User talk:Netesq

A forum mention (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1720) by Jimbo Wales at the XODP eGroup was what first brought Wikipedia to my attention, and my first contribution to Wikipedia was an anonymous one (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Open_Directory_Project&oldid=147167). I have since found the Wikipedia format and community to be very much to my liking, and now (a few weeks later) a day seldom goes by wherein I do not review or contribute content. Even at this nascent stage of its development, Wikipedia is a remarkably useful reference source.--NetEsq, August 23, 2002.

Welcome from Maveric149

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, I wrote most of the Davis, California article -- any expansion or edits by you would be much appreciated. Cheers! --maveric149

Thanks for the welcome, maveric149. I've encountered a substantial number of familiar and noteworthy bylines here, but I'm still in semi-lurk mode, doing my best to familiarize myself with Wikipea editing and determine what (and who) Wikipedia has in common with other online communities.

It's too early to say for certain, but my plan for right now is to use Wikipedia as a general reference resource which I can link to on the fly, contributing content whenever I encounter a substantial void in the coverage of important topics. -- NetEsq

No Legal Opinions or Legal Advice from NetEsq

What is exactly for your standard disclaimer "this is not a legal opinion"? --AN

Whenever I answer a question which is legal in nature, or a question which has a legal component, there is the danger that someone may construe my answer as legal advice which an attorney would give his or her clients. By stating "this is not a legal opinion," I am cautioning people that they should not rely upon my opinions in this way. Rather, if people think that they need legal advice, they should retain an attorney. A useful byproduct of this disclaimer is an increased alertness to the dubious nature of legal advice which is offered in informal settings.--NetEsq

From the Village Pump, a post by Isis

Who was that masked man ?

It has been brought to my attention that the username "Throbbing Monster Cock" has been converted to "TMC" and that my name has been bandied about in the discussions about how that came about. I'm posting the following to set the record straight and not for the purpose of starting a discussion:

I am back, and if I am not participating as actively as I did before, please attribute it to the computer problems: I simply don't have the time (or the patience) to work on the 'pedia when navigation takes 3 to 5 minutes per link and it can't find the server at all 1 time out of 4, which is the situation nearly all the time now.

NetEsq made some comments about me on http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TMC on 22 November that are so far from true that they make me wonder whether he could honestly have been so mistaken:

And while I do not pretend to speak for User:Isis, I know her to be a strong advocate of free speech. I sincerely doubt that she would approve of the decision which Jimbo has apparently taken on her behalf.

we know that Isis chose to leave because she was offended by TMC's username

I am, indeed, a strong advocate of 1st Amendment freedom of speech, but that has nothing to do with this situation. Wikipedia is not a public forum, and there is no "right" of free speech (or anything else) here. This is Jimbo's private website, and he has invited us all to use it with very few (too few, as far as I'm concerned) guidelines for what is acceptable conduct here. If you were a guest in his home, would you think it was okay to shit in the middle of the floor or to burn the house down or to steal his stereo equipment? When you trash this website, you insult him (and the rest of us guests) but, more importantly, you show the world you have no respect for yourself, so you deserve no respect from anyone else (and don't worry about getting any from me -- you won't, and I'm not too shy to tell you so).

So (1) I am enthusiastically in favor of Jimbo's getting rid of anyone whose behavior he doesn't like, although I can't claim the credit for getting him to do it, and (2) I did not leave because I was offended by TMC's username but, rather, because I was offended by the Wikipedians who pretend to see some social importance in TMC's misconduct. I say "pretend" because if you really believed all that shit you were shoveling about his right to free speech, you would have upheld my right to put animated gifs in the articles. That you won't tolerate a waving American flag in an article on American history but get your knickers in a knot over removing an obscene username shows you for what you are, and that's what I was ashamed to be associated with. And that's why I resent NetEsq's using my name to bolster credibility for his pro-TMC ravings about "censorship," although I am flattered that he would think my credibility in this community could be enough to outweigh his notions' obvious lack of merit. -- isis 21:01 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)

My Response to Isis

<< I am, indeed, a strong advocate of 1st Amendment freedom of speech, but that has nothing to do with this situation. >>

I wholeheartedly disagree. You are a strong advocate of freedom of speech so long as you get to decide what words are spoken by others.

