Well I wasnt happy to see this group and things said in it being used as evidence by both sides to argue their case, should have stuck to the actual wikipedia issues.
Anyway the call for a ban has now been removed, I believe it was considered to be a personal dispute and the wrong thing was being called for . The last post that was made before it was deleted seemed to sum things up quite well, its broadly the same opinion as I have formed myself: "===Comments after looking at the evidence=== - Being sensitive to your concerns I have to ask you guys from groups.yahoo.com/vlogging - have you read policy documents before coming to CSN? First off if members of the yahoo group are working to support each other this is a breach of WP:MEAT and a serious one - [[WP:SPA|Single purpose accounts]] are not encouraged. Second although Pdelongchamp didn't mention it there is a possible [[WP:COI]] problem here - authors or those associated with them should ''not'' be adding their books to wikipedia - this site is not for self promotion. <br /> - I haven't seen one reason to block Pdelongchamp. The diff I see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=next&oldid=106060604 here] is an example of proper editing practice - removal of [[WP:NOR|original research]]. The only issue I could have with Pdelongchamp is their slight [[WP:AGF|lack of AGF]] but this is not a blocking offence. I do think Pdelongchamp deleted too many external links from this version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&oldid=104826246] - I would have deleted 80% of them and kept "Citizens do media for themselves, BBC Technology" "TV Stardom on $20 a Day, New York Times" 'Vlogger (noun): Blogger With Video Camera, The Wallstreet Journal" & "The next big thing: vlogging, Times Online, UK" - but only if they were worked into the article. As far as I can see there is no malicous intent from, no wrong doing by and no need for sanction against Pdelongchamp. However I do think there should have been more of a compromise on both sides. Mmeiser was trying to improve the article, he was going about it wrong but the edits seem to be good faith<br /> Mmeiser & the vloggers, you should have [[WP:RFC|requested comment]] in order to build a [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] on the talk page or in the very least Mmeiser should have taken [[User:Adrian_M._H.]] advice and [[Wikipedia:Content_forking#Temporary_subpages|created temporary page]] in their userspace. [[User:Adrian_M._H.]] has made a trojan effort to mediate between Pdelongchamp and Mmeiser I recommend that this block request be withdrawn and Adrian_M._H's advice taken forthwith. As an uninvolved party I would be happy to host a temp rewrite page in my userspace if this is of assitance to both sides--[[User:Cailil|<font color="grey" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="grey">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) - PS there was an edit conflict haven't seen Pdelongchamp's post yet--[[User:Cailil|<font color="grey" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="grey">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) I take particular note of their points about meatpuppets and conflicts of interest. Had everyone from the group steamed onto wikipedia and acted as some asked, this would have been a far more serious violation of wikipedia than any of the editing thats ever been done to the vlogging page by anybody. Anyway Im mostly interested in the articles, not people being punished, so lets hope everything can calm down now, the wikipedia entry can be useful but restrained, and otehr wikis can be a place for more detail that doesnt meet wikipedias requirements. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 <kr@> 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 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
