Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Steve, That last comment was completely out of line ont eh admin thing. They accused an entire community of sock puppeting... on the basis of ONE new user account. There is no cospiracy to sock puppet the issue. Secondly, there IS NO CONFLICT of interest... again an attack on one user... and Michael verdi did not post his book... I did... and several others did over the course of the article. Thirdly, nearly every single admin judged the issue before any evidence against Pat was presented though I clearly asked for the time to present evidence since long term trolling is hard to reasearch and show, and said it was forthcoming. Imagine that, any court, trial, or jury process that happens without regard to evidence... that's sadly damning of wikipedia's process. A very fundamental flaw. Lastly the last thing this was was a vindication of Pat. It's mostly an issue of process... quite frankly user conflict is not as well documented as editing conflict resolution... there is a request for comment on user conduct... which I will be persuing given a few days, it is a far better first step on resolving the issue. -Mike On 5/3/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK I mus stop posting here on this topic soon, but just to clarify how different the detail of wikipedia guidelines can be compared to the short version. The following is from the conflict of interest page I just linked to ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest ) , and I hope you will agree that it employs more common sense and balance about these matters than mine and others comments about wikipedia rules suggest: Close relationships Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[2] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, consider withdrawing from editing the article, and try to identify and minimize your biases. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Attribution — when editing in that area. The definition of too close in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject. Campaigning Activities regarded by insiders as simply getting the word out may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest. Citing oneself You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well again bear in mind thats just one persons opinion, but they werent saying such books should not be included. They were saying its not a good idea for people to be adding their own books to wikipedia, probably because it has the potential to threaten the neutral aims of wikipedia, or lead to questions about conflict of interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Its also true that people arent supposed to go around accusing eachother of conflicts of interest, and so thats why its probably just best for potentialy biased parties to steer clear of topics that are too close to home, or at least to read and digest the above page very carefully. As usual with these things, the rules are not totally set in stone, there can be exceptions, but all the nuanced detail of these processes and rules take many hours to read. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Published BOOKS about videoblogging should not be included? What does it matter if the auther added them or not? They are
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
I apologize. I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend it to David Meade. Ugh. This has not been a great week. I'm genuinely sorry guys. pat -- Forwarded message -- From: Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 3, 2007 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Vlog wiki To: David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh man. Sorry David, I confused you and David Meade. I guess i should take a step back for a bit. I'm actually very sorry. I try to be reasonable and understanding and I got upset. I crossed the line here. (even if I *had* been speaking to the right david, i would have been crossing the line.) On 5/3/07, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize for the formatting. Allow me to post this here as well rather than just in an email to Patrick Delongchamp. Patrick. Quit fucking emailing me you nutjob. David Howell to Patrick show details 12:36 pm (3 minutes ago) You fucking nutcase. I did not try to vote on whatever CN page you are talking about. Quit emailing me. On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: I noticed you tried to vote on the CN page. a) the discussion is closed b) you didn't show in any way that MichaelVerdi isn't a meatpuppet which he clearly is. Read the policy she was quoting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets c) It's also clear that Mmeiser was violating the policy as well by advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets Calilil was trying to be considerate and you pretty much yelled at him. (CAPS = SHOUTING) Wikipedia isn't a game. I don't come to your house and smash your camera for no reason so don't try to come to Wikipedia and ban me for no reason. I tried to be friendly but you clearly enjoy getting a rise out of people. For example, your only comment to the Ban Request results was to accuse me of spamming. That's a pretty sad rebuttle. You might as well have just said You forgot Poland. pd On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: Hey Dave, Sorry about that. I didn't realize it would affect much to change the subject of the message. I'll keep it in mind next time. I would encourage you to visit the Video blog article though and read some of the history and discussions going on. It's interesting to see the article finally begin to grow. You'll get a better idea of the difference between editors like Bullemhead and Ruperthowe and myself compared to