<< Wikipedia is not a public forum, and there is no "right" of free speech (or anything else) here. >>

In the context of constitutional law, then (strictly speaking) you are right. However, the right of free speech is not something that is granted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Rather, freedom of speech is an inalienable right with which all men (and women) are endowed by their Creator.

Some people have a hard time understanding this.

<< This is Jimbo's private website, and he has invited us all to use it with very few (too few, as far as I'm concerned) guidelines for what is acceptable conduct here. >>

While Jimbo Wales is free to run Wikipedia as he sees fit, Wikipedia cannot be characterized as a "private" Web site. Rather, Jimbo has gone out of his way to make Wikipedia a free and open community resource. Indeed, the term "free encyclopedia" is a clear and unequivocal statement in re the freedoms which Wikipedians can and should expect to enjoy should they choose to join Wikipedia and contribute content.

Some people have a hard time understanding this.

<< If you were a guest in his home, would you think it was okay to shit in the middle of the floor or to burn the house down or to steal his stereo equipment? >>

I should expect more from a woman of your education and experience than frivolous hyperbole and vulgar expressions. Indeed, what conduct of mine is comparable to "shitting in the middle of the floor"? Seldom have I encountered a more clear cut case of the guilty pot calling the innocent kettle black.

<< I am enthusiastically in favor of Jimbo's getting rid of anyone whose behavior he doesn't like, although I can't claim the credit for getting him to do it >>

Indeed. I should have expected more from a woman of your education and experience.

<< I did not leave because I was offended by TMC's username but, rather, because I was offended by the Wikipedians who pretend to see some social importance in TMC's misconduct. >>

Something which I had nothing to do with until after you left, so why was I selected as the victim for your tirade? Moreover, in what "misconduct" has TMC been engaged? A careful review of his contributions indicates that he has conducted himself with remarkable aplomb, even in the face of arbitrary censorship.

[Added: Incidentally, you claim that you did not leave Wikipedia because of TMC's chosen username. However, Jimbo's decision to change that username is what brought you back. Meanwhile, your "real" reason for leaving remains unchanged -- i.e., the defense of TMC's chosen username by other Wikipedians. Indeed, I did not come to TMC's defense until after you had departed, which means that things have actually gotten worse for you. Would you care to comment on and/or explain this apparent contradiction? -- NetEsq 17:48 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)]

BTW, if you are referring to TMC's choice of the username "Throbbing Monster Cock," that does *NOT* qualify as misconduct. Ask any 100 Wikipedians how they feel about that username. Five will say, "That's a very clever double entendre." Five will say, "That's puerile and vulgar." And 90 will say, "Who cares?" Of course, these projected statistics assume that these 100 Wikipedians are familiar with the use of the word cock to refer to a man's penis.

If there is misconduct afoot in Wikipedia, it is among those people who advocate the censorship of usernames which in and of themselves do not take on an offensive meaning, Wikipedians who themselves frequently use words like "shit" and "fuck," words which the United States Supreme Court has ajudicated as worthy of censorship.

Some people have a hard time understanding this.

<< [I]f you really believed all that shit you were shoveling about [TMC's] right to free speech, you would have upheld my right to put animated gifs in the articles. >>

Had this issue been brought to my attention, I would have expressed my support for your position. But given your predisposition to attack those who so much as question whether you would support censorship at Wikipedia, I think it would be best to let you speak for yourself.

<< That you won't tolerate a waving American flag in an article on American history but get your knickers in a knot over removing an obscene username shows you for what you are, and that's what I was ashamed to be associated with. >>

Can you cite *ONE* legal authority which supports your implied assertion that the word cock is obscene? _Cf._ FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (http://www.usscplus.com/online/index.asp?case=4380726), 438 U.S. 726, 752 (1978). ("[T]he word cock is a half-way dirty word, 50% dirty -- dirty half the time, depending on what you mean by it.")

<< And that's why I resent NetEsq's using my name to bolster credibility for his pro-TMC ravings about "censorship," although I am flattered that he would think my credibility in this community could be enough to outweigh his notions' obvious lack of merit. >>

Clearly, I gave you too much credit. Nothing that I have written about TMC's username can be fairly characterized as "ravings." Can you say the same thing about what you have written?

