ban josh lawson


version 60 (2011-03-29 17:50:35 by StevenDaubert)
←previous edit
version 61 (2011-03-29 17:54:01 by JoshLawson)
next edit→
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 69: Line 69:
   *No good, honest people where harmed in my editing of this here site. My "attacks" where 100% genuine and heartfelt. -JL
Line 78: Line 80:
     *The dude proof read it and approved it...why do you care so much? You should be going after the dude who reposts the burned up cab pic, rather than a little story about one of your drivers (your best driver, BTW) acting in an honorable and professional way. Reasons like this are why I stopped driving for you in the first place...get your head on straight, and maybe the town will take your business seriously again.... -JL

A ban has been [WWW]proposed for JoshLawson. Editing history is available [WWW]here. The primary issue seems to be his use of the wiki as a weapon to attack (or encourage others to attack/harass) a woman who acted outrageously in a cab [WWW]initial accusation:

His [WWW]justification:

He has [WWW]stated that his purpose is "payback," as well as to discourage the poor treatment of cab drivers.

Rather than trying to work collaboratively, or engage in any sort of constructive way, he insults other editors and tries to marginalize their points by claiming they're communists or dictators who are trying to silence the truth and make him a victim.


Daubert cause this ban request will get nowhere anyways, might as well have one aye... I encourage Lawlson to also be in favor of his banning

Do Not Ban


I have two main concerns where Josh is concerned: first, the use of the wiki to attack someone who isn't even a participant here. Josh has admitted that that is his purpose, and has repeatedly re-added her name and/or facebook profile when various people—including Robyn herself—have removed them. This is not the SA forums. It's not 4Chan. This isn't the place to publicly attack people, much less try to get others to harass them. The second concern is his approach to dealing with other editors. Like I said, this is not SA. Josh's attitude and personal attacks have already driven one user away, and will drive others off if he continues. That's in addition to the folks who see it and choose not to begin participating because of the atmosphere.

If Josh cuts the crap and at least pretends he's willing to edit collaboratively and avoid trying to drive other users off the wiki, I may change my mind. For now, though, I'm in favor of a ban. —TomGarberson

For what it's worth, he had a short term "chill out" ban once, and has since improved somewhat. Relatively. Of course, a good deal of the edits above were made after that ban. The one that I dislike most is actually [WWW]this one. It reveals a lack of any kind of empathy and an intent to redefine the wiki as a whole as a harassment tool. The language and the criticism of the wiki I can deal with. The intimidation and lack of any willingness to cooperate with others is a serious problem that needs to be addressed in one form or other. If no other options work, it would fall to a ban. As an aside, he would be the only actual resident of Davis to have a ban (Steve Ostrowski moved, and the few other bans on people are for non-Davis individuals). —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards

While I am opposed to the language use, as this is an information tool not a form of social media, I disagree with this ban proposal. I do agree there is a better way to speak one's mind, but disagree with this idea for banning someone who has just recently been an active editing contributor. If the language use continues to be a problem then the issue can be renewed imo.

I have known Josh in R/L for some time and find him to be an intellectual thinker and a voracious speaker with good intentions. I think if we just sit back and try to communicate rationally and without emotion, this can be resolved. I've been kind of sitting on the shelf, letting this drama unfold as there has been too much lately, but banning someone who just recently began becoming a part of something larger than himself, while not understanding fully how it is done, how it is used or what it's function truly is... well, it's ridiculous to me. If banning is the only solution, then ban me as well.— Wes-P

Of course, no one is faulting that, it's just when you give a strong look at things they make more sense... I believe we call this a "good hard look" Daubert

I suggest a language filter be implemented on Davis Wiki. —DonShor

I don't know a whole lot about banning. But I have been concerned with his misogynist language. In the past week or so he has used such dehumanizing language as "garbage", "bitch," "cunt," etc. to describe Ashley and Robyn. Why is it OK to address women in this manner and advocate for "teaching them a lesson" while using racial slurs would not be ignored? —MeggoWaffle

As a meta-note, you might want to move this conversation to a different entry, as it's pretty clear Josh is unlikely to get banned, so this entry is likely going to be deleted fairly soon. -jw

Golly you really can't script it better Daubert

My problem with banning people because they drive other people away is that some people are so sensitive that they run off at the slightest little negative comment. People need to stop being oversensitive about words unless they indicate actual an actual threat is present. I don't think driving people away should be a justification for banning, unless it's because the person is driving people away by vandalizing pages. Or if they're really really smelly. That usually indicates a health hazard. —hankim

Do what you are gonna do. If I get get banned, it will be for being offensive and telling the truth...possibly for exposing MANY hypocrisies and double standards that are RIFE with this site...even the fact that a ban proposal is up for debate, plays right into my hands. I have done my best to be a good standing member of this community, but my truth seeking and outspoken nature might be a little much for overly sensitive eyes. The world is harsh..I'm proud of this site for keeping me around as long as it has. In the past week or so I finally see a value for this site and do regret THE TONE of some of my messages, but NOT the content. Do whatever it is you guys are going to do, and I hope I entertained some of you people, as well as made you think. -Users/Josh Lawson

I don't really chime in at all on the wiki, but over the past week there seems to have been a dramatic uptick in llama-age. I think Josh has been like this for a while, and his personality, coupled with everything else going on, has led to an increase in sensitivity to things he says. I don't agree with everything he says, but that is freedom of speech. It's kind of like those Anti-gay protesters at military funerals, lots of people hate it and the comments are inflammatory, but you just have to ignore them (though it might be difficult). We shouldn't use the wiki to attack people, but I don't feel a ban is necessary. On a related note I feel that we should in general keep the wiki PG-13, if we still want to be held to some sort of credibility. Now to go back to lurking. —JamesKrause

Josh repeats that he's been truthful. Complete truthfulness is doubtful, because the driver-source of his "out"ing story denies that he wanted to have the story put on the wiki. A moral lapse is displayed there. It would be helpful if Josh would admit to his opportunism. I'm not sure where this falls relative to this page name, but I wanted to take this fleeting opportunity to make mention. —BruceHansen

Josh, I hope in the future you'll consider collaborative editing and being halfway civil with people. Personal attacks (insults, berating people, or trying to "get back" at people via the wiki) will dramatically change the tone of the wiki, turning it from an informational resource for Davis into a place where people who aren't accustomed to internet culture or don't have thick skins will be afraid or unwilling to participate. That will be a loss for everyone involved, because it'll be a loss for the wiki itself. Collaborative editing is what has made the wiki into the resource it is today. When there are disagreements over content, people explain why they think it should be one way or other other and either come up with a compromise or put it to a vote (democratic, not communist, for what it's worth). I know you get a kick out of stirring things up, but berating people who disagree with you or claiming you're being oppressed isn't a workable way of approaching things on the wiki. As entertaining as it may be, it's a destructive approach to something that's been built with a lot of constructive work by a lot of different people. I'm not quite sure why some people lost sight of that during this discussion and decided people like Arwennhold and myself were upset at you for being a pottymouth or whatever. That has nothing to do with it. I realize you'll probably ignore this, since you believe I'm just trying to somehow oppress you by explaining wiki norms (and you've apparently got Scott and Wes sold on the idea). It needed to be said, though, since for some reason most of the folks here, who've said it many times before when personal attacks or non-constructive disputes come up, aren't willing to say it this time around. —TomGarberson

How about Banned Man as a [place for him, alternatively Banned Boy? —BruceHansen

So how long does this farce have to continue before I'm off the hook? -JL

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.