editors like Mmeiser. It's a collaborative atmosphere when people don't resort to personal attacks. pd -- David Howell http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Mike, I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being discussed in the group. pd On 5/3/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as humour with only a tinge of bitterness) This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. -Michael Verdi Well Patrick, I don't understand your subject line. What you've quoted there is obviously not a threat. It's just my observation of your assholeness which I stand by 100% whether there are wikipedia editors that agree with you or not. Please fuck off, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Crossing a line? There are 1 articles on Wikipedia with unsourced statements, and you've spent the last year obsessively purging a single one of them, while gaming the social system there and building a clan to defend against any potential challenges. What's a little heated language for such an accomplished griefer? -Original Message- From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Delongchamp Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 13:51 To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers I apologize. I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend it to David Meade. Ugh. This has not been a great week. I'm genuinely sorry guys. pat -- Forwarded message -- From: Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 3, 2007 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Vlog wiki To: David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh man. Sorry David, I confused you and David Meade. I guess i should take a step back for a bit. I'm actually very sorry. I try to be reasonable and understanding and I got upset. I crossed the line here. (even if I *had* been speaking to the right david, i would have been crossing the line.) On 5/3/07, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize for the formatting. Allow me to post this here as well rather than just in an email to Patrick Delongchamp. Patrick. Quit fucking emailing me you nutjob. David Howell to Patrick show details 12:36 pm (3 minutes ago) You fucking nutcase. I did not try to vote on whatever CN page you are talking about. Quit emailing me. On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: I noticed you tried to vote on the CN page. a) the discussion is closed b) you didn't show in any way that MichaelVerdi isn't a meatpuppet which he clearly is. Read the policy she was quoting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets c) It's also clear that Mmeiser was violating the policy as well by advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpu ppets Calilil was trying to be considerate and you pretty much yelled at him. (CAPS = SHOUTING) Wikipedia isn't a game. I don't come to your house and smash your camera for no reason so don't try to come to Wikipedia and ban me for no reason. I tried to be friendly but you clearly enjoy getting a rise out of people. For example, your only comment to the Ban Request results was to accuse me of spamming. That's a pretty sad rebuttle. You might as well have just said You forgot Poland. pd On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: Hey Dave, Sorry about that. I didn't realize it would affect much to change the subject of the message. I'll keep it in mind next time. I would encourage you to visit the Video blog article though and read some of the history and discussions going on. It's interesting to see the article finally begin to grow. You'll get a better idea of the difference between editors like Bullemhead and Ruperthowe and myself compared to editors like Mmeiser. It's a collaborative atmosphere when people don't resort to personal attacks. pd -- David Howell http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Mike, I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being discussed in the group. pd On 5/3/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as humour with only a tinge of bitterness) This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. -Michael Verdi Well Patrick, I don't understand your subject line. What you've quoted there is obviously not a threat. It's just my observation of your assholeness which I stand by 100% whether there are wikipedia editors that agree with you or not. Please fuck off, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
She's right. It's pretty mini. On 5/3/07, missbhavens1969 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Crossing the line? Gee...Y'think? Well, since we've descended into the pit of juvenile name calling, I'd like to say that after the close following of these wikipedia/videoblogging threads I've come to the conclusion that a certain someone has a Teeny. Weenie. Peenie. Kisses, Bekah (I couldn't participate in the wikibanapalooza. I can't figure out how to edit them for the life of me, and I actually don't care for Wikipedia in the least although I respect those who do. Clearly it's best that I didn't vote: who wants to invite angry emails from someone with such a peenie problem?) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize. I just wrote this reply to David Howell and I want to extend it to David Meade. Ugh. This has not been a great week. I'm genuinely sorry guys. pat -- Forwarded message -- From: Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 3, 2007 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Vlog wiki To: David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh man. Sorry David, I confused you and David Meade. I guess i should take a step back for a bit. I'm actually very sorry. I try to be reasonable and understanding and I got upset. I crossed the line here. (even if I *had* been speaking to the right david, i would have been crossing the line.) On 5/3/07, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize for the formatting. Allow me to post this here as well rather than just in an email to Patrick Delongchamp. Patrick. Quit fucking emailing me you nutjob. David Howell to Patrick show details 12:36 pm (3 minutes ago) You fucking nutcase. I did not try to vote on whatever CN page you are talking about. Quit emailing me. On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: I noticed you tried to vote on the CN page. a) the discussion is closed b) you didn't show in any way that MichaelVerdi isn't a meatpuppet which he clearly is. Read the policy she was quoting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets c) It's also clear that Mmeiser was violating the policy as well by advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets Calilil was trying to be considerate and you pretty much yelled at him. (CAPS = SHOUTING) Wikipedia isn't a game. I don't come to your house and smash your camera for no reason so don't try to come to Wikipedia and ban me for no reason. I tried to be friendly but you clearly enjoy getting a rise out of people. For example, your only comment to the Ban Request results was to accuse me of spamming. That's a pretty sad rebuttle. You might as well have just said You forgot Poland. pd On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: Hey Dave, Sorry about that. I didn't realize it would affect much to change the subject of the message. I'll keep it in mind next time. I would encourage you to visit the Video blog article though and read some of the history and discussions going on. It's interesting to see the article finally begin to grow. You'll get a better idea of the difference between editors like Bullemhead and Ruperthowe and myself compared to editors like Mmeiser. It's a collaborative atmosphere when people don't resort to personal attacks. pd -- David Howell http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp pdelongchamp@ wrote: Hey Mike, I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics currently being discussed in the group. pd On 5/3/07, Michael Verdi michael@ wrote: On 5/3/07, pdelongchamp pdelongchamp@pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: and now ladies and gentlemen, ...your moment of zen. (please accept this as humour with only a tinge of bitterness) This user - Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry. [...] It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. -Michael Verdi Well Patrick, I don't understand your subject line. What you've quoted there is obviously not a threat. It's just my observation of your assholeness which I stand by 100% whether there are wikipedia editors that agree with you or not. Please fuck off, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
As someone who's - new, as in, been a member of the list a few months - still trying to figure out many aspects of videoblogging - only exposure to the wiki entry issue has been on this email list this is how is seems to me. People who have defined and shaped videoblogging are the most qualified people to contribute to the wiki. Things that have been added and then deleted were verifiable for the contributor because they were there when it happened. They were and are part of the ever- changing videoblogging landscape. Unfortunately, this isn't good enough according to Wikipedia policy. Ruperthowe described the problem on the talk page: I guarantee you that you will not find one single mention of this in the Main stream media, but that does not mean it does not exist as a real issue - online sources such as the Yahoo Group discussion cited are clearly the most authoritative and widely discussed background material for this kind of item David Howell asks : No original research? Why not? And then Why use new media to define new media with a requirement that the validation come from old media. This is the problem. People are adding content that they know to be true because they are the movers and shakers, yet the content doesn't meet the policies of Wikipedia for citation and verifiability. And people are really upset at pdelongchamp for enforcing the Wiki policies. There seem to be two issues: 1) not agreeing with the policies that don't allow original research and 2) the manner in which pdelongchamp enforces the policies. There's not much you can do about #1 except wait for more verifiable sources to emerge or take the game somewhere else (which I believe Verdi setup something on pbwiki). I agree that it doesn't make much sense to only allow old media to define the faster paced new media. Now #2 is stickier. I looked over the history page and edits that pdelongchamp made stated the reason was not being in line with wiki policy. It could very well be that he gets his kicks by causing everyone frustration. I don't know, I don't know him but if I'm just going by what I've seen on here, it doesn't seem that way. I understand that many of you know each other and are friends in Real Life and want to stick by each other. I've only met three other videobloggers (but I hope to change that in the near future) so I can give a fairly objective view on the exchanges here. pdelongchamp has been called names and cursed at, yet his responses are well-measured, civil and only speak of improving the article according to Wikipedia policy. Either he's not quite what people are making him out to be or he's two-faced and manipulative. People are unhappy with Wikipedia's policy and are aiming their frustration at the person enforcing it. I think if pdelongchamp went away and never came back, there would be someone else to take his place as gatekeeper. -- Kary Rogers http://karyhead.com On May 3, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: I dont think its asinine, I think its a basic concept of an ecyclopedia. Now Im quite prepared to admit that this doesnt make encyclopedia's the best source for detailed info on rapidly emerging fields, and I would be quite happy if sites people played with alternatives with different rules, something that isnt wikipedia. My great concern though is how much this 'ban pat' stuff is merged in with these issues. Even if there are a million vloggers here who think the wikipedia rules are silly, that doesnt mean we can force change of the rules when it comes to the vlog page on wikipedia. Now there is a wikipedia rule about ignoring the rules, which in an ideal world could have been used to try to address this issue, but I find the current debate practically unsalvagable as it has become too personal. Cheers Steve Elbows
