO is filing the RFAr without any proof that the previous mediation has failed. ChrisO has not even been into dispute with Terry since the RfC. --UNK 10:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Christos - Athlete rubbed in oil?
Hi, Sam. I've noticed the Greek babel box on your user page, and I wonder if you'd have time to take a look at this? I don't know Greek, unfortunately, but since I know that the English word athlete comes from a very similar Greek word, and since the English word chrism comes from a Greek word meaning something to do with oil or anointing, it seems unlikely that the relatively short word Christos could have the meanings "athlete" and " rubbed in oil" incorporated into it. Thanks. And by the way, last time I looked at your user page, you were sixteen, so Happy Birthday! Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- The Greek root is the verb χριειν (chriein or khriein) meaning "to rub on" or "to anoint". χριστος (christos with a small c) means anointed, and Χριστος (Christos with a large C) is therefore taken as Christ. It is a precise translation of the Hebrew "Messiah". They both mean "anointed one". The comment on that diff stems from the fact that Greek athletes were rubbed with oil at games, and the verb here would also have been χριειν and χριστος in an athletics context would therefore have come to mean "athlete" by understanding. However, χριειν in itself was not specific to athletics, and neither was χριστος. I hope that helps, and thanks for the birthday wishes! Sam Korn 16:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your very helpful reply, Sam. I've posted it to the Christianity talk page. AnnH ♫ 11:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Lolicon
I understand and respect your decision. However, I am not interested in participating in an encyclopedia that is censored such that it is less informative. I have reverted my contributions where I could do so without also damaging the contributions of others on both this account, which I had stopped using some time ago (except to participate in discussions where using a sockpuppet would be disruptive) and on my successor account, which you can trivially find, and intend to stop editing this encyclopedia after this message.
In terms of actions that you can now assist with - I spent approximately 5 hours a week on new-page patrol. Since you have buttons, you will need to spend substantially less to make up for my output - I would expect approximately 2 hours.
Good luck and godbless. Hpuppet - «Talk» 19:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- I reverted back to your improvements. Thanks for your help. Ashibaka tock 19:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for exhibiting a clear presence of mind. I seemed to lose my way on the issue. Steve block talk 20:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- As a final note, persuant to your comments on Jimbo's talk page, I filed an RFC, which is a genuine attempt to gather community statements and to provide alternative solutions to problems in the case that, in the future, you decide to take actions which are both irreversable and have not yet acheived clear consensus. I ask that you waive the standard attempts to resolve the dispute because I don't care to help out here any more, and also the standard endorsers, as I don't care to endorse anything. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Sam KornHpuppet - «Talk» 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sam, as far as I'm concerned, I want to thank you for taking action on the clearly offensive and deliberately provocative image. It's restored my good feelings a bit towards the encyclopedia. Frankly, this is something that one of the site owners should have dealt with long ago. I worry about any site that allows the legality of an image be determined by voting. It's a ludicrous notion that the word "Utopian" wouldn't begin to describe. Cheers, Nhprman 21:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notes. However, I must note that Jimbo in particular is in an unenviable position. Any statement or action he makes is twisted and tugged every which way. I don't blame him not wanting to get involved with disputes like this, especially when he has the media to deal with too. Cheers, Sam Korn 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- The confusion that always seems to result from his comments could be because he cloaks them in ambiguity in order to avoid making one side or another angry at him. Some clear statements about this or other issues dogging Misplaced Pages (i.e. "child porn is unacceptable" "Userboxes will be only allowed in userspace") would end a great deal of "drama" and endless debate. I do understand that some people just like to be loved and admired, rather than make hard decisions that could be criticized and earn enemies. But that's the lot of a leader. It ain't always easy. Nhprman 17:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notes. However, I must note that Jimbo in particular is in an unenviable position. Any statement or action he makes is twisted and tugged every which way. I don't blame him not wanting to get involved with disputes like this, especially when he has the media to deal with too. Cheers, Sam Korn 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Has Stranger been so uncivil?
