Recently on The WikBack, Kelly Martin laid into my personality and character. In my lengthy attempt to defend myself, I quoted several e-mail exchanges between Jimmy Wales and me, so that people could see how reasonable I was in the Autumn of 2006 and how unreasonable he was.

This is the screen I now get when signing into WikBack, and clicking on ANYTHING effects no response.

Could someone please notify UC that I would like access restored, that I apologize for posting the e-mails, but that I would like the content of my original post e-mailed back to me?

Greg

I doubt it'll happen. They've probably been looking for a reason to ban you for a while.

It's amazing that a culture that promotes "common sense" and an "ignore all rules" mentality would be so caught up on technicalities, but I bet they'll say the ban is justified solely on those emails...

This is a BS issue and you shouldn't back down.

Unless JW (1) explicitly requested confidentiality and (2) did not himself make any statements at all about your interactions in or out of email, then there is no reason of ethics or etiquette why you cannot publish those emails.

Create a thread and publish them here.

In other advice, you should present your story to the public at large and quite wasting your breath treating the prosecutors like they are the jury.

Standard Disclamour. IANAPET (I Am Not A Professional Etiquette Theorist).

Jonny

For the record, if I ever exchange email with anyone here, I'd appreciate that you assume confidentiality and only breach it with my ok.

Typically, that's how I operate. However, this was a special situation in that I felt I needed those e-mails to demonstrate to someone that my exchanges with Wales were cordial, and also that I've been waiting since December 24th for a response from Wales about the issue -- which 3 times he has said he was getting around to responding, but never has. How much more effort must I put forth to try to respect Wales' wishes, if he won't bother to make a substantive reply?

There was nothing shocking or offensive or embarrassing in the posted e-mails -- just a very unsurprising portrayal of how Wales dealt with Wikipedia Review as a "trademark" problem.

I will likely take Jonny Cache's advice and re-post here -- it's just that it was a lot of work that will now have to be re-done.

Greg

Agree with Jonny. But Greg, you shouldn't expect any human decency from UC. He supports threats of violence against WR members. His opinion of you counts for zero. You are worth more than a billion UCs.

Polite people do just that.

But it may be a good approach to write all your emails as if that is not going to be the case.

If only I had learnt that lesson before writing to unblock-en-l and having an admin come to my public talk page to gloat over not only my block, but my unpopularity...

Why is it a priority to post to UC's forum in the first place? I don't even understand why you'd want to. You can say what you want here, and WR must get at least as good an audience.

Exactly, the place is run by a Wikipedia arbitrator, a representing party of the system which kicked him out from Wikipedia. There are probably more people reading this forum than Wikback, he can make his point here better than there.

Whereas sharing them with arbitrators - never mind the sender's permission - is entirely alright.

It's not, then, a matter of privacy, but who gets to control it. The Arbitration Committee has appointed itself not as privacy's guardian, but as its broker.

Accordingly, Jimbo is granted privacy and protections that you and I aren't.

Well that wasn't very nice of them, was it. Oh wait, I think that you're talking about this series of posts... that was me. Suffice it to say I don't quite characterise things exactly the same as you do about that incident. Nor was the mail content actually disclosed, just referred to. But I stand by what I said then.

As a note I think mailing lists and private correspondences are somewhat different, and if in some unhappy future, I found myself writing to unblock-en-l to request my unblocking I'd have zero expectation of privacy. But that's just me.

Unpopularity? Perish the thought! Why, you're currently running at #3 all-time on our WR Fans Home Shopping Network show, behind only Wordbomb and myself. The mousepad licensing alone is probably worth at least half the GDP of most third-world countries.

Back to the topic though, I keep asking myself - should I start a wikiback.com account? Technically it's not a WMF-controlled entity, so there's no issue of personal principle involved... I dunno, it just seems like it would ultimately be pointless. Still, I'd probably be better able to find the specific thread being referred to when someone mentions one, which seems to be what's going on here...

