User talk:Juxo: Difference between revisions
troll justice system declares: participate in GFDL violations, and suffer - advocate witch-hunts, and be marginalized - harass, and be harassed
(Follow up to the above discussion) |
(troll justice system declares: participate in GFDL violations, and suffer - advocate witch-hunts, and be marginalized - harass, and be harassed) |
||
| Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
::It's amazing, really, how bald-facedly she says one thing one place and another in another. She's appalling, and she really is the worst of them. | ::It's amazing, really, how bald-facedly she says one thing one place and another in another. She's appalling, and she really is the worst of them. | ||
:::Funnily enough, I thought the same thing myself - ie that I was contradicting myself, not that I was "the worst of them" etc. My current thoughts on the matter following my experience here are that a talk page and user page is something more personal than what you write on article pages. | :::Funnily enough, I thought the same thing myself - ie that I was contradicting myself, not that I was "the worst of them" etc. My current thoughts on the matter following my experience here are that a talk page and user page is something more personal than what you write on article pages. | ||
p.s. Thanks for deleting my talk page Juxo. | ::::Here we agree, it is more personal, but that does not mean that it is entirely or only personal. For instance it is common to bring up issues with someone's editing habits with them on the talk page, or general questions about their intentions, etc., there. Often these are well documented challenges to what they have done, where they stand, etc. [[w:User:RK]] for example managed to rack up a lot of such challenges which he would delete, then whine about the fact that people wanted to document his various abuses. He succeeded in many manipulations and in subverting all those who wanted to apply accountability to his various lies and abusive claims, and many think he succeeded in this simply because he was successful at covering his own trail and removing the evidence that he was doing the same thing over and over and over again. So the solution that various conscientious users including [[w:User:MyRedDice]] tried to apply was the "/ban page", which Wales did not support, and then the "Community case" page, which again he did not support, and in the end, Wales has let RK run riot. Trolls tend to think that RK now runs the Wikipedia by default, and that others such as [[w:User:Maveric149]] have pulled very similar tricks in the not too recent past, although it's not clear whether they still attempt to do so. A culture of zero accountability and personal control over all information about oneself is not necessarily conducive to making good trust decisions. | ||
:::User and article talk pages already follow different rules. For example, a user is, in nearly all cases, allowed to refactor and delete comments on their own user/talk page in a way that would not be regarded as acceptable on article talk pages. | |||
::::True. | |||
Therefore, it makes sense for those differences to apply to deletion of the pages as well. People are more attached to their pages than to their comments on article pages, and I think it is this level of attachment that would cause someone to feel uncomfortable about leaving an undeleted user page behind when they exercise their [[MeatBall:RightToLeave|right to leave]]. | |||
::::Maybe true. However, that was not what you advocated earlier, and, you were I think rightfully mocked for advocating a policy somewhere, leaving that assertion in place, and then advocating an opposite policy somewhere else when you wanted a different outcome. This combined with the exchange with [[w:User:Cyan]] where you were ''clearly'' demanding the same type of "community censorship" to be applied at the [[Simple English Wikipedia]] as at the Full English (a request [[w:User:Tim_Starling]] eventually granted), and then denying that in our exhange on the SEW, is a valid reason to conclude that you are two-faced in these policy discussions and intervention requests. That is still our conclusion. | |||
:::It doesn't solve the problem of not vanishing from article talk, but if the user feels separated from these in a way they don't from their own pages, then there is reason to treat the pages differently. Deletion of your user/talk page may also be a way of psychologically breaking away from a wiki, which has a stronger effect than just walking away. Perhaps when people leave they need this as some sort of final statement that they have left, and not only that, but a statement that they no longer wish to be associated with it at all. | |||
::::But they reappear. By your own rules, again demonstrated in your reverts to valid edits at Wikipedia, people do not have the right to reappear with some new identity let alone the original. Your "witch-hunts" clearly deny that right. So if they may reappear and there is a need to compare exchanges of their past incarnations with the current ones, then, one needs the old talk. | |||
Thus it should never be deleted, to allow the witchhunters, such as yourself, to identify the "heresy" and point out to others proof that "it's the same person". Failure to provide that is simply usurping a right to identify one IP or name with another by instinct. Which of course is what you actually do want, and what you actually do usurp, whenever you make unilateral decisions and operational distinctions that result in banning any IP that you don't like. Morwen at least admits she has "itchy trigger finger" and that there is no concept of "due process" - but that is not what the mythology of Wikipedia claims... | |||
:::The history of user talk pages can be fascinating and offer huge insights into the working of the wiki, but this isn't what they are there for. The aim is to build an encyclop�dia or a guide for consumers or whatever the aim of a particular wiki is, not to provide insights into how the community works or to document how individuals played a part in that. | |||
::::But "to build an encyclopedia" is not ''your'' aim. Your aim is to make certain people that you like feel comfortable, and make others that you do not like invisible or even make it impossible for them to participate. You are one of those who believe in a "virtual community". So you stand simultaneously for a lack of "insights into how the community works" and no right or ability "to document how individuals played a part in that." This is the classic definition of a [[w:carceral state]] - an unexamined and unexaminable power structure capable of presenting any image of itself that it wants to, while simultaneously claiming the right and ability to investigate and judge any ordinary contributor/citizen. So you actually want a "virtual police state". Wikipedia is your paradise. But it is not an encyclopedia. | |||
