Donkey, meet klmarkee.
2009-06-18 16:57:02 Hello and Welcome to the Wiki. While it is nice to see that you are taking an interest in interest in editing the Almondwood page, it is generally frowned upon to edit other people's comments. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask, or read up on Wiki Ethics —EliYani
2009-06-18 17:49:03 Wiki Ethics is oxymoronic. As for J.P., nore your musical tastes (doubtless inculcated by breathless viewing of Carson Daly or his ilk) are not superior to mine. I can prove that beyond any reasonable doubt since The Clash (the only band that ever really mattered) is conspiciously absent from your lengthy list of "favs." Oh well. —Donkey
2009-06-18 18:07:48 Wow. You're naivete is showing little man. If you're interested (or if I thought it would make any impact on this page or, more particilarly, the erroneous and defamatory information that I "defaced" in the Almondwood comments), I'd tell you who I am, where I am, and whatever else you needed to know to assure yourself that I'm not just some anonymous troll. And as for the nonsense that you spout about "a community," you'll learn fast in the real world that apart from internet chatrooms, being the host of a party where some dude calls someone else "a bitch" can get real messy, real fast. You didn't post it, but you're abusing your "authority" as administrator. Have fun while it lasts. —Donkey
2009-06-18 18:36:59 I noticed that you deleted my comment to you about how bad your fav band, The Dandy Warhols, sucks. It must be nice to control the lever on who gets defamed on Wiki (others) and who doesn't (you). This site and you are a joke. —Donkey
2009-06-18 21:04:29 One has control of comments on his/her own private page, but not over public ones. —EliYani
and try not to be an ass —StevenDaubert
2009-06-19 08:37:59 Jeeze, first I'm being chided by EliYani, then JoePomidor, and now one Steven Daubert piles on. How many dorks does it take to run this cyber ragoff? And how long to you get to serve on the Wiki politbureau? I'm guessing that your term ends once you graduate from school or find out about girls, whichever comes first. —Donkey
- Howdy, Donkey. Actually, quite a few of us are happily married, and some editors have children who are likely older than you are. At least one person you're talking to is a Davisite who grew up here. Also, you have the same rights as all the people who you've been talking with — you're dealing with equals, not people who are "running" the wiki. You're "running" the wiki as well, as you're an editor with the same right to edit content as them. You're talking to your neighbors, the people you see around you, and we're all working together. The editors or Davis Wiki are just a reflection of the community of Davis, from town politicians to children, from Enterprise columnists to people who work for UCD. And you. —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards
2009-06-19 10:03:27 Mr. JabberWokky: So here's a questions that has yet to be answered: What do you suggest be done in situations where someone anonymously posts comment(s) that are defamatory and obscene about you? Or, what would you do if you saw that someone called your wife or daughter a "huge bitch"? Apparently, it's not acceptable to edit those offending comments (characterized as "defacing comments" by your esteemed colleague, Mr. Pomidor). And, requests to the diet of Davis Wiki "administrators" that the offending posts be edited out are refused, obviously due to the veneer of immunity granted the CDA, behind which you all shield yourselves. Is it really the position of the Wiki community that a person being defamed on Wiki must "respond to commentary" in their own right? Are you telling me that if your wife or daugther as being called a "huge bitch" on Davis Wiki that you'd just have to post a comment, "no, you anonymous asshole, I am not a huge bitch"? —Donkey
2009-06-19 10:40:54 Yes, I've read the Ethics. Have you? Here's the relevant portion:
Should anything be taboo? If so, what? Possible ideas (add what you want, even if it's just a bud of an idea):
Threats of any kind. Threatening other users is totally inappropriate.
Libel (spreading lies via print)
Creating pages that intentionally mislead users. This is not to say that dramatic or humorous wording is disallowed; just that it should be clear to an average reader when something is true versus when something is a joke or tongue in cheek.
Anything that might legally be construed as "Hate".
Confrontational speech is usually edited or removed.
My questions again is, how is offending material removed?