I noticed your support of the sanctions proposed against me, and was hoping to know your reasoning. I have concerns that the proposals have bypassed the /Workshop page, and are very misleadingly worded.
Thanks in advance,
StrangerInParadise 20:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is not necessary for all proposals to go through the workshop. Sam Korn 21:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but because it has done so, its misleading wording has entered the /Proposed page without comment. I am more interested in why you voted the way you did, and whether you read either this or this, both fairly brief.
StrangerInParadise 05:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, I am interested in whether you have reviewed Concerning the finding of uncivil behavior, as well as the other evidence I have presented. I am concerned that the extent to which the finding and remedy is misworded has escaped notice by most voting on it. I have insisted that bad-faith deletion constitutes vandalism, and dmcdevit (who wrote the finding and remedy) has prevailed on me not to say so. I do not feel that to have said so is actionably uncivil, regardless of whether ArbCom ultimately disagrees. It is tantamount to asking ArbCom to order me not to have ever disagreed with him. StrangerInParadise 11:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Calling another user's actions vandalism is uncivil when they are not. Vandalism is tightly defined. MarkSweep's actions have not been vandalism. To continue to say that they are is uncivil. Sam Korn 11:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to press the point: did you read where I show that,
- The only user discussed specifically is MarkSweep in acts of bad-faith mass-blanking and mass-deletion (so why am I accused- wrongly- of referring to other users with whom he is in a dispute as vandals or as performing vandalism)
- Instances of bad-faith mass-blanking and mass-deletion fall well within WP:VAND (so how is to say so uncivil?)
Please let me know whether you have considered these points, and have read Concerning the finding of uncivil behavior.
Thanks in advance,
StrangerInParadise 12:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I have read it. Please stop interrogating me. Deleting pages, particularly in good faith, is not vandalism. It may be inadvisable and against policy, but it is not vandalism. Sam Korn 13:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I apologize. I did ask the question several times without an answer, and it is a reasonable question: did you read this?
I have also said that MarkSweep's actions constitute prima facia bad faith, due to his misrepresentations and clear knowledge that what he was doing was out-of-policy (for example, abuse of CSD-C1). WP:VAND specifically cites blanking as vandalism, and what is deletion if not blanking only admins can do? To disagree on this point is one thing, to say it is unutterable is quite another, don't you think? Also, how did we get to referring to other users with whom he is in a dispute as vandals or as performing vandalism, as if it were a general habit: is that not misrepresentation? (hint: name one other specific person I have called a vandal). StrangerInParadise 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, MS's actions do not constitute prima facie bad faith. He is clearly acting in a way that he thinks furthers Misplaced Pages's goals. That is good faith editing, even if misguided good faith. And it's not unacceptable to say "MS has been acting in bad faith, IMO", but it is unacceptable to say "MS has been vandalising". Sam Korn 13:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
...and the other points I raised (misrepresentation of my "habit" of calling people vandals, my good-faith reading of WP:VAND, his deliberate misrepresentations, etc). StrangerInParadise 13:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Reading of VAND - good faith until you repeated it. To your "habit", as you call it: this is a debate over semantics, with the inevitable end result that you were uncivil. You are trying to justify your actions by saying that MS's were also unacceptable. This doesn't wash. Finally, a spot of advice: there are no remedies against you. This is our way of saying "go forth and sin no more". Sam Korn 13:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I believe most of those who have voted for it feel as you do: what harm is there, after all, in requiring one to be civil? The primary harm is that there are several who are trying to sanction me for my opinion, not my incivility. How is it that I have been here for over four years, and only now find myself faced a year-long parole solely for having declared MarkSweep's actions vandalism. The only abuse I have received- and I have received much abuse, being called stupid, moron, dickhead, divisive dick and worse- has come from admins. This parole only places them above any criticism, and put's a block me sign on my account. It is unjust and unnecessary, intended only to prevent me from playing a role in the userbox debates.
