Of you lack of social abilities and generally anti-social nature that as soon as anything effects you composure you start barring people. In effect this shows your overall lack of maturity and you high levels of insecurity.
If you actually had the scoial abilities you think I lack you would have coped in who different way, but then you lot are basically Eight year old little madams and school prefects, and like you did long ago. You think you particular form of childishness is actually very grown up. Yours
John Bradley
Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
John Bradley wrote:
Of you lack of social abilities and generally anti-social nature that as soon as anything effects you composure you start barring people. In effect this shows your overall lack of maturity and you high levels of insecurity.
It shows something of _your_ social skills, maturity and level of insecurity when you make personal attacks because you were reprimanded *for breaking the rules*. Please stop this - the mailing list archive is full enough as it is.
If you actually had the scoial abilities you think I lack you would have coped in who different way, but then you lot are basically Eight year old little madams and school prefects, and like you did long ago. You think you particular form of childishness is actually very grown up.
Maybe you'd better use that spell checker you keep threatening the mailing list with ;)
Yours John Bradley[snip]
Is it really such a good idea to keep plastering your address all over the internet? Now stop spamming and get back to whatever it is you do.
What personal attacks have I made because I have been repremanded? My disgust strtches far further back than that.
It also yet again seems that I what I have done is a personall attack then so is everyones critisms of me. another example of 1 rule for the arbcommas.
My request for a page to be deleted was not spam, that several people have decided to use it as an opportunity to rake over the coals is not my problem.
Date sent: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:45:34 +0930 From: Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] It is a sign. To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Send reply to: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe
John Bradley wrote:
Of you lack of social abilities and generally anti-social nature that as soon as anything effects you composure you start barring people. In effect this shows your overall lack of maturity and you high levels of insecurity.
It shows something of _your_ social skills, maturity and level of insecurity when you make personal attacks because you were reprimanded *for breaking the rules*. Please stop this - the mailing list archive is full enough as it is.
If you actually had the scoial abilities you think I lack you would have coped in who different way, but then you lot are basically Eight year old little madams and school prefects, and like you did long ago. You think you particular form of childishness is actually very grown up.
Maybe you'd better use that spell checker you keep threatening the mailing list with ;)
Yours John Bradley[snip]
Is it really such a good idea to keep plastering your address all over the internet? Now stop spamming and get back to whatever it is you do.
-- Alphax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yours
John Bradley
Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
John Bradley wrote:
What personal attacks have I made because I have been repremanded? My disgust strtches far further back than that.
When did it start and why?
It also yet again seems that I what I have done is a personall attack then so is everyones critisms of me. another example of 1 rule for the arbcommas.
I'm not on the Arbcom, but calling people "stupid immature idiots" won't help your case. Talking about "invalid, illogical, unreferenced, biased claims" in articles might - attack the idea, never the person.
My request for a page to be deleted was not spam, that several people have decided to use it as an opportunity to rake over the coals is not my problem.
What a person has in their user space is their concern unless it breaks policy (eg. is defamatory, illegal). Many people have pages like this as watchlists.
Don't forget the disclaimer that you submitted all entries to Wikipedia under - All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License. The history of the mistakes you have made in the past cannot be erased, but that doesn't mean you have to make them in the future. Be polite, discuss things, never revert without talking about what you are doing and why.
Perhaps you can explain why I am required to act in this way but not the likes of Violet Riga, Matt Crypto or lots of other people.
My annoyance started when Violet Riga got me blocked on a totally spurious request and has both not been punished and has nor apologized. It is referenced earlier on, in the thread.
I am quiet happy to have all my stuff up there provided other peoples is subject to the same conditions, but that does not seem to be the case.
For instance I am chastised for not replying to people were as David Gerrard and most of the members of the arbcomm feel that they do not have to reply.
Or for instance why Pcpcpc would use a sock puppet to perform edits of extremely dubious quality and then not explain why he acted the way he did.