I think you have to sign up with a username that you use on a Wikimedia project.

Oh yes, that... I asked Mr. Uninvited about that, and he said he'd make an exception in my case, or in just about anyone's case for that matter. Presumably they just want recognizability, not necessarily on-wiki contactibility, or bannability, or, ehh, whatever-abiity. Otherwise I'm not sure why he'd make such an offer, knowing that I could hardly do much over there other than cause trouble and insert cheap wisecracks where they're probably not wanted.

Ultimately, the real problem is that WP is so hide-bound at this point, no amount of so-called "constructive" discussion is going to get anything done over there - the only way to bring about reform seems to be to wait for a crisis to occur, and try to take advantage of whatever band-aid "fix" they come up with to try and sneak in some sort of marginal improvement. Or barring that, cheap wisecracks.

Didn't you say you enjoyed being unbannable?

Given this whole thing seems to have been a trap on UC's part where he could lure WR members over to his board so he could ban and hurt them, I don't think so.




Of course he wants bannability. Protesting threats of violence against banned users / WR members is a bannable offence over there, even if you have only made 10 posts and have already left.

UC is, quit simply, pure evil.

So if AW thought Charles had somehow brought bad publicity to WP by supporting me in some way, tell me, would AW have threatened to cut off my fingers if UC hadn't banned me, or at least hadn't turned it into a smear campaign against me? Or had Charles said something else in my favour somewhere other than WB?

Either way, UC should be banned for reckless endangerment.

In point of fact, I was refused on the grounds that I didn't have a WP account. So unless he's suddenly changed the rules, I call BS

He let me create an account under my WR username; he may have changed the rules after he had his fun getting AW to threaten to cut my fingers off.

Goddamn sadist.

Perhaps it's a compliment. Maybe he didn't let you create an account because he didn't think you'd be fun to hurt.

Now Wikback has banned me for a week for responding to Thekohser's smartass reply to my witty quip in the "A Thought for Today" thread, after a Moderator Warning about "off-topic" stuff in that thread was posted (which I hadn't actually read when I posted my last reply, since it had caused the thread to scroll into a new page, which I hadn't gotten to).

On the whole, that forum is moderated in an excessively anal manner for my tastes, and also seems to be of, by, and for people completely lacking in a sense of humor.

That forum needs to be carefully moderated to allow for free and productive discussion between disputing parties, as a halfway house between Wikipedia's stifling talk pages and Wikipedia Reviewers' freewheeling rip-fests. The right tone could have been beneficial to all parties, and there were signs during the Wordbomb discussions that Wikiback had a role.

Unfortunately it is not carefully moderated. And will wither and die.

We could easily set up a rigidly controlled forum. The trouble is that I doubt that we'd get many WP bigwigs (other than those we have already of course).

Wikback sounds a lot like the Wikipedia that owns it. I joined, but then kept trying to think of a reason to post anything.. Couldn't, so haven't. And since they make you give your WP ID, what the hell is the purpose of the thing, anyway? If they're trying to set up a forum to let pissed-off wikipedians vent, they're not going about it very well. Which is just as well. Jeez, what if they actually HAD a sense of humor? You'd be sucked in endlessly.

I think it was supposed to be an attempt at more organized discussion than a wiki or mailing list is capable. That was a good enough of an idea, but how it's being followed through with is a different story.

Large wikis and mailing lists make for difficult to follow communication. Message board software is better suited to this, in my opinion.

That's probably true. Even among admins--even among "cabal" admins--I bet that WR is more read than Wikback.

That said, Wikback posts seem to be cited on Wikipedia talk pages much more fluidly. It's more like the mailing lists--it's not a source that respectable users needs to make apologies about linking. In some circumstances it could be more influential. Besides, UC reads it, if no one else. I bet he doesn't read all of the comments in ArbCom cases, but he almost necessarily reads all posts on WikBack.

Moderator's note: I have moved the off-topic posts to here.

