Let me clarify a little. When this issue was posted here, I wsnted to learn more, I wanted the question marks to disappear, so I could form my own opinion bout whether Pat is a troll or whether people have the wrong idea about wikipedia, or a subtle blend of the 2.
I got plenty of posts from people that suggested some ignorance or dislike for some of wikipedias main rules, and I got the beginnings of evidence of Pat's history, but not enough detail. I guess I probably want to see the same kind of thing that the wiki admins are asking for. Now Im not disputing that there are quite a lot of people here who have expressed outrage at whats been happening, but I couldnt say it is hundreds of people, nor can I judge how much most of them have studied the details, nor what they understand wikipedia to be. Now clearly there are some people who have been personally affected, and so I can esily conclude that Pat has pissed off some people over a long time period, and they are at the end of their tether and have resorted to swearing etc. But thats not the same as him abusing wikipedia with bad intent, and not enough for me to go and stick my nose into issues about whether he should be barred from wikipedia. I can empathise with the feeling of the community losing interest when it comes to details. Theres been a number of times that people have been up in arms about creative commons violators, and Ive gone off and done boring research into legal details, posted about it, but there is no response. This does pose a problem for my love of due process, in that the majority may have time to get angry and shout about some issue, but the realities of most peoples lives mean this will not translate into all these people then engaging with the (usually rather dull and complex) long-term solution. This who issue was certainly not helped by the fact that some people seem to have a problm with wikipedias policies, are calling for the rejection of wikipedia in general, yet still want to enforce their will by using wikipedias processes. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh come off it! As far as Im concerned you've dug your own hole by not > making your case properly. Why havent you provided the info the > wikipedia admins asked for? Im glad that attempts to harness the mob > without careful consideration and better, less emotional, stating of > your case, have failed. > > The more this ranting continues, the less convinced I am that Pat was > in the wrong on this. > > Some of the discussions on the wikipedia page about Pat being banned > made me ashamed. Claims that hundreds of people here are up in arms > over the thing, its just not true. Sure there have been lots of emails > in the group about this, but a lot of them are insult-based and from > the same core of people. > > Three cheers for due process and down with the rule of the mob. > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser" > <groups-yahoo-com@> wrote: > > > > PEOPLE! > > > > I'm sort of furious. I cannot hide it. Only ONE person... Michael > Verdi has > > responded,, voted, cited any reason for patrik needing to be banned or > > otherwise rebuked for his abuse of the delete button on the wikipedia > > vlogging article. > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2le5bn > > > > This is just typical B.S. and I cannot hide my frustration any longer. > > > > I mine as well have not even bothered to waste my time posting this > vote. > > > > It will be OVER in less than 24 hours... not because there's some > deadline > > but because only one of you has bothered to respond. > > > > What's more you're GIVING PAT AMMO! AND giving him a history to > which he can > > refer when he continues to delete all your future contributions!! > > > > "it's OK... see because the admins said soo!" > > > > That's is to paraphrase exactly what he's said in this email! > > > > 1) Patrick has painted this as a personal dispute between he and I. He's > > cited some edits from way back when by me that probably weren't > worthy of > > the article to the ignorance of ALL ELSE THAT HAS COME BEFORE AND SINCE! > > > > This isn't about the worthiness of my edits I'm sticking up for > everyone's > > edits! > > > > The issue is he deleted EVERYONE's contributions automatically with > little > > regard, and has continued to do so over the last two years. > > > > 2) As soon as there's any attention to the article or Patrick's poor > conduct > > and abuse of the delete button he pretends to be all nice again, > and makes > > a few contributions to pretend like he's not just deleting... then > he goes > > right back to his same old pattern of automatically deleting all > > contributions. > > > > 3) That he's recieving these votes from admins is because they can't > see his > > long history and NOONE save Michael Verdi is fucking standing up. > Now I've > > made the pledge to go back in and total up all the empiracal > evidence on the > > number of times he's revereted and deleted contributions vs. the > number of > > contributions. > > > > But you need to get the fuck in there like Michael verdi did, vote > one way > > or the other, and start citing some good damn references on things > that were > > deleted and how quickly they were deleted by Pat. > > > > There were over 100 emails bitching and moaning about this issue in > the last > > 24 - 48 hours... and I worked my ass off to give you a forum on > wikipedia to > > express your thoughts and opinions to the admin and only ONE of you > > bothered. > > > > I've put my ass on the line and it's hanging in the wind... so yes > I'm going > > to speak up. > > > > I don't care how you vote, yah, nay, indifferent, cite a > reference... ask if > > there's some alternative... but to NOT EVEN BOTHER... that's > unconscionable. > > > > If this is a reflection of the level of interest in the videoblogging > > article then fuck it... let pat continue to go around thinking he's the > > gatekeeper of the damn article and all edits need his approval. > > > > Sorry, I am going to use fuck