For the record, I am not trying to justify actions by saying that MS's were also unacceptable. I justify my actions only by showing them to be a reasonable good-faith statement of fact which I had an right- even an obligation- to assert. Whether ArbCom agrees with the assertion is another matter- the assertion is both reasonable and civil to begin with. Why should I have not repeated it simply because userbox opponents told me not to? (Hint: no pro-userbox admin has ever disagreed with my assessment, and your assertion that this was not vandalism would not find concurrence in a general poll).
StrangerInParadise 14:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Why the AN/I revert?
Do you plan on fixing the problem or did I post incorrectly? I'm kinda new here so I dont know all the formatting procedures.Whilde Goose 23:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Those are two usernames that don't exist. I don't know what your game is, but you aren't being honest. Sam Korn 23:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- They certainly do exist and they are very offensive. I'm normally a patient man but those names went over the line. PS- I reposted the message without the religious reference, so as not to be interpreted as offensive myself.Whilde Goose 23:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Message re Lolicon on my talk page
I've read your message, but at the moment I am tired and worked up about this issue. I am not going to comment further until I have had chance to get cool down and get some sleep. I really do not want to say something that I would later regret. This messages is basically just to say that I am not ignoring you! Thryduulf 00:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: IRC
You signed off while I was away; I had to handle an issue Robbie was bugging me about, and signed off in a hurry. If you pop back in, or on MSN, I'll be available the rest of the night. Essjay 01:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Please blank and protect
Please blank and protect my user/usertalk page and that of my admitted sockpuppet, please, as I have left this project. Thank you. 64.95.38.193 02:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
My gratitude
Thank you for deleting the most vile image I have ever seen here. (i.e. the old "Lolicon" image.) You are my hero, and have earned my respect. --Shultz IV 05:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
PS: If anyone was wondering, I was the original poster for the alert to Jimbo Wales. Had I not have given Jim the alert that day, Sam here would not have found the image and deleted it. --Shultz IV 06:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
censorship policies
"I think that pretty much any close-up, sexualised image of children is blatantly and completely inappropriate for Misplaced Pages" - Sam Korn
What about a suggestive picture of a nude 11-year-old girl holding a toy that looks like a phallus or an image of a sprawling naked prepubescent girl? Kaldari 06:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- The reason I ask is not to be a bothersome troll, but because your words have now been written into policy: Misplaced Pages:Profanity. Do you support this change in policy (actually a guideline, technically)? Would you also support removing images such as the ones above? If not, why? I just want to know if you have any concrete suggestions for modifying Misplaced Pages policies. Clearly you feel like our policies have failed in this case. If you could change those policies, how would you change them? Kaldari 23:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for not replying earlier - I managed to overlook this on the page. I am afraid I really don't know about these images. The issue is most certainly not as clear-cut as the Lolicon one was. As for the changes to the policy... No, I haven't got any concrete suggestions. I actually think concrete policies, with every eventuality covered, are a positively bad thing, because, when the time comes again when radical action is needed (and it will, however policy is defined), an exhaustive, quantitative policy is harder to step outside of than a general, qualitative one. Cheers, Sam Korn 16:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you! Your action will make it easier for us to justify removal of similar images, FloNight 10:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please, I really don't want to be cited as a precedent! By all means reuse my arguments, but don't argue "this was the way we did it with Lolicon so this is the way we'll do it in the future". It's always best to argue on the merits of the case. Nevertheless, I didn't think I'd ever get one of those, so thanks! Sam Korn 10:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I understand your point about precedent. WP:IAR can hardly be precedent for every image content dispute. I think your actions will give us momentum in arguments. Up to now, the no censorship folks won many of these arguments no matter how harmful the image could be to the overall project. The badge is deserved. I was surprised that I beat JzG to it! --FloNight 10:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You have my full support. I applaud your decision in this case. FearÉIREANN
\ 18:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2
|
|
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket user notice
Sam,
Just to let you know that a page you created is being discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cricket#Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cricket user notice.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Search box
Hi there, I've updated/clarified the wording of the proposal at Highlight search box, (and added 2 more examples), and i was hoping you could give it another look. Much thanks :-) --Quiddity 07:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Vizzy
Pilotguy did it on my request because I was hesitant either to copyedit or revert at the time. See my confession here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Copyediting_Vizzy about how I indirectly brought it about. The version that Pilotguy tagged had plenty of POV statments and many unverified statements, some of which still exist. The stuff at the end of the paragraph about Vizzy's family is his personal opinion. To the comment about Vizzy being a bad commentator, he added Cashman 's comment is typical of Britisher of that age who felt insulted by a person of darker skin being respected by Britishers. I would personaly disagree with this statement, among Indians of that age and genre and his colleagues, Vizzy was a memorable commentator even more than Talyer Khan.