2009-06-19 10:45:22 Offensive material is removed either by starting a discussion about it, or just hitting the edit button... Which may lead to a discussion. —JasonAller
2009-06-19 11:12:33 I removed the offensive material several times, but JoePomidor, informed me that I have no right to "deface" comments and the material reappeared. And, this discussion is going on and getting nowhere. How long would a comment from me that Jason Aller is a crack whore remain on the wiki before it's removed? —Donkey
- 2011-02-01 22:40:00 My theory is that it would stay until removed by Jeffrey L. Anderson. I, of course, would never ask him to remove it. The comment would be untrue; and with his education he would know the legal difference between the question you posed and the theoretical comment it contains. —JasonAller
2009-06-19 11:12:51 it would appear the double entendre with the whole donkey / ass went over your head... Sorry for attempting to use humor, I will avoid that in the future.
Watch out for WilliamLewis btw! —StevenDaubert
2009-06-19 11:20:00 It's interesting that instead of actually attempting to discuss why you wanted the material removed, and laying out any kind of logical argument, you instead chose to call me a "joke" and insult my taste in music. By the way, I reverted your edit ONCE, so stop acting like we've been going back-and-forth over it for weeks. —JoePomidor
2009-06-19 11:27:48 Jason basically outlines how it works. Had you brought it up, I bet several people would probably have agreed with you. The problem is that you acted, then other editors responded (in a polite manner), to which you took a combative tone. In fact, I personally agree with your general concept of removing the comments, but I'd go about it in a very different manner (rather than editing the comment, I would propose that they be deleted entirely — or at the very least have a note that sections were removed). In fact, if you had communicated with the people rather than insulting their tastes in music or calling them "little man", there's a decent chance that the comments would have been edited or at least dealt with in some manner by now. It's easy — we're all capable people here and can discuss this in a reasonable manner. That's why people were trying to encourage you to do some things, like read up on Wiki Ethics (which are not rules, just guidelines of what has worked before), or use a name you go by (which is a token of friendship, just as introducing yourself to someone you just met at a restaurant), or use a Talk Page to discuss the specific edits that you and Eli disagree on. There's no hard rules or authoritarian actions going on here, but rather a few people trying to welcome you as a new wiki editor and give you a quick intro to what usually works so that you can participate. It's kind of as if you were playing baseball and picked the bat up backwards and were trying to hit the ball with the handle. It's not effective, and if somebody comes over and tries to show you what might work better, they aren't insulting you or attacking you — they're trying to help you. Eli's first comment was not a attack against you, but rather a bit of information of how things usually work and an offer to help you. —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards
2009-06-19 11:30:34 You guys are unbelievable. So I'm supposed to engage in a protracted discussion, using logical arguments, in order to justify you removing clearly offensive posts (Julia [the aparment manager at Almondwood] is a "huge bitch")? That is a ridculuous affront to the Wiki ethics that you purport to hold dear and a complete rejection of the advice that you posted in response to my initial queries. BTW, Steven, I find nothing about you (including your apparent predilection for fondling bunnys), humorous. —Donkey
- Personally, I like to fondle mice. Still, you might want to back off and calm down. You are attacking people who are bending over backwards to help you. —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards, (814) 889-8845
- I would concur wholeheartedly with the previous statement —StevenDaubert
2009-06-19 14:03:54 There's something mildly Kafka-esque about this situation, but I'm not sure it suggests any way to decide what's right or wrong. — One day, you find that a website has a publicized a bunch of nasty statements about you, so you try to log on and do what you can to defend your name. But then you're confronted by the website's insiders who have their own norms and regulations (albeit informal), all of which you've violated before you knew they existed (after all, this website works differently than other websites). So before you get your feet under you, you're already an outcast and with decreasing leverage to use in addressing the original statements made about you. You're either forced to fully embrace the DavisWiki, using your real name and developing a history of edits that contribute positively to the community (etc), or you're out, at the mercy of whatever gets written about you (good or bad, truthful or not). Maybe this isn't like Kafka, but more like the Borg. Resistence is futile. All will be wiki. —TheAmazingLarry
2010-12-15 13:19:38 What's your point, douche bag? Anyone's "sockpuppet" could school your Davis Wiki editor avatar, dork. —Donkey
- Please do not attack your fellow editors. They are your real life neighbors, and attacks are not appropriate on the wiki. —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards, (814) 889-8845