User talk:Netesq
A forum mention 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. 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, 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 to people signing up for Wikipedia logins and the more "modest proposal" of creating the institution of a Wikipedia Name Police. 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 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)
Uncle Ed Chimes In
I was reviewing references to my byline on Google when I stumbled upon the commentary 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 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)
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)