There are still a lot of incorrect statements which I'll get around to soon.
- The prince was plebian enough to allow CK to captain even though Yuvaraj was on the field. This spelled doom for Vizzy's intentions but he presevered and finally the vote was 9 to 8 in his favor - Vizzy was voted to captaincy by 10 votes to four.
- Maharaja Porbandar and Maharaja Limbdi donated more than him and Limbdi was a much better player. - There is no record about Limbdi or Porbandar paying anything according to any of the sources listed at the end of the article.
- After becoming the secretary of board, he restored the test career of Lala Amarnath and brought him back as India 's captain redeeming himself for the incident 17 years ago. - Vizzy was the vice president, not secretary when Amarnath was brought back in 1952.
- He started commentating for Ranji matches with AF Talyerkhan and formed a memorable commentary team. : This is very doubtful because A. F. S. Talyarkhan (sic) disliked commentating with others and anyway retired the same time that Vizzy started.
The original version of the article was referenced almost line by line and then I brought this upon myself. IMO, it deserves atleast a 'contains unverified claims' tag until I can get around to fixing it. Tintin (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, no problems. I'll put a suitable tag on there. {{advert}} just didn't feel right, considering it's just biased, not actually an advert. Cheers, Sam Korn 12:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding "New Development To "Requiring All Changes To Be Made With An Account""
When you sign up for an account to any project, & any language division, you must set up a username & password. That's what we sould be allowed to delete.
Please reply.
Thanks.
24.70.95.203 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding "New Development To "Requiring All Changes To Be Made With An Account'"" # 2
Well no, I think that deleting your username, allows people who want your username to not go thru so much red tape. Also, I was I was given the choice, I wouldn't mind people taking credit for my work; here's an idea, you could make policy a page where you must click accept, in order to delete your account, so that it because legal or whatever, that the deleter abides by those rules, maybe namely to reliquinsh all rights to credit for any work done on any part or parts Wikimedia projects, Language Divisions, &/or Wikimedia itself.
Please reply.
Thanks
24.70.95.203 22:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Good luck in your exams
Best of luck in your exams, Sam. I'll be watching out for your return. Cheers from across the water. AnnH ♫ 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, that was quick! Thanks very much. Best, Sam Korn 22:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)
Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Arb Case Mistake
Hi, im confused about something said in a report on the Arbirition case against me.
In this report, it states that i had warred on Gothic Metal, and been placed on Probation. It also says i violated WPCITE. I want to know how this came about, when both myself and User:Parasti provided diffs to me citing sources. It also says this as a 'finding of fact'. In which case, here is the speficic sections which falsly accuse me of not providing sources, and the evidence that supported this, and the accompnying diffs:
Finding Of Fact Contrary To Provided Diffs
Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Parasti's Evidence. Diff from Evidence, taken from Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence. Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence taken from Leys Evidence Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence
I even went as far as to quoting and explaining the sources on the talk page, .
I got all these diffs from the archive of the Arbirition case, Here.
I just want to know why all eight claimed i provided no sources, even though another involved party provided diffs of me providing sources, and i repeatedly gave diffs of me supplying sources. Im not having a go, im just confused how 8 Arbirrators managed to claim a 'finding of fact' despite over 10 diffs from two different users =\ Ley Shade 15:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3
|
|