On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 13:49, Tony Wilson wrote:
The point, Cunc, is not the worth of the edit (though
it was (a) in the
wrong entry, and (b) grossly one-sided - communist governments tend to
be rather good at somethings, notably health care and education: which
of course, Fred being Fred, he was determined to utterly ignore).
"Fred being Fred" is a fatuous ad hominem comment. Even if that's an
expression of your honest judgment of Fred's motivations, it's best
avoided.
The point is is the dishonesty. Go look at that edit
history: it was no
accident, it was repeated 19 or 20 times, with no apology.
I see a classic edit war, in which Jtdirl and 172 repeatedly deleted
reasonable (if imperfect) text while SHOUTING THAT FRED WAS ENGAGING IN
POV VANDALISM and threatening banning and Fred reinserted that text. By
the time you got into the game Jtdirl's actions had eliminated any
semblance of civility.
After about the 10th time, Fred began marking as minor his reinsertion
of text that was being deleted without any attempt to deal with the text
in a respectful manner.
You may consider it dishonet, though others could consider it being
polite to the general Wikipedian public who don't care.
Repeatedly deleting Fred's text without attempting to incorporate it
into Wikipedia is a much more egregious abuse of Wikipedia mores than
what Fred did.
That said, Fred should not have used the minor tag. But it's certainly a
lesser offense, in my eyes.
Then look at the wild and untrue accusations made
about other
contributors on the list.
What wild and untrue accusations, exactly? You mean, "HIS VANDALISM HAS
HAD TO BE REVERTED NEARLY 20 TIMES HERE. HE HAS DONE THE SAME
ELSEWHERE"?
Did you see *me* yelling? So why am *I* suddenly
placed in the path of
this loose cannon on the mailing list?
One rule for all. That is fair. If Fred's actions are acceptable (which
I dispute), then what shred of an excuse does he pin his opposition to
Abe on?
How would you characterize Jtdirl's comments and actions, for example,
calling Fred's contribution "vandalism" from the very start?