Those Lutherans have their own little Spanish Inquisition going on, don't they? Now, like Tobias, I have been blocked from the WikBack -- apparently for voicing my displeasure that Dan Tobias was himself blocked for a week.

Here was the message I got when signing in:

If you don't like a host or admin decision, in the future, after your ban expires, you can take such matters up in the "WikBack itself" forum provided for the purpose.

I'll tell you what, UC -- I'll take such matters up in a forum where tin-pot dictators aren't running the show. Where liberty and free speech are respected.

What a pathetic host. Sixth-grade treehouse culture you've fostered over there.

Greg

I'm surprised you're surprised —

I guess that must be a meta-surprise.

I never meta-surprise I didn't like?

Don't you bet on it.

Jonny

well just so you don't feel left out, Greg - I've been banned for a week as well....for this post, I think.

I'm tempted to write that UninvitedCompany has been playing with his organ so much that he's become rather firm....

..but that would be childish, and I'd like to think that all are above such silliness here.

Well, you're better off sticking around here.

My opinions may be biased though.

I suggest to Dan Tobias, Privatemusings, and myself that even when our blocks at DikSack WikBack are lifted, that we engage in an informal protest and simply don't read it or post there until May 1st. At that time, I suspect the board will be an all-but-deceased wasteland of "quote of the day" and Swatjester bemoaning that nobody posts there any more, and we won't even have a desire to participate again.

Dan? PM? What say you?

Greg

The Banality of Wikipedia

The unbalanced exercise of power is so banal, there is nothing more to be said about it.

except to note that Privatemusings has coined a new nickname for Wikiback's Uninvited Company

"Arbonaught"

http://just-some-privatemusings.blogspot.c...nother-ban.html

Anyone else here also on WikBack? Show some solidarity and get yourself banned there too... it's easy!

I thought Giano coined that phrase first? Or one close (arbonauts) anyway?

Amusing as it is to come up with nicknames for people or organizations I'm not sure I care to indulge, as it tends to dilute the message, I think. Others may disagree of course.

It's OK for satire and popular culture treatments of a subject.

It's not professional, for the few who still value professionalism.

Does anyone know a forum package that can accept post submission (including replies) via e-mail? I want to set up a forum to compete with WB, but since there are certain people who are paranoid about their IP address getting into the "wrong" hands, I want to offer this as an option so they can just use throwaway gmail accounts instead if they so choose.

You could set up a Yahoo Group, which can be posted to by email or web interface. (The privacy-freak crowd may, however, not like the fact that it lets Yahoo gather information about you.)

So if you have a special Gmail account for the purpose, who cares? Presumably even Yahoo can't track a Gmail account.

I love the idea of showing solidarity, if only for its own sake, but couldn't they just ban me in advance without me having to go through all the bother of signing up first?

Jonny

The banality of Wikback, eh?

Why on Earth does anyone want to contribute to Wikbak? It is neither credible nor conducive to rational argument.

It's like Jimbo said —

"We Make The Internet MaSochist."

Jonny

What really troubles me is the absence of a dignified venue where pro and con partisans can explore and resolve the many conflicts that arise time and again on Wikipedia.

The lack of a functional conflict resolution process is eating away at Wikipedia and those who are unfortunate enough to become caught up on one of its many conflict scenarios.

This is a little bit like saying, "Gee, it's too bad that the Referees at "Professional" Wrestling Matches can't stop the fights before they begin — 'cause we all know the Audiences would pay to see that."

Jonny

Which is another way of saying Wikipedia is your oyster if you love competitive war games and political drama rather than the kind of plodding scholarship that makes for a reputable encyclopedia.

Not my oyster, but I do know whose oyster it is, and his maxim is:

"Swine Before Pearls"

Jonny

With 1,101 views, this thread is probably more popular than Wikback.

Blog postings by Lar

http://nonnotablenatterings.blogspot.com/2008/03/wikbak.html

and Privatemusings on the topic of the Wikback

http://just-some-privatemusings.blogspot.c...eek-behind.html