-- NetEsq 23:44 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Name Police

Well, the slippery slope of censorship continues to create problems for Wikipedia. User:Cumguzzler aka User:Cockgoblin pushed some buttons, and now the Wikipedia busybodies are persecuting User:CrucifiedChrist for his choice of username. By far the most amusing "solutions" that have been proposed are displaying a bizzare message (http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-January/000860.html) to people signing up for Wikipedia logins and the more "modest proposal" of creating the institution of a Wikipedia Name Police (http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-January/000863.html). Irony of ironies: Looking at the edit log for CrucifiedChrist indicates that his choice of username was an expression of faith rather than blasphemy.

Way to go, Wikipedians.

The Ongoing Debate Over Wikipedia's Policy on Offensive Usernames

An ongoing debate (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_offensive_usernames) over Wikipedia's misguided policy on offensive usernames reminds me of various debates that I've had with creation scientists over the Theory of Evolution. To be clear, I think that Jimbo Wales has the right to impose any policy that he wants to impose regarding usernames. However, the present policy falls far short of the strict scrutiny that Jimbo speaks of in his Statement of Principles. In any event, the page containing the content of the debate has grown to 32k, so any further debate will have to wait until someone archives the present content. Meanwhile, I will post my thoughts here.

The way that I would frame the present debate is: Does Wikipedia need a policy on offensive usernames? And I don't think it does. In fact, I think the present policy constitutes an attractive nuisance for vandals; it also creates an atmosphere of intolerance where offense is taken whether or not offense is intended.

The underlying problem is vandalism. Nothing more; nothing less. And Wikipedia has dealt with vandals before by allowing individual sysops to impose temporary bans of a particular IP address. All we need to do now is extend the powers of sysops to include the ability to impose temporary bans of particular usernames, leaving individual sysops with the same discretion that they once had to protect Wikipedia from vandals; if a particular sysop abuses his or her discretion, he or she can and should be held accountable.

I think Jimbo's unprecedented decision to implement a permanent ban on the username Throbbing Monster Cock was a big mistake. At the time that he did this, there was a healthy debate going on as to whether that particular username constituted vandalism. A temporary ban would have allowed this debate to continue and tested the mettle of Throbbing Monster Cock's commitment to that particular username; the permanent ban that Jimbo imposed swiftly ended this debate and emboldened Wikipedia's censors. As a result, Wikipedia can no longer be considered a free and open community. -- NetEsq 19:44 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

The Return of Arno

It has come to my attention that Arno has appealed to Jimbo Wales in the ongoing debate in re offensive usernames on Wikipedia. Arno and I crossed paths before when he attempted to get the Aria Giovanni article removed from Wikipedia. Clearly, this is Arno's attempt to provoke me in the context of a policy where I am in disagreement with the powers that be.

This is yet another test of Wikipedia's purported openness. To wit, will Wikipedia now deteriorate into a culture of forced politeness where dissenting views are silenced by an appeal to Jimbo Wales? Truth be told, it's all the same to me. -- NetEsq 02:43 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

This is a good description of what happened recently w.r.t the various people objecting to User:RK's railroading. [Unattributed comment from "142"]

Update -- In the talk section (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_offensive_usernames&diff=0&oldid=1366883) of Wikipedia:No_offensive_usernames, Arno writes, "Yet another example of Netesq's bullying." This some four months after I posted the following comment on that page:

It's been over two months since Arno's attempt to provoke me into a rematch over his attempts to censor the Aria Giovanni article. Apparently, his complaints have fallen on deaf ears, so he is attempting to provoke me into another confrontation -- yet again -- by posting the parenthetical notice that my "response was the subject of a complaint to the owners of this site." Haven't we all got better things to do than play these petty games? -- NetEsq 15:04 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Given that there is no real merit to Arno's complaints, and given that Arno is clearly attempting to bait me into a personal confrontation, once again, I will confine my responses to here on my Talk page. Actually, there really isn't any need for a substantive response, as Arno's petty and confrontational personal style speaks for itself. But there is a need to point out that Wikipedians like Arno can create a petty and confrontational environment here on Wikipedia, and -- given the current management structure of Wikipedia -- those who respond in kind are often the ones who get "corrected." This is wrong, and Jimbo Wales needs to come up with better solutions than the ones that he currently employs. -- NetEsq 14:51, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

