Conspiracy To Violate Copyright, What's Wrong With This Picture ? Options

You guessed it — JustZapitGuy is in it.

As David Gerard has previously said, checking the edits and making them again in your own name is the way to do that. Yes, tedious and to an outside view somewhat silly, but when we ban people *we ban them*, if we think they should be allowed to come along and edit some then *we should not ban them*.

You need to remember that the source of this problem is not our behaviour, it's theirs. They are the ones evading a ban. They are the ones deliberately gaming the system and disrupting Wikipedia to make their point. Sockpuppets of banned users correcting typos as a way of building up an edit history is *not actually a good thing* because the aim is to do some damage that is massively greater than the benefit of the trivial typo fixing.

Policy on banned users says that we should revert all edits made by banned users after banning. And we should, even if (as with Arch Coal) we then go and rewrite a whole article from scratch, from sources. I do not subscribe to the idea of being "a little bit banned".

Guy (JzG)

Guy Chapman, Re: Featured Editors, 16 Nov 2007 UTC 09:57

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 17th November 2007, 4:56am

This is the ultimate in Wikipediot logic. "Well, yes, we KNOW this is technically against our license, and we KNOW that it looks silly to everyone else, but we must be vindictive against those we ban!"

This is the ultimate in Wikipediot logic. "Well, yes, we KNOW this is technically against our license, and we KNOW that it looks silly to everyone else, but we must be vindictive against those we ban!"

I don't see anything technical about it. All an editor gets when they contribute under GFDL is attribution. If they have removed substantial edits (as is the case of a serious scholar such as Jonny) and then replaced substantially the same material (has that actually happened yet?) to deprive the banned editor of attribution without degrading the article it is the most vicious and fundamental violation of the GFDL possible. It is also blatant plagiarism.

It is the kind of blunder only a cultish true believer could make or even suggest.

I suppose they could get their GC to give them a workshop on this stuff, but he's probably afraid that JzG would ban him if he did.

Jonny

You need to remember that the source of this problem is not our
behaviour, it's theirs. They are the ones evading a ban. They are
the ones deliberately gaming the system and disrupting Wikipedia to
make their point. Sockpuppets of banned users correcting typos as a
way of building up an edit history is *not actually a good thing*
because the aim is to do some damage that is massively greater than
the benefit of the trivial typo fixing.

Policy on banned users says that we should revert all edits made by
banned users after banning. And we should, even if (as with Arch
Coal) we then go and rewrite a whole article from scratch, from
sources. I do not subscribe to the idea of being "a little bit
banned".

Guy (JzG)

What a load of crap, only someone taking Wikipedia as some forum will write something like this. A banned user who correct typo's is doing something positive. No one has a mind reader reading that persons intention. What sort of disruption is he talking about? Something which has yet to occur? I didn't know any policy says we should revert all edits by banned users. I thought what mattered is the content of the edits no matter who made the edits. The policy actually say that it can be and not should be, unless it has changed.

Not everyone were banned because of disruption in articles mainspace, in fact most of those who disrupt articles mainspace get away without a ban in the name of almighty NPA. Also, not every socks have ill intent in the ban invasion. I have invaded my ban to counter the disruption of another user who was invading his ban also. And then a second time to fix stuff from a disruptor who creat countless numbers of articles FORK. I will probably invade my ban again if massive disruption is done which would harm because of Wikipedia's inflated credibility.

What a load of crap, only someone taking Wikipedia as some forum will write something like this. A banned user who correct typo's is doing something positive. No one has a mind reader reading that persons intention. What sort of disruption is he talking about? Something which has yet to occur? I didn't know any policy says we should revert all edits by banned users. I thought what mattered is the content of the edits no matter who made the edits. The policy actually say that it can be and not should be, unless it has changed.

Not everyone were banned because of disruption in articles mainspace, in fact most of those who disrupt articles mainspace get away without a ban in the name of almighty NPA. Also, not every socks have ill intent in the ban invasion. I have invaded my ban to counter the disruption of another user who was invading his ban also. And then a second time to fix stuff from a disruptor who creat countless numbers of articles FORK. I will probably invade my ban again if massive disruption is done which would harm because of Wikipedia's inflated credibility.

Thank you for that unsolicited moment of consenual validation! I had once felt sure that when I first started working on Wikipedia the Recurrent Mantra was some form of words to the effect that «The value of an edit is in the edit and not in the identity of the editor». I remember being struck by this because of its analogy to the teachings of some organized religions that the validity of a sacrament is in the divine grace conferred thereby and not in the person of the priest who is merely the instrument of the ceremony. And this Espoused Doctrine (ED) was applied to edits of all kinds, whether contributions to article space or comments and questions in dialogue and project spaces.

