Talk:OSUNY

While the first part of this article still needs some revision, can we please only make changes to this page that actually reflect reality? Art Cancro has repeatedly removed all mention of OSUNY incarnations that he wasn't personally involved with. The osuny.com domain is currently registered in his name, and his bias is explicitly revealed by his actions here at Wikipedia.

Note: I am not the owner of osuny.com. My name appears on the domain registration because I am the DNS administrator at the ISP where the site resides. The owner of the domain holds a legitimate claim to it. "OSUNY" "UK" is neither descended from the OSUNY community nor located in the UK; it does not belong on the OSUNY page. Art Cancro 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Why do you knowingly make false statements, Art? You know that several users at OSUNY U.K. were users on previous incarnations of OSUNY. You also know that OSUNY U.K. has never claimed to be located in the United Kingdom. 75.16.232.22 01:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, Citadel/UX doesn't belong on the Citadel page because it's not descended from the original Citadel by Cynbe ru Taren. Neither you nor the proprietor of osnuy.com have any particular legal claim to the name, so please get over yourself and stop submitting edits that remove all mention of OSUNY UK being started by users from the prior two incarnations. If you have a legal dispute, settle it in a legal forum. Wikipedia is not that forum.

Let's hash out the inaccuracies

Art Cancro: Let's hash it out here. What part of the current article is inaccurate?

It is untrue that "OSUNY" "UK" has anything to do with the original OSUNY (nor is it in the United Kingdom). Art Cancro 23:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Revised libelous entry. 4.245.239.73 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has claimed that OSUNY UK has "anything to do" with the prior management, merely that it was started by former users of both the original and second incarnation of the same. This isn't a case of misrepresentation, but merely the fact that you don't like them using the name of OSUNY, or any association therewith. In all honesty: too bad.

The page as it stands now (April 5, 8:04pm EDT) is my first and last offer with regard to a compromise. I believe it addresses the dispute objectively.

No it doesn't. You eliminated the names of the original sysops, and then assert that the guy who's running osuny.com is somehow privileged to use the name, whereas another user of the same is not. So 'Joker', a mere user, sets up his own OSUNY, and it's a-okay -- but another user does it and suddenly it's not okay. Again, this isn't a trademark issue, nor a case of misrepresentation, so really nobody has to do any 'compromising' whatsoever. You don't have to like OSUNY UK, but you should stop insisting that its users were never a part of the prior incarnations of the same, which is patently false.

Joker consulted with prior OSUNY sysops before bringing osuny.com online, establishing an approved lineage. The operator of "OSUNY" "UK" didn't. Art Cancro 01:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Azure (the sysop of OSUNY UK) did, but that said it's wholly irrelevant being that this isn't a trademark issue. If someone wants to go out there and call themselves "OSUNY NZ" or "OSUNY Hoboken", they can do that too. Neither you, nor Joker, nor even the original OSUNY sysops own the "OSUNY" name. For the record, you don't own the name "Citadel" either. Stop being so territorial and just let it be.

I don't claim to own the Citadel name. The citadel.org web site documents that Citadel/UX is the project's "true" name. In any case, Jeff Prothero (aka CrT) blessed our use of the name in 1994, indicating that its UI was close enough to his to make it worthy of being called a Citadel. He even called the new client/server architecture "a design win" and indicated that it's where he would have gone with the project had he continued maintaining it. Art Cancro 01:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

saturn.osuny.com

saturn.osuny.com has been offline since late 1999. The placeholder page at www.osuny.com warning of a "fraudulent" OSUNY went up in 2001, months after OSUNY U.K. came online. 1 2 75.16.232.22 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Users from previous incarnations of OSUNY

