[WikiEN-l] I have apoligized

[Erik Moeller]

Adam ..
> It is true that I violated my ban, first with one account and then another,
> but during all that time and all those thousands and thousands and thousands
> of edits, did I ever vandalize an article? Did I ever swear at anybody? In
> all those thousands of edits, did I ever do anything wrong besides being me,
> admitting to being me, writing on topics which only I have been working on,
> and use an identifiable OS/browser/IP?

Well, "being you" was not so much of a problem. Why did you misrepresent  
yourself in the first place? Jimbo was always open for discussions, and so  
were other members of this list. Heck, even I have emailed you a couple of  
times. But no, you had to create "Vera Cruz" and "Susan Mason" to get back  
in. Why? For what other reason than to avoid dealing with the conflicts  
that were, in large part, caused by you?

The ironic part is that this, of all things, harmed your case more than  
anything else you've done: After it was conclusively proven that you were  
Vera Cruz, Jimbo declared that it was unlikely for you to get back in;  
further, your appearance under multiple identities led users to speculate  
that every petty vandal, every anonymous POV edit was yet another  
incarnation of yourself. Had you not chosen to play that game in the first  
place, such suspicions would never have arisen. You can't blame this  
identity nonsense on nicotine addiction, you can't blame it on Zoe, it was  
your choice, and I haven't seen an apology for it.

There were other things. You have been asked repeatedly to use the preview  
function. I even hacked in a "Preview on top" feature because you asked me  
to. Still, you continued to save your articles every second, causing  
dozens of changes for just one edit. Example from a random article you  
worked on:

# (cur) (last) . . M 08:15 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz
# (cur) (last) . . M 07:53 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz
# (cur) (last) . . M 07:49 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz
# (cur) (last) . . M 07:46 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz
# (cur) (last) . . M 07:45 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz
# (cur) (last) . . M 07:43 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz
# (cur) (last) . . M 07:42 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz
# (cur) (last) . . M 07:41 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz
# (cur) (last) . . M 07:40 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz

Doing these kind of things initially can be forgiven. When people are  
stubborn and refuse to listen to arguments, cause others trouble for their  
own minor convenience, then we're getting into the territory where people  
start getting annoyed. Again, for these kind of things you never  
apologized -- instead it was the software that was at fault, or other  
people who were not listening to your problems.

People have reached out to you. I have given you a long list of things  
that you need to do to start working on Wikipedia again. It is only now  
that I see you beginning to do these things. It's good that you are using  
your real name, that's a start, so we don't have to play "guess Lir's  
gender" anymore. I don't care particularly for a comprehensive apology,  
but I would support your application for official re-entrance if you  
pledged to abide by the following:

1) Use a single identity and stick to it.

2) Find a solution for your 40000 edits per page problem. I don't care if  
you write your texts in a text editor, if you use preview or whatever -  
just don't clutter the database, article history and recent changes with  
needless noise.

3) Be nice to other contributors. That does not just mean "no swearing",  
but also avoiding snappy remarks, acknowledging other people's  
contributions and trying to work cooperatively. Wikilove, Wikiquette,  
whatever you want to call it.

Three simple conditions, no? I am sure others have more complaints, but  
Jimbo is a relaxed person. If you behave properly, he will probably let  
you back in.

I do wonder why you care so much about Wikipedia, though. You would  
probably be a high level noder on Everything2 by now ..


Regards,

Erik