But I hadn't heard any Wikipedians talk that way in such long time that I was beginning to think that I had merely dreamed it.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 17th November 2007, 5:54am

I suppose "comment on content, not the contributor" only applies to some Wikipedians, eh? Certainly not, JzG!

the teachings of some organized religions that the validity of a sacrament is in the divine grace conferred thereby and not in the person of the priest who is merely the instrument of the ceremony.

Obviously. I never took you to be a sacerdotalist.

This is the ultimate in Wikipediot logic. "Well, yes, we KNOW this is technically against our license, and we KNOW that it looks silly to everyone else, but we must be vindictive against those we ban!"

I don't see any technical about it. All an editor gets when they contribute under GFDL is attribution. If they have removed substantial edits (as is the case of a serious scholar such as Jonny) and then replaced substantially the same material (has that actually happened yet?) to deprive the banned editor of attribution without degrading the article it is the most vicious and fundamental violation of the GFDL possible. It is also blatant plagiarism.

It is the kind of blunder only a cultish true believer could make or even suggest.

In three years of contributing to this increasingly dysfunctional project, I heard only a few very brief discussions of what GFDL means and how it guides and constrains user behavior. Compare 3RR, the interpretation of which was frequently debated at length and in detail…yet which one has a meaning in the world outside of Wikipedia? Which is the matter of ethical integrity, and which is the arbitrary rule? I don't recall seeing anyone blocked, banned or desysoped for violating it, or for plagiarism generally. Say what you will of incivility, "wikilawyering," tendentious editing…at least they're legal, and not obviously unethical. This underscores once again Wikipedia's desperate need for sound professional advice and adult supervision.

You guessed it — JustZapitGuy is in it.

As David Gerard has previously said, checking the edits and making them again in your own name is the way to do that. Yes, tedious and to an outside view somewhat silly, but when we ban people *we ban them*, if we think they should be allowed to come along and edit some then *we should not ban them*.
Guy (JzG)

Guy Chapman, Re: Featured Editors, 16 Nov 2007 UTC 09:57

Jonny

Man, they really don't understand anything about copyright and the GFDL, do they?

This one statement makes JzG open to legal attack. Is there any way to make this into a permanent weblink so they can't wipe it clean?

This could be important...

Man, they really don't understand anything about copyright and the GFDL, do they?

This one statement makes JzG open to legal attack. Is there any way to make this into a permanent weblink so they can't wipe it clean?

This could be important...

I'll tell you what else is important. He's using the "Arch Coal" debacle as an example, and it's a totally incorrect example. Wikipedia Review was not banned when it authored the Arch Coal article. Not only that, we authored it and posted it ON OUR OWN WEBSITE, and it was User:J.Smith who actually published interactively served it up on Wikipedia. If only JzG would read this before he spouted more of his lies.

Also, while you're reading that discourse, note how Jimbo abandons the discussion, since he doesn't have a good answer for any of his original ideas.

Greg

Another flagrant GFDL violation is List of Fellows of the Royal Society. This was originally List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, which was finally deleted on the third AfD after surviving the first two (when even Jayjg voted keep) and a DRV. After it was deleted, the text was taken by admin Scientizzle. He deleted all the references and re-posted it with no history. Thus all the work to establish that these people were Fellows, their subject areas, date of election, etc, which should be attributed to the relevant editors, is now attributed to Scientizzle.

And they've done a lousy job of turning it into a list of all Fellows. The great majority of names are still those on the list as originally posted (presumably all the Jewish ones).

I have no idea whether there is any applicable law on the subject, but it occurs to me that there is something unethical about appropriating and adopting the intellectual property of a contributing editor whilst banning them and redacting all record of attribution of their prior contributions.

I have no idea whether there is any applicable law on the subject, but it occurs to me that there is something unethical about appropriating and adopting the intellectual property of a contributing editor whilst banning them and redacting all record of attribution of their prior contributions.

The fons et origo at issue in this consideration is the normative principle commonly known as «Credit Where Credit Is Due (CWCID)». This principle is an essential active ingredient in every Virtue Of The Intellect (VOTI) and cannot be alienated from the very idea of intellectual good.

It is my common sense understanding that the Laws and Licenses of Civil Societies respect and support the aesthetic, ethical, and logical principle of «Credit Where Credit Is Due», making it accordingly a legal principle in all of those Civil Societies.

But it is not my job or place to argue the details of the Law. It is enough for me to argue from the normative principles that precede and validate the Law.