The dispute over who was a user on the "original" OSUNY is misleading. There have been several distinct incarnations of the board since its inception, including the late 1990s saturn.osuny.com, operated by "The Joker." Both saturn.osuny.com and osuny.co.uk counted users from incarnations that predated them, and both counted users who used the 914 OSUNY in the 1980s. It's not clear why Art Cancro is so determined to insist that no users from previous OSUNYs are users at OSUNY U.K. Art, what is the deal? The admin of OSUNY U.K. was a user at saturn.osuny.com, and never claimed to have been a user at the 914 OSUNY. However, some of the current users at OSUNY U.K. were. 75.16.232.22 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The claim that "Thomas Icom doesn't count" is strange, since he is documented in The Hacker Crackdown as being an early '80s user. His personal website was hosted by Joker at osuny.com as recently as November 1999, as evidenced by the screen capture in the main article. This is really a simple factual matter; was Thomas Icom a user of the "original" OSUNY or not? If so, then the whole dispute is drawn into even sharper, preposterous, relief. 75.16.232.22 01:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Icom can be verified as a member of OSUNY to as far back as 1986. That data is referenced here: [1]. 4.245.239.73 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that we are at an impasse. Who would you accept as a mediator of this dispute? Art Cancro 01:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Art Cancro Maybe someone you aren't on public record as having a beef against, and somebody who isn't one of your known cohorts? I don't mean that to be inflammatory, but given the nature of the BBS community, it's difficult to find an objective voice that we'll both be satisfied with. It's trivial from the documentation referenced from the original version of this article, and at osuny.com, to verify that Icom was a user in the 1980s. So much of your negativity here hinges on the claim that OSUNY U.K. has no connection to previous OSUNYs. I'm not sure it does anyone a service to start comparing user lists here in a public forum, but anyone involved in this situation knows that you are knowingly misrepresenting the facts. Icom was on the 914 OSUNY; the admin of OSUNY U.K. was on saturn.osuny.com. What is your threshold for having a "connection to the OSUNY community"? 75.16.232.22 01:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with [[User:75.16.232.22|75.16.232.22]. You're free to contact someone in the Mediation Cabal, though there really aren't any points here suitable for mediation. The issue boils down to who has the 'right' to use the name OSUNY, and whose name should appear on the OSUNY page at wikipedia. That matter could be resolved by forking the page so OSUNY UK has its own page...but then you'd object to any mention of OSUNY UK on OSUNY's page, which is what you're doing right now. Since you continue to remove the names of the original OSUNY sysops, and continue to dispute that any of the users of OSUNY UK have anything to do with any of the prior OSUNYs, I fail to see what mediation will accomplish, but again, you are welcome to try.

Use of style in the article

The Wiki link to Citadel/UX was cited properly in its first usage in the article, and not linked again elsewhere in the article after it first appeared, which is consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines. Other terms used in the article follow the same style. If Art Cancro thinks it's necessary to include the wiki link for every mention of Citadel/UX, I don't have any objection. 75.16.232.22 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This was an error and has been corrected. Art Cancro 01:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Remediation of edit wars

Wikipedia mgmt has requested an end to the edit war. Please see User_talk:Art_Cancro.

The reason I removed the names of the original sysops is because I honestly believe it's not accurate. I don't know if Tom Tone was a sysop, but I'm fairly certain Milo Phonbil was not. In any case, the article ought to mention that for the longest time, the sysop was known only as "sysop".

I really do feel that the compromise version of the page was objective -- it mentions that the lineage of OSUNY UK is disputed, without making an assertion as to which side of the dispute is correct. It also retains the link to OSUNY UK. Furthermore, it uses the verb "assert" rather than "claim" in order to keep the language somewhat more civil. Exactly which language do you feel is unfair in this version? Art Cancro 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Art Cancro: The problem I have with your proposed compromise is that you are still sidestepping the issue of why you disagree with the cited references. The Hacker Crackdown is cited in both your compromise and at osuny.com. That book lists Icom as a user of the 914 OSUNY in the 1980's. Icom is a regular user at OSUNY U.K., therefore there is a connection between the 914 and U.K. incarnations. QED. If we really follow Wikipedia policy, and especially if we have to rely on a moderator to settle this, then we're going to have to remove everything that doesn't have a reference, which leaves my version of events with a lot of support and your version of events with practically nothing. Why do you continue to insist that there is no connection between OSUNY U.K. and previous OSUNYs? 75.16.232.22 02:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting your compromise version: "Whether this BBS represents a "true" reincarnation of the OSUNY community depends upon who you ask: its membership asserts that it contains former members of the original OSUNY, while the management of osuny.com asserts that this claim is fraudulent. It now bears the name "OSUNY UK" as a compromise to this dispute." -- this language is inflammatory being that it goes to the core of the argument: who has the right to use the name in the first place? Joker's incarnation is privileged in the article, while OSUNY UK is denigrated by having it's status questioned. Just because you don't come right out and say they're "imposters" like you did in your earlier edits doesn't make it any less inflammatory or wrong.