:::So, I now feel that the privacy policy at Wikipedia, and probably on other wikis too, should state that a user/talk page will be deleted on request after someone leaves. [[User:Angela|Angela]] 16:50, 2 Jan 2004 (EET) | |||
:::p.s. Thanks for deleting my talk page Juxo. | |||
::::Fair enough, you've changed your position. But if you don't note that fact over at meta.wikipedia.org, then, it will be obvious to all that you advocate one position when you want something, and another when someone else wants it. | |||
Follow up to the above discussion: | Follow up to the above discussion: | ||
:I recall seen some case of [[Wikipedia]]ns having experienced problems beyond the realm of Wikipedia due to having at some point revealed their real identity and/or contact information on their User-page, which resulted in them leaving the pedia and perhaps returning with an another username. Unfortunatelly since people have characteristic style of writing and tend to focus on same articles as before this may not help out in the situation that someone is getting harrassed or threatened because of their information or views. And point the blame to those "dreaded wikipedians" eg. the ones with access to logs it is even more easy for them to match historical data way beyond IP-numbers to point out that someone new is infact someone old. I just have to trust they don't abuse this. I personally see no problem with deleting talk_pages when they have back-history of clearly offensive edits by other users having a personal problem with the user elsewhere. | :I recall seen some case of [[Wikipedia]]ns having experienced problems beyond the realm of Wikipedia due to having at some point revealed their real identity and/or contact information on their User-page, which resulted in them leaving the pedia and perhaps returning with an another username. Unfortunatelly since people have characteristic style of writing and tend to focus on same articles as before this may not help out in the situation that someone is getting harrassed or threatened because of their information or views. | ||
::This situation is increasingly common there, which is one reason why pseudonyms and accountable-anonymous (visible IP numbers) are popular. However with the current regime at Wikipedia it is necessary to subvert the sysops by various technical means, fuzzing identity, running proxy servers on private IPs, etc., which is going to enable abuses as much as it enables dissidents. This is not the solution trolls prefer, but it is the one that we must apply if we don't wish to let advocates of a [[w:carceral state]] control the Wikipedia and thus the direction of the [[GFDL text corpus]]. The alternative is not for us to go away - the alternative is for us to respond to technological censorship with further escalation, e.g. to the legal or direct military realm. | |||
::If someone's "information" includes outright lying about groups or whole ethnicities or religions, as [[w:User:RK]]'s does, or their "views" include the assertion or implication that certain ethnicities or religions resort preferentially to violence and so must or should be repressed in advance (certainly that is a common Zionist belief and RK is a common Zionist), then, of course they are likely to be "harrassed or threatened because of their information or views." Those exact views are killing people in Palestine now. So why should people in the USA not be killed for them? On 9/11, some were, and this is going to continue as long as RK's view gets through to the media, and the troll view does not. Those who are censored, tend to realize that they are going to have to submit to a regime or fight it with violence (legal means is violence, since the law is backed by violence), and, many will simply fight. | |||
:And point the blame to those "dreaded wikipedians" eg. the ones with access to logs it is even more easy for them to match historical data way beyond IP-numbers to point out that someone new is infact someone old. I just have to trust they don't abuse this. I personally see no problem with deleting talk_pages when they have back-history of clearly offensive edits by other users having a personal problem with the user elsewhere. | |||
::They abuse it constantly. Angela also advocated only revealing IP logs to developers in cases of "vandalism" (not trolls who are a distinct category), but has again used this to identify people with views that she doesn't like. | |||
::I see no problem with deleting talk pages containing actual offensive edits with "a personal problem". The issue between Angela and the trolls however is not personal, but obviously political, and our edits may offend her, and you, but, it would be offensive to most [[w:fair trade]] advocates not to be warned that they were dealing with someone who advocated a [[w:carceral state]] well in advance of having to deal with them on a real issue. For this and other good reasons political [[faction]] really should be declared in advance, and it should be factions, not "just anyone" and not "sysops" who decide that edits do or do not represent a valid action. That is why parties exist in legislatures, too, and the situation in wikis is easily as complicated. The [[Content Wiki]] will have this problem worse than any other, and just shoving the controversial material to an [[Opinion Wiki]] doesn't solve the most basic problem, which is that there is an investment in identifying the trustworthiness of any one edit, and that there must be some group that validates these, or refuses to do so, that is neutral politically and does not permit things through on "reputation", and does not revert things due to "reputation", but applies ONLY a "due process". | |||
::There are MANY advocates of that at Wikipedia, but, they are drowned out by the Angelas. Perhaps she is not "the worst of them" since she talks about it, even to trolls it seems, but, she is certainly engaged in witch-hunts that may actually violate the GFDL, when combined with the various measures taken by the sysops and developers she influences. Certainly trolls will work hard to make sure that everyone who, for instance, restricts access to source texts that were licensed under GFDL, pays a serious price for it in their "real lives"... is that "harassment"? If so, it's harassment they have completely earned. Which is what most people call "justice". | |||