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
FYi... I've *started* to back up the request for temporary banning of pdelongchamp on the vb article on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Evidence_against_Pdelongchamp That's the full url, for some reason tiny urls don't support a names and the page is sort of long, so hopefully yahoo won't break the url, or if it does you can piece it back together, because it's really important stuff. I had wanted to take a day or two to just let it cool down... but unforetunatly it would have been over before it had begun as pat email that started this thread confirms. Admins were starting to just make snap judgements based on pat's evidence without considering that I hadn't posted any yet... just prsented the basis of the argument. Mistake or not I'd not yet begun to present evidence, merely presented the issue. I hope others will feel free to also add evidence of whatever sort they can offer. Specific instances are great, but don't feel you need to submit evidence. If you just leave a comment and show your support that'd be great. God knows i need all the help I can get. Presenting evidence of long term trolling is tough stuff. Pat rolls out one or two of his better edits... but how can I possibly sum up all the endless examples of deletes. I've broken it down into several sections. 1) community feedback, consensus and substantive evidence 2) Editing as a form of retribution 3) Repeated mass blanking aka mass deleting of article contents despite community consensus 4) Examples of chronic, unwarranted and persistent deletions Could use all the help I can get. P.S. Steve Watkins, no harm no fowl... you were right on on my failure to properly cite evidence. In my defense I merely stated the outline of my case... a first step. Now that I've at least started to post evidence I hope this does a lot to clarify the issue for you. If you still believe I'm full of crap please let me know, I value the honesty and third party perspective, and unlike others I have a fairly thick skin when it comes to name calling and foul language... my call on the carpet, or whatever you want to call it was do the urgency of the matter now that the admins are voting on it. Peace, -Mike mmeiser.com/blog On 5/3/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great post :) You put it all exceedingly well. Thanks to Jays constructive approach, Ive joined wikipedia and am on the talk page. Im doing a lot more reading before I do any daring edits though. For me, judging by what Ive said here in the last few days, my personal balancing act will be how to avoid being a wikinazi whilst at the same time trying to keep in the spirit guidelines of wikipedia. I dont particularily want to become some hated gatekeeper, but I would consider it a duty to keep the content broadly in line with what wikipedia is supposed to be. Honestly I scratch my head sometimes over peoples attitudes to publishing on the net. Theres some weird ideas that freedom of speech/freedom of press means the right to have what you believe to be true published anywhere you really think it should be. Anyway as part of the process of finding balance, I am currently looking at which videoblogs, people, and services/sites have entries in wikipedia. For that is another area frought with controversy, who is considered notable enough to be included in a modern version of an encyclopedia? Not me, I am sure of that, and long may it be so :) Anyways here we quickly find outselves back in 'a-list' territory. Perhaps this is another reason why wikipedias policies may seem particularily innapropriate to many bloggers, the dream of the importance of mass media diminishing, is shattered if you can only become notable by being covered by mass media. No new technology or site or wiki is going to save us from ourselves, oh human nature, if only we could evolve ye significantly in a lifetime. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kary Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As someone who's - new, as in, been a member of the list a few months - still trying to figure out many aspects of videoblogging - only exposure to the wiki entry issue has been on this email list this is how is seems to me. People who have defined and shaped videoblogging are the most qualified people to contribute to the wiki. Things that have been added and then deleted were verifiable for the contributor because they were there when it happened. They were and are part of the ever- changing videoblogging landscape. Unfortunately, this isn't good enough according to Wikipedia policy. Ruperthowe described the problem on the talk page: I guarantee you that you will not find one single mention of this in the Main stream media, but that does not mean it does not exist as a real issue - online sources such as the Yahoo Group discussion cited are clearly the most authoritative and widely