Please propose an alternative text. Your version of the page states your side of the story as truth, which is equally as unacceptable. The article must state that OSUNY UK's lineage is disputed, and if you have a better way of stating that objectively, then please run it up the flagpole at this time. Art Cancro 02:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Art Cancro: I'm the one who added the Dispute section in the first place. You're the one who keeps removing it. Your original edits of this article called OSUNY U.K. an "imposter." Unless you are disputing that Icom was a user on the 914 OSUNY, I don't understand what your objection is. He's listed as a user in the reference you yourself left in the article. So, is Bruce Sterling wrong? If that's what you're saying, you need to add a section to the article explaining why one of its primary references is questionable. How can you dispute that Icom was a user of the 914 OSUNY? How can you dispute that the admin of OSUNY U.K. was a user at saturn.osuny.com? Is this really something that qualifies as a difference of opinion or are you just being contrary? Unless you can explain why Icom and the admin of OSUNY U.K. were not users of previous OSUNYs, then your changes are not supported by the facts. Your initial edits tried to wipe all mention of OSUNY U.K. from the article. Now you're trying to take credit for my expansion and moderation of the entire article. 75.16.232.22 02:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Then let's leave out the disputed issue entirely. Simply state that "in 2000, a new BBS appeared bearing the OSUNY name" and state neither that it was created by former users of the previous system(s), nor that the name was used fraudulently. All things considered, I think that's more than fair. Art Cancro 02:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Art Cancro: I can agree to that wording. However, for consistency in the depth of coverage, we should probably also remove the sections that relate saturn.osuny.com to previous incarnations as well. We should also keep links to both osuny.com and osuny.co.uk. I'll make the edits now. 75.16.232.22 02:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

May you agree to that wording, but I don't. He's still trying to push his agenda, albeit implicitly rather than explicitly, by leaving out the fact that OSUNY UK was created by former users. Without that fact present, it makes it sound like its run by 'imposters' all over again.

The new wording does not state that there is or is not a lineage. Although I still strongly believe that there is not, I am willing to accept the current text. Art Cancro 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Towards a new compromise

Anonymous and Art Cancro: Check out my latest revision. I've tried to remove all of the inflammatory language. I think this version is accurate, while still allowing readers to make up their own minds as to legitimacy. I do admit it's strange to have an editor objecting so strenuously to their own sources. 75.16.232.22 02:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A note: after all of the effort placed into arriving at compromise text last year, the change made by an anonymous user on June 13 erases that text. I am reverting it back to the previously agreed upon text. Art Cancro (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Simply Put

The name of a BBS is something important. I wouldn't expect that any user of the original Sherwood Forest ][ or Plovernet or RACS III or Blottoland would just throw up some software and have some claim to the name....

While Tom Icom was no doubt a very active OSUNY user, he was not in a position to "bless" another incarnation. That is the crux of the dispute.

While naming the board osuny.co.uk was clever, the fact remains that it is a far cry from the original in terms of software and user base.

It is a wholly different system, and its name *should* reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.150.131.207 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sentinel3: That is your opinion, and has been stated previously, it is irrelevant. This is not a trademark issue, and therefore there is no authority as to who can or cannot use the name, nor who has any authority to establish any sort of 'lineage'. Moreover, just because an agreement was reached on the form of the page doesn't mean that it will remain static forever. You are not the center of Wikipedia, and there are other people who obviously want to contribute something. Good for them, and more power to them. This page should not have to remain exactly what Art Cancro, Master of All Things OSUNY, wants it to be. I am particularly disheartened by the fact that the language in question was by no means even prejudicial, but rather you simply reacted because ANY change was made. Somehow, I don't think that sort of attitude really belongs here, and if you're not hear to help write objective articles, you really shouldn't be here at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.19.142 (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh

Which previous incarnation of OSUNY lasted as long as the present one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.228.80 (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The present one isn't a real OSUNY, so your question is irrelevant. Art Cancro (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Says the guy whose BBS isn't a real Citadel. Stay mad, Art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8200:DE10:ED82:B247:8140:B68 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It's safe to assume at this point that Art's software and his BBS *are* the very definition of Citadel nowadays. All other implementations are long gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.15.19 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)