All true. [Unattributed comment from "142"]

Uncle Ed Chimes In

I was reviewing references to my byline on Google when I stumbled upon the commentary (http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Freedom_of_choosing_a_username_debate&diff=3414&oldid=3409) of Mr. Ed on Meta Wikipedia in re the now dormant debate in re offensive user names. I was tempted to ignore it, but then I found myself with 15 minutes or so to kill before I filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court tomorrow, so I thought I'd respond to Uncle Ed here on my Talk Page.

Mr. Ed said:

Not only is NetEsq misleading us here at Wikipedia.org -- but he also wrote a really strange account of a similar incident at another website. I'm not going to go into it any more, other than to say that I'd rather have Isis as a contributor than NetEsq. If people want to come into Jimbo's house, they better not make smelly messes.

Now, let's get back to building the encyclopedia. -- Ed Poor

Hey, Mr. Ed . . . I don't have any idea what "similar incident at another website" you are referring to, nor do I care. In fact, as a general rule, I'm usually too busy minding my own business (http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1190) to care what most other people might think, say, or do, except to the extent that someone might bear false witness against me and make snide comments about me in a public forum. So, get back to building Wikipedia, and I'll get back to ignoring you and the rather litigious [former] Wikipedian whose contributions you value so highly. -- NetEsq 05:34 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

NPOV and noteworthy views in practice at wikipedia

Hi. I've noticed in some of your recent talk posts that you advocate the position that "if a noteworthy person [or] group of people makes a factual assertion, it is our job to report that factual assertion and the factual assertions made by other noteworthy persons or groups, taking great care to note who said what and leaving the reader to determine the credibility of competing authorities." I agree that that position should be a part of NPOV, but there are a number of wikipedians who oppose this. They argue that: 1) it would be too burdensome too include ALL "noteworthy" (or some similar standard) views on a wiki topic; 2) it would (as if by some kind of default) lend equal validity to less normative or accepted views; and/or 3) the controversy would detract from the article. I think the articles The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Controversies regarding Mormonism is a good model to use as a way of handling topic X and alternate views of topic X in wikipedia. We should work together to advocate the "all noteworthy (counter)views" standard. B 21:38 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am astonished to hear that there is a significant and/or noteworthy group of Wikipedians who oppose what I have always considered to be a very straightforward interpretation of Wikipedia's NPOV Policy. However, as I reflect upon the many NPOV disputes in which I have been involved, it seems clear that there are many Wikipedians who really don't understand what NPOV means in the context of Wikipedia, and I agree that we should work together to advocate the "all noteworthy views" standard. -- NetEsq 02:38 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Helpful (hopefully) to move the Creationism material

Thank you for undertaking the move of some material to the theology page. When controversies like that happen, some people speed up, and others slow down. In that instance, I lost a clear perception of how I would be allowed, or would be competent to help. So, thank you for your help, helping me help. Mkmcconn 17:56 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Reviewing your commentary on the Creationism talk page made me realize that creationism had little or nothing to do with creation science, but it was Eloquence who actually suggested the creation (pun intended) of the aptly named new article for Creationism (theology). Eloquence has a well-deserved reputation as one of Wikipedia's heavy hitters, primarily because he understands Wikipedia's NPOV policy so well. I think you will find him very agreeable and easy to work with. -- NetEsq 18:13 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How do you regard the way that these articles have developed, now? I envision the Doctrine of Creation article moving past the creationism debate, and perhaps providing material to merge into Creationism. Creationism (theology) has been given over to non-traducianism; but can be expanded into a report of its relevance in the Abortion debate. Is it progress? — Mkmcconn 23:06 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A lot of water has passed under the bridge since I first joined those who were editing the creationism article, but I definitely see progress. My biggest frustration has been that my sympathies lie with the evolutionists, but I still want to see a balanced presentation of all noteworthy viewpoints in re creationism, including those that have nothing whatsoever to do with creation science. Most recently, Miguel has been guiding the development of the creationism article in a more progressive direction, particularly with his reinstatement of the article located at creationism (theology). While I don't consider myself an expert on theology, I have added some public domain material to that article that should serve as a good starting point for more informed Wikipedians, such as yourself, to build on. -- NetEsq 15:00, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sysop Education