As for spam, the address is on several WWW sites as a contact so it is virtually impossible to make it worse and Spamihilator seems up to the job. I've also had this email for about 15 years now, which also means it is well known.
You'll find I have used a spell checker but there is no guarantee that word correctly spelt is the right word.
Date sent: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:07:05 +0930 From: Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] It is a sign. To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Send reply to: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe
John Bradley wrote:
What personal attacks have I made because I have been repremanded? My disgust strtches far further back than that.
When did it start and why?
It also yet again seems that I what I have done is a personall attack then so is everyones critisms of me. another example of 1 rule for the arbcommas.
I'm not on the Arbcom, but calling people "stupid immature idiots" won't help your case. Talking about "invalid, illogical, unreferenced, biased claims" in articles might - attack the idea, never the person.
My request for a page to be deleted was not spam, that several people have decided to use it as an opportunity to rake over the coals is not my problem.
What a person has in their user space is their concern unless it breaks policy (eg. is defamatory, illegal). Many people have pages like this as watchlists.
Don't forget the disclaimer that you submitted all entries to Wikipedia under - All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License. The history of the mistakes you have made in the past cannot be erased, but that doesn't mean you have to make them in the future. Be polite, discuss things, never revert without talking about what you are doing and why.
-- Alphax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yours
John Bradley
Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
John Bradley wrote:
Perhaps you can explain why I am required to act in this way but not the likes of Violet Riga, Matt Crypto or lots of other people.
They are too. Do you have examples of when they have done this?
My annoyance started when Violet Riga got me blocked on a totally spurious request and has both not been punished and has nor apologized. It is referenced earlier on, in the thread.
Which one?
I am quiet happy to have all my stuff up there provided other peoples is subject to the same conditions, but that does not seem to be the case.
I'd like to see some of these violations.
For instance I am chastised for not replying to people were as David Gerrard and most of the members of the arbcomm feel that they do not have to reply.
Sorry, can't answer that without a reference.
Or for instance why Pcpcpc would use a sock puppet to perform edits of extremely dubious quality and then not explain why he acted the way he did.
Unfortunately tracking sockpuppets is quite difficult. Can you provide a diff?
As for spam, the address is on several WWW sites as a contact so it is virtually impossible to make it worse and Spamihilator seems up to the job. I've also had this email for about 15 years now, which also means it is well known.
My concern about your address is about your *residential* address.
You'll find I have used a spell checker but there is no guarantee that word correctly spelt is the right word.
Spell checkers are notoriously innaccurate. They also can't check grammar.
Seems the list is run by " ultrablue at gmail.com, dgerard at gmail.com, andrew.lih at gmail.com, fennec at gmail.com, ed.poor at att.net" WHo have no problem manipulating the user base.
Interestingly I haven't seen any sign of there explanation of for hat matter anything else. Seems a but antisoial to me.
Check Violet Rigas mod to the "Grand National", for her own reasons she has decide it is in Liverpool. WHen actually due to little things like boroughs etc it is actualy in Sefton.
You can check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incid entArchive1#3RR_at_the_troubled_Clitoris_article
"
Her is a typical rant fro John Bradley (john@ontobus.co.uk) [050423 00:50]:
I think it is everyone who cares about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a social club stepped forward and be counted.
Personal attacks toward other editors are not tolerated because they drive other volunteers away from editing. This is bad for Wikipedia.
Really. I pretty much don't care how much of an expert a given editor is - if they're acting like an arsehole and making editing an unpleasant experience for others, we don't need them. There are PLENTY of really quite high-grade experts editing Wikipedia who don't in fact act like arseholes.
(This does, however, require a more than usual tolerance for and patience with stupid fellow volunteers amongst the experts in question, and occasional annoying having to prove things from first principles on talk pages when the well-meaning idjit doesn't get it. This is quite a bit less than ideal, and we need ways to deal with it, but it still isn't an excuse for personal attacks.)
Note that Irate, the user in question