If the Law does not respect and support these principles, then the Law is an Ass.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 17th November 2007, 4:10pm

To my mind, the Law is already an ass, independently of any illustrative examples supplied by Wikipedia. But that's a rant of a different pallor.

To my mind, the Law is already an ass, independently of any illustrative examples supplied by Wikipedia. But that's a rant of a different pallor.

I must be on some kinda Platonic jag this morning, 'cause I can see the Law as nothing Butt a secular human production that does what it can to emulate the eternal essentials of Divine Justice, and so it's an Ass that has to be led over its Bridge with much coaxing and carroting, if not Gilt O'er with Φeromes and Flowers.

Don't worry — it's nothing another cup o java won't fix …

Jon Awbrey

I have no idea whether there is any applicable law on the subject, but it occurs to me that there is something unethical about appropriating and adopting the intellectual property of a contributing editor whilst banning them and redacting all record of attribution of their prior contributions.

That's what I felt when my own created article was scrapped by a user and that he got away with 3RR because one of the reverts was by a banned member (me). I have no say even for the articles I have created or rewritten.

How many articles have been deprived of their creator? It is disrespectable not only unethical. I would have no problem if they delete the articles I have created, but that they restrict me to touch my own creations is like stealing.

Who in his right mind would release his knowledge like this to make it general knowledge if later he is deprived of working on it, and his editing of the article he created reverted as vandalism. Why not delete them all together?

I have no idea whether there is any applicable law on the subject, but it occurs to me that there is something unethical about appropriating and adopting the intellectual property of a contributing editor whilst banning them and redacting all record of attribution of their prior contributions.

That's what I felt when my own created article was scrapped by a user and that he got away with 3RR because one of the reverts was by a banned member (me). I have no say even for the articles I have created or rewritten.

How many articles have been deprived of their creator? It is disrespectable not only unethical. I would have no problem if they delete the articles I have created, but that they restrict me to touch my own creations is like stealing.

Who in his right mind would release his knowledge like this to make it general knowledge if later he is deprived of working on it, and his editing of the article he created reverted as vandalism. Why not delete them all together?

I think that we should start a thread where authors who created and remained the principal contributors to specific Wikipedia articles could certify their authorship of these articles, giving permission to all and sundry editors to blank them at any time.

This would serve as a form of protest and a wake↑call to Wikipediot Whorelords.

Come to think of it, now is a good time —

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 17th November 2007, 5:58pm

To my mind, the Law is already an ass, independently of any illustrative examples supplied by Wikipedia. But that's a rant of a different pallor.

You have said more truth here than you know.

As David Gerard has previously said, checking the edits and making them again in your own name is the way to do that. Yes, tedious and to an outside view somewhat silly, but when we ban people *we ban them*, if we think they should be allowed to come along and edit some then *we should not ban them*.

You need to remember that the source of this problem is not our behaviour, it's theirs. They are the ones evading a ban. They are the ones deliberately gaming the system and disrupting Wikipedia to make their point. Sockpuppets of banned users correcting typos as a way of building up an edit history is *not actually a good thing* because the aim is to do some damage that is massively greater than the benefit of the trivial typo fixing.

Policy on banned users says that we should revert all edits made by banned users after banning. And we should, even if (as with Arch Coal) we then go and rewrite a whole article from scratch, from sources. I do not subscribe to the idea of being "a little bit banned".

Guy (JzG)

Source. Guy Chapman, Re: Featured Editors, 16 Nov 2007 UTC 09:57.

Wikipedia's Deny Attribution (WP:DA) program is already in full swing.

For example, I started the Wikipedia article, The Simplest Mathematics, on Charles Sanders Peirce's 1902 paper of the same name, intending to develop it as I got time — time which I never got, of course. Here is the body of the article as I left it:

"The Simplest Mathematics" is the title of a paper by Charles Sanders Peirce, intended as Chapter 3 of his unfinished magnum opus The Minute Logic. The paper is dated January–February 1902 but was not published until the appearance of his Collected Papers, Volume 4 in 1933. Peirce introduces the subject of the paper as "certain extremely simple branches of mathematics which, owing to their utility in logic, have to be treated in considerable detail, although to the mathematician they are hardly worth consideration" (CP 4.227).

Wikipedia admin Kaldari deleted the article according to the preveiling rule of WP:P?WP?WDNNSP! (Process? What Process? We Don't Need No Stinkin Process!) and inserted the contents in the main article on CSP, destroying the author attribution and committing plagiarism all in one fell swoop.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 28th November 2007, 1:42pm