Netesq, your input is requested to round out the Wikipedia:Sysop reading list. If you can spare the time, your experience would be of some value in rounding out articles here on various phenomena of troll-friendly wikis/directories/blogs, the so-called soft security measures often advised to deal with offenders more "socially". EofT

And the limits of those of course, especially when faced with libel, simple lies, and claims to have authority that one does not have, e.g. "SYSOP ALERT", "Risking a ban", defining "hatespeech", labelling those annoying you (say with the truth) as performing "harassment". I don't ask for legal opinion of course but rather a good set of links to definitions so that one is drawing on neutral sources for making policy on what to tolerate. EofT

Finally, on these governance issues, here's an interesting quote:

"Increasingly systems of consensus decision making rely on written communication: email, instant messaging, wikis, weblogs, and yes even paper and fax. These introduce challenges not present in face-and-voice-based meeting systems. They also make communication across wider areas in space, time and language ability possible. It seems impossible to avoid written consensus procedures (http://radio.weblogs.com/0120875/stories/2003/05/04/writtenConsensusProcedures.html)."

Greetings, EofT. I've been following your ongoing dispute with RK, and I'm still not sure that I know the whole story, but (from what I can tell) you seem pretty unhappy with the way that Jimbo Wales has been handling things, and you don't seem to be the least bit afraid of saying so. NetEsq

In particular, Wales is behaving like every king that ever lost his head. But, worse than that, he is sanctioning outright racism. [Unattributed comment]

Sanctioning outright racism? That sounds like a bum rap to me. -- NetEsq 17:20, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Systematic support for an individual who was promoting racist views of Islam, and exploiting racist assumptions to read neutral comments as a "death threat". That is racism. His actions sanction it. Look into it. There are certainly a lot of other incidents where systemic bias has been ignored or someone guilty of it has been favoured. [Unattributed comment]

FWIW, I took a few days off from editing Wikipedia, fully expecting that Jimbo would have done something about RK's behavior by the time that I got back. Astonishingly enough, I found Jimbo focusing his corrective efforts on *YOU* when I returned. NetEsq

This proves something, doesn't it? Why would he systematically favour someone who fawns to him, praises him, etc., over someone who says, blankly, "make a choice". There is no "corrective" effort to be applied from those in the wrong to those in the right. [Unattributed comment]

It proves something, although I'm not sure what. I admire your willingness to make a quixotic stand on principle, and I am disappointed that Jimbo chose expediency over justice. I am even more disapointed that RK's hysteria has reached the point where he sees death threats where none exist, and even more disappointed that Jimbo and many other Wikipedians have clearly bought into this hysteria. -- NetEsq 17:24, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Those death threats are "seen" strictly because of racism. Wales ignores that out of convenience to himself, not wishing to see the power structure (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/power_structure) challenged. That is sanctioning outright racism. [Unattributed comment by "142"]

The non-existent death threat was labeled a death threat because some very credulous Wikipedians listened to a small handfull of alarmists who genuinely believed that you were threatening RK with some sort of physical harm. The accusation stuck because Jimbo was looking for a quick fix to an unpleasant situation. In any event, Jimbo's negligence in this matter does not mean that he is "sanctioning outright racism." -- NetEsq 21:59, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is not the first time that I have seen the wrong person being taken to task here at Wikipedia, and I doubt it will be the last. "To be, or not to be. That is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?" -- NetEsq 05:12, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good question. I would urge you to focus on out of process deletions, and ad hominem argument, if you care about this project at all. See note below.

Outrageous and racist censorship

In response to my introduction at the top of this Talk page, the following comment was introduced:

Really? Look into recent activity regarding http://wikipedia.org/wiki/bushmeat - then ask if it can possibly remain so under this kind of process abuse

Netesq, you may wish to look into some rather outrageous out-of-process deletions on the EN Wikipedia. http://wikipedia.org/wiki/bushmeat in particular - this is probably a sign that the project is now on its down phase, but also a sign that now may be the time to push the power issue:

It appears that someone has restored your version of the bushmeat article, which is somewhat emblematic of how most Wikipedia disputes are resolved -- i.e., through the passage of time and (more importantly) through the involvement of more Wikipedians. -- NetEsq 17:43, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am particularly revolted at attacks on several people's honest attempts to lay out the Bushmeat question - particularly as it relates to http://wikipedia.org/wiki/ape_genocide (another out-of-process deletion) - as it involves the extermination of helpless mute beings quite unable to defend themselves, or to engage in the technological escalation which is the stock in trade of those censoring these articles. It's quite ironic that they attack these articles, really, as it is just this technological escalation (rifles vs. gorilla hands etc.) that causes the ape genocide to begin with. At this very moment on the radio, I hear that the orang-utan will be extinct in 20 years, and that the logs exported from the deforestation of their home are being bought right now by the likes of Wales. Who, doing nothing about such out of process deletion, seems not to care. I conclude, along with his "read" of the "telling moderate Muslims what RK thinks of them" comment as a "death threat", that Wales is a racist.

Your conclusion is not logical. You seem quite focused on the bushmeat issue. Perhaps your focus has clouded your judgment. -- NetEsq 17:43, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. The ape genocide is the purest expression of evil possible for those with any empathy towards their own ape body. One may justify slaughtering human children at least with the Mideast-style logic that "they will grow up to become rivals or enemies". One can't justify killing AND EATING emotionally identical individual beings of human-child-like intelligence with that logic. It is just the ultimate evil - to wipe out near relatives simply because they are incapable of fighting back or pleading their case. Review ethical views of Peter Singer if you wish to explore this more.

I trust you will advocate sane courses of action with respect, at least, to articles authored by multiple parties over a long period of time, that are on issues that are generally recognized as both real and important. [Unattributed comment by "142"]

The ethical implications of causing death and saving lives are anything but simple and straightforward, and the fact that someone does not understand or agree with your ethical views in this regard does not make that person a racist. Ignorant, perhaps, but not racist. -- NetEsq 22:26, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Generally speaking, my advocacy on Wikipedia policy is limited to stating my opinions as clearly as possible. The vast majority of Wikipedians seem to favor an authoritarian power structure, and they deserve to get it, good and hard. -- NetEsq 17:43, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And they do certainly get it. They forget that a larger authoritarian structure consisting of the DMCA, Mel Gibson's lawyers, etc., exists, and take unkindly to comments such as those User:RK published about Gibson.

In case you have not been following the ongoing saga of RK, Eloquence temporarily banned him from Wikipedia for vandalism. Consequently, internal scrutiny of RK has heightened, and he no longer poses that much of a threat to the intellectual integrity of Wikipedia. (I predicted that something like this would happen when I first stumbled upon RK a few months ago.) No doubt there are (or will be) other Wikipedians like RK, and no doubt they will eventually find themselves ostracized and/or scrutinized in much the same way. NetEsq 22:26, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is far more important than who can edit on an ongoing basis, or even who is systematically attacked for doing so - a Wikipedia with no article on the bushmeat issue is the soul of racism - our nearest hominid relatives being victims of this in a very brutal and stark way - what we have, in effect, with this kind of article targetted for deletion, is apologists for cannibalism, being protected by apologists for racism. Appalling. Evil. And worthy of every effort we can make to end it. Regardless of cost to our reputations, shall we say. [Unattributed comment.]

