I received it via the email list... David
On 5/2/07, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, it showed up on the group website the first time: > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/60208 > > I dont subscribe to the list via email so Ive no idea if it came > through that way. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In [email protected] <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Damn yahoo! I'm sending this a second time. Did ANYONE get this the > > first time. I've gotten no bounceback and yet it has not appeared on > > the yahoo group. > > > > Am furious with yahoo's crappy inexplicable sitting on of articles. > > > > -Mike > > > > On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Howdy all, > > > > > > I hope you're all contributing to the wikipedia article in a well > > > behaved but persistent manner making sure as to document your > > > continual frustrations with Pdelongchamp by reverting his endless > > > deletes in a judicious, yet polite manner citing good reasons for > > > doing so. Above all, I hope you're trying to actually contribute > > > something new to the article, but as I know all to well it's hard to > > > collaborate on something when someone is deleting the object of > > > collaboration. > > > > > > Why the high spirits!? > > > > > > Because I've finally figured out, at the suggestion of an admin, what > > > proper course of action we can take against "said user". > > > > > > It's called a "community ban". > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ban#Community_ban > > > > > > To quote from the article... > > > > > > "There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's > > > patience to the point where he or she has been indefinitely blocked by > > > an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them. > > > > > > Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is a > > > consensus of community support for the block, and may note the block > > > on a relevant noticeboard. The user should be listed on Wikipedia:List > > > of banned users (under "Community"). Community bans must be supported > > > by a strong consensus. The community may impose either topic bans or > > > general editing bans." > > > --end quote-- > > > > > > > > > What's more I have submitted him to the "Community Sanction > > > Noticeboard" at the below url. Feel free to read it and vote on it. > > > While I have asked for advisement on the issue in general, not simply > > > outrifht banning it is a voteable page. > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Request_for_blocking_of_user:Pdelongchamp_on_vlogging_article > > > > > > tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/2le5bn > > > > > > Just chime in by editing the page and typing in "ban" or "don't ban" > > > and feel free to elaborate. I do expect that the admins may propose > > > one or two alternatives as they always do, but it can't possibly hurt > > > to make your opinions known though it is early in the process. > > > > > > Please make sure you're logged into wikipedia and sign your vote or > > > your vote won't count! > > > > > > Please also note: I mentioned in the article I believed I had the > > > support of at least dozens if not hundreds of members of the > > > community, so if you don't get out there and vote one way or the other > > > the whole issue will loose credibility, lessening the chance of a > > > successful resolution and making me look like an idiot... not that I > > > mind looking like an idiot. :) > > > > > > Now get out there and vote! > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > == DISPUTE POSTED BELOW FOR YOUR READING PLEASURE == > > > > > > What follows is the text of that post in its entirity for your reading > > > pleasure. Please feel free to tear it apart if I've misrepresented any > > > of your feelings on this matter. I will gladly update it on wikipedia > > > to reflect your sentiments. > > > > > > I did feel... that prior to my own comments on the matter which may or > > > may not have colored the debate that I heard the community yelling out > > > for banning Pdelongchamp from editing the article. > > > > > > To tell you the truth I may to a fault de-escallationist, but... all I > > > want is a temporary ban... a temporary reprieve from the constant > > > deleting. Perhaps a month or two... to let the article evolve and see > > > how things go. If he returns then to deleting all contributions > > > without end then we have both the means at hand and the basis to > > > qucikly ask for such action again, and with greater consequence. > > > > > > That said... do as you feel fit with this, the vlogging article on > > > wikipedia, and pursuing any other action. I know I may have lost > > > patience once or twice, but don't follow my lead, I'm an idiot. :) > > > > > > > > > --begin text-- > > > Request for blocking of user:Pdelongchamp on vlogging article > > > > > > Request assistance, advisement, and possible blocking of user > > > Pdelongchamp from editing videoblogging article. > > > > > > Charges are long term "delete trolling" (aka. "blanking vandalism"), > > > "retributive editing" and threatening other users with blocking. > > > > > > 1) User deletes every contribution at least once. > > > > > > Over the last year to two years user has attempted to have article > > > deleted outright and upon failure has deleted every single one of > > > thousands upon thousands of edits to the article at least once and > > > more often then not multiple times despite attempts to appease him > > > with citations and edits. This despite only one or two original > > > contributions himself. > > > > > > Delete's are almost always automatic, occurring within hour or days of > > > contribution allowing no time or room for response, contribution or > > > improvement by other contributors. User's deletes hence dominate > > > article, disrupting activity on said wikipedia article and prohibiting > > > other willing users from collaborating. > > > > > > User cites frivolous reasons unworthy of automatic and outright > > > deletion like "original research" and "needs citations" on these > > > deletes despite repeated attempts to work with him by members of the > > > community over the long term and repeated citations of wikipedia's > > > editing policy, particularly the section "perfection is not required" > > > and information contained therein on proper deletion procedure. > > > > > > Please consider this emphasis. User has deleted EVERY contribution at > > > least once if not multiple times. This is not an exaggeration. Article > > > has been withered down by user to a stub of less than 500 words > > > multiple times in the last two years and all contributions (no matter > > > how obvious the value may seem or how obvious the good intentions of > > > the contributor) have to be submitted multiple times and/or by > > > multiple contributors and often debated before said user will admit > > > them to the article, if said user 'allows' them at all, and often only > > > to delete them months later. > > > > > > Most recently the user deleted over 90% of the article and is > > > currently involved in an edit war with multiple members of the > > > community who have attempted to work with him to re-establish the > > > article. > > > > > > 2) Retributive editing > > > > > > User has edited other articles or attempted to have them deleted as a > > > form of retribution. > > > > > > In less than 10 edits and a relative number of minutes the user went > > > from reverting a contribution to the videoblogging article to going > > > through that users past contributions deleted edits and attempted to > > > have 3 different articles deleted. Actually succeeding on one count. > > > > > > This was admittedly my edit and my contributions, but they were others > > > articles of which I had only made minor contributions and having > > > nothing to do with the videoblogging article. It's as plain a case of > > > retribution as I can find and shows alarming spitefulness and > > > willingness to jeopardize a great amount by others and on other topics > > > that are in no way connected to the videoblgging article. > > > > > > (note re: "retributive editing" - I could find no other language for > > > it so you'll have to pardon the terminology. Have been unable to find > > > any other information on it, if you know it by another name or have > > > any documentation on subject please respond.) > > > > > > 3) User has threatened users with blocking. > > > > > > User has repeatedly threatened me with blocking in editing disputes > > > despite being advised disputes are not a block-able offense. > > > > > > Summation > > > > > > Despite what can be considered nothing less than tremendous patience > > > over the past two years because of the above and other actions I > > > believe the community no longer assumes this user is editing in good > > > faith. I believe I can speak on behalf of the community on this matter > > > but am prepared to back it up with dozens if not hundreds of > > > signatures of community members by whatever method you deem necessary. > > > I also believe wether blocking be in order, or another form of action > > > that the community would like a chance to send this user a message > > > with their consensus on the matter to restore faith in the wikipedia > > > editing process. > > > > > > I believe the user in question wishes the article deleted or at the > > > least he is trolling the community in an attempt for either attention > > > or simply to frustrate and waste the time / energy of the community. > > > He has succeeded in the last two years in driving off many well > > > intentioned long term editors, and in bringing the evolution of the > > > article to a complete standstill. > > > > > > User is basically holding an entire community of would be contributors > > > hostage with a delete button. > > > > > > I believe there is more than enough evidence (2 years worth) and > > > community consensus, I can virtually ensure 100's of signatures if > > > there is a procedure for requesting a block. > > > > > > Will be happy to cite in wikipedia history well documented proof of > > > all above points at your request. > > > > > > Please advise on how to proceed. > > > > > > Thank you, -Michael Meiser --mmeiser 07:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC) > > > --end text-- > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > -Mike > > > > > > > > -- David King davidleeking.com - blog http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