alot... because this is quite nearly > it for > > me on this issue and I think you all need a good kick in the pants to > > actually take an action. > > > > The amount of bitching is amazing, and the complete lack of action is > > absolutely baffling. > > > > We haven't had this much chatter since Cindy Shehan or MyHeavy > started using > > all your content to raise funding... or 49 bloggers guy told Chuck > Olsen > > and his Blogumentary to fuck off. > > > > I keep wracking my brain... why? Is it because the process of voting > is to > > complex? Is it because I'm to wordy of a mofo and have failed to > make the > > issue clear... is it because people are burnt out on the moral > outrage... > > Why? > > > > Wikipedia is NOT that hard to edit... it takes about 5 minutes to go > post > > yay or nay and why! > > > > If this ends up being a case that is a landslide victory for > pdelongchamp > > because none of you cared then I will be FINISHED with this > article... and > > severly disselusioned with this community. > > > > I know have more respect then ever for Richard BF, Michael Verdi and > others > > who've gone through this all before. > > > > I can't believe noone will raise a finger. > > > > Go there... http://tinyurl.com/2le5bn > > > > Scroll down to the section on Pdelongchamp... click edit and leave your > > opinion... ANY opinion... if you think I'm wrong leave an opinion. > > > > VOTE dammit! > > > > And I'm sorry... I have to say this... I've spoken to four people > directly > > on the issue... I've spoken to Andreas, Jan, Michael Verdi and > Jay... All > > these people have spend significant time discussing this issue. That > only > > one of them, Michael Verdi, took spent a tiny fraction of the time they > > spent talking about this issue here... to go and illustrate their > point for > > the wikipedia admins is baffling to me. > > > > Andreas flat out said he wouldn't vote... that he's "staying out of > it".... > > I love andreas... but I think it's B.S. Andreas... I don't care if > you hate > > wikipedia and everything it stands for... I understand it... but > you're in > > it up to your eyeballs. How many comments and blog posts have you > made over > > this issue over the years... you condemn wikipedia as the problem of not > > protecting against trolls, but you have failed to ever step up to > the plate > > and defend wikipedia from trolls... this is your chance... to not do > so now > > is a simple balk. > > > > Jan said she needed time to sift through the evidence... fine... Jan I > > respect you tremendously... but the reality is if you take another > 24 - 48 > > hours... then it will be over and pat will be emboldened in his > deletes and > > you'll never be rid of him. Jan also said this was a case between > two people > > she cared about and didn't want to take sides... again jan, it's not > about > > sides... you don't have to vote yeah or nay... vote on the evidence... > > present your own evidence from the previous contributions... I > cannot give > > you all the evidence you need... and I shouldn't have to. > > > > Jay... I know you want to be the piece keeper... and that you don't > think > > pat's a bad guy, but you also know that no matter what pat's > intentions he's > > doing tremendous damage to the community by being a self appointed > > gatekeeper of the community. He's not only alienated the entire > community > > from wikipedia... but the videoblogging article is our chance to > present a > > case of what videoblogging is to the world... and for much of the > past year > > that has consisted of less than 500 words because noone else has been > > willing or able to stand up to pdelongchamp and his abuse of the delete > > button. > > > > You don't HAVE to vote YAY or NAY people... you can vote... "NEEDS > MORE TIME > > FOR RESEARCH" (Jan. please at least say this much).... or "IS THEIR SOME > > ALTERNATIVE TO A BAN" .... or present evidence from the contributions > > history... or say "BAN, recommend 1 month" or two weeks... or even > 1 day... > > 1 day would be a largely symbolic move... but even this would be a HUGE > > victory... it would simply say to pat... we like you... when you're > > contributing but don't use the delete so much. > > > > Or how about "IS THERE ANYWAY TO BAN A USER FROM USING THE > REVERSION/DELETE > > FEATURE"? > > > > This is just an initial rebuke, people... this isn't "IT" it's you > deciding > > wether you're actually going to stand up for yourselves or simply not. > > > > Anyway, > > > > Other than compiling empiraical data on the number of edits and > deletes by > > Pat, which I could use some help on from some, I'm pretty much done. > > > > I wanted to give you all the space to react and make you're opinions > known > > on wikipedia, but by the time you're done... you will have given exactly > > this (the email that started this thread) sort of AMMO to Pat... he > thinks > > his actions are not only condone-able but good... so good that he > sends out > > these sort of emails saying "see I told you so". > > > > The only thing this shows is an unwilliness for this community to > stand up > > for itself on wikipedia. I have no idea why... perhaps wikipedia is to > > beuracratic or technical... I just don't get it. > > > > Just don't be fooled that this large moral outrage will change > anything in > > three months from now when the wikipedia article is again a stub and > noone > > is contributing because Pat auto-deletes their posts. > > > > GO VOTE! -- http://tinyurl.com/2le5bn > > > > Or so help me god I will go away and never come back. :) > > > > Hrmmpf. > > > > -Mike > > mmeiser.com/blog > > > > On 5/3/07, David Howell <taoofdavid@> 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 < pdelongchamp@> 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 < pdelongchamp@> 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, "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 > > > > > http://spinxpress.com > > > > > http://freevlog.org > > > > > Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