Based on one expedient and ill-advised decision, you have drawn two illogical conclusions about the character of a man who is caught in the middle of a crossfire. As noted above, your contributions to the bushmeat article seem to have been restored. Similarly, I am confident that the truth about RK will out. What concerns me is how many Wikipedians will simply walk away from editing disputes shaking their heads in disgust because of the tactics employed by RK and his ilk. I don't think Jimbo truly appreciates the larger impact of his arbitration tactics on the morale of conscientious contributors. -- NetEsq 17:43, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

They amount to censorship. [Unattributed comment by "142"]

You will get no argument from me. I am not the least bit pleased with the current system of dispute resolution -- i.e., run and tell Jimbo -- nor am I the least bit pleased to see that a formal power structure is now evolving to "mediate" disputes between Wikipedians. Mark my words, the "Wikiquette Committee" will be captured by a small group of control freaks who have nothing better to do with their time than tell other people what to think, say, or do. -- NetEsq 22:26, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Tnx for the format

Tnx for the orderly format of your talk page. This is like the reception room of a prosperous attorney, instead of a noisy gymnasium. [smile] --Jerzy 17:33, 2003 Oct 27 (UTC)

dispute come edit war

You seem to have writ, on Talk:Anti-Semitism, "... the present good faith dispute come edit war ...". Could it be your spell-checker converted "cum", meaning "with", "coupled to", into "come"? (Of course, other parsings, with understood words to be supplied by the reader, are plausible.)

But tnx for the sound, moderate advice to all, when it appears needed. --Jerzy 17:33, 2003 Oct 27 (UTC)

The syntax is correct (albeit obscure) meaning "Good faith dispute that is becoming (or has become) an edit war." This is not unlike another correct syntax that often confuses people, "The truth will out." (I.e., "The truth will be known.") -- NetEsq 18:58, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Netesq:Problem user?

I, for one, have noted your level-headed replies to Liftarn's comments. I'm impressed at the way you keep you cool. -- Cyan 20:40, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing. -- NetEsq 21:12, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Additional Comments or Questions

If you wish to add a question or comment, please do so below, separating it with a horizontal rule and giving it an appropriate subtitle. -- NetEsq 17:48 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)

lower it from 48 hours, to one hour, and I might support it. Then if it happens right away again...perhaps 6 hours. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Thanks! I worked it out yesterday and added the other one to the page! Mark Richards 21:44, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

hate speech

Hi, I appreciate your comment on my user page. I recall admiring much of your work on Wikipedia and appreciate your giving my comments some attention. Bear in mind that like many I use talk pages as a way to hash out my own thoughts, in dialogue with others. But to simplify my position at this moment: first, I don't believe the state should regulate hate speech because a free society has to tolerate why even most people would call hate speech as a price for open discourse. BUT just because something is legal doesn't mean that it must be permitted everywhere. I have no objection to a store requiring me to wear a shirt to enter, for example, or parents not allowing their children to curse -- the state shouldn't do it, but individuals and private (by which I simply mnean not "public" in a legal sense) communities can do it. So -- I don't think the Wikipedia community should tolerate hate speech. There are two different kinds of reasons I take this stance. First, my substantive reasons, I DO think we can pretty easily define what hate speech is, and I believe that it categorically cannot contribute to the kind of debate Wikipedia requires to develop an encyclopedia. Also, there are pleanty of hate-speech websites and I think that not only is there no need to give hate speech another place on the web, I think it does a disservice to wikipedia's reputation as a serious encyclopedia. My second kind of reason is perhaps procedural, I am not sure how to characterize it. But our policy already condemns slurs based on racial, sexual, ethnic identity (see Wikipedia: No personal attacks) BUT this is against personal. I define hate speech (such as what WHEELER engaged in) to be impersonal and collective. I think our policy should cover such impersonal and collective slurs, and not just personal ones, and it does not clearly right now. Hope this helps, Slrubenstein

In re no personal attacks, I respectfully direct your attention to the minority opposition opinion on the talk page set forth by Lee Daniel Crocker (with which I concurred):

"Obviously physical threats are out of place, as are impugning someone's race, gender, nationality, etc., but character and credibility are fair game. Just blindly calling someone an idiot without explanation or reason serves no purpose, but even those [situations] should be judged case-by-case. All 'zero tolerance' rules are bad; human beings should exercise judgment, and not be afraid to stand behind those judgments."

I think it's fair to say that you and I both stand opposed to hate speech, that we both tolerate it as the cost of living in a free society, and that we both agree that the best remedy for bad speech is good speech. So why not employ the best remedy for hate speech? Why create yet another rule that can be misconstrued, misapplied, and debated ad infinitum, ad nauseum by the emerging class of Wikipedian bureaucrats?

IMHO, Wikipedia's ever-increasing focus on rules and procedures, and the ever-increasing focus on enforcement of those rules and procedures, has done nothing whatsoever to increase the quality of Wikipedia articles. Indeed, I think these rules and procedures are a clear and present obstacle to producing high quality articles, which is why I remain a firm believer in ignoring all rules. // NetEsq 20:17, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The question is, "what is a rule?" We do not have police or courts, like a state, nor do we have referees or umpires like a basketball or baseball game. We have a largely self-policing community with a large group of people who have the power to impose certain sanctions if either a general consensus develops, or if the arbitration committee makes a ruling. In this context, our "rules" are, I think, really principles to which disputants can appeal for legitimacy as they try to orchestrate some consensus. I also think "rules" are explicitly stated values that guide well-intended newbies. I certainly don't think our rules can or should be understood the same way we understand rules of chess or state or federal statutes. Anyway, given that this is how rules seem to (and in my view ought to) function here, I see no problem with making "no hatespeech" a rule -- educate newbies as to what it is and to avoid it, and let people on the mediation committee and arbitration committee know that it is one more thing to look for in establishing some pattern of abuse. Why not? Slrubenstein

<< The question is, "what is a rule?" . . . [O]ur "rules" are, I think, really principles to which disputants can appeal for legitimacy as they try to orchestrate some consensus. >>

Whatever you and I think the rules can or should be, I have found that Wikipedia's rules function primarily as a vehicle through which "right-thinking" Wikipedians impose their will upon other Wikipedians, a phenomenon that I have witnessed at other online communities and I now see occurring with ever-increasing frequency and regularity at Wikipedia. Indeed, I recently witnessed one high-profile Wikipedian putting on an air of authority and chastising you for using a "private" User Talk Page to discuss an issue rather than the "public" Talk Page that he deemed the appropriate forum for said discussion, citing (once again) "the rules." If you had been a newbie, or a Wikipedian of less resolute intellectual stature, you would probably be less certain of the validity of your position, snapped to attention, and knuckled under.

This brings me back to my original query regarding the best remedy for hate speech: Why not employ that remedy? Why impose a less effective remedy that invites all sorts of perverse and unintended consequences? // NetEsq 17:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If by best remedy you mean "good speech," I of course agree with you. My experience is people usually appeal to other remedies (mediation or arbitration) only when they have tried "good speech" and feel exhausted or frustrated. Even the person who chastized me for writing on someone's talk page was using more speech, not mediation or arbitration, or banning. I think more speech is everyone's first choice. But even when using more speech, it helps to have shared values. "No personal attacks" is one of them. I think "no hate speech" should be included too. Slrubenstein

ODP

Thanks for your cordial note. Perhaps I was rather strong. While you do tend to revert a lot, I was pretty impressed by the results of that mediation with Stephen Gilbert (shame he's gone - I think that was the most successful mediation I've seen yet). It's a tricky topic.

It might be worth calling in another mediator to finish the job, as I think there's still a couple of disputed areas - several more if kctipton decides to stick around. On that note, I cautioned him against making large changes to the article without discussion - it was asking for trouble.

By the way, some anon seems to have something against you, too...not only does he keep removing the XODP link, but he kept putting a VFD notice on your userpage, until I blocked him.

You might be interested to know that I'm now an XODP editor myself, having walked out some months ago in protest at certain policies. The openness of Wikipedia is much more my style. Ambivalenthysteria 10:18, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on David F. Prenatt, Jr.

See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/David_F._Prenatt,_Jr.

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Netesq"

User talk:Netesq

Welcome from Maveric149

No Legal Opinions or Legal Advice from NetEsq

From the Village Pump, a post by Isis

My Response to Isis

The Wikipedia Name Police

The Ongoing Debate Over Wikipedia's Policy on Offensive Usernames

The Return of Arno

Uncle Ed Chimes In

NPOV and noteworthy views in practice at wikipedia

Helpful (hopefully) to move the Creationism material

Sysop Education

Outrageous and racist censorship

Tnx for the format

dispute come edit war

Netesq:Problem user?

Additional Comments or Questions

hate speech

ODP

Wikipedia article on David F. Prenatt, Jr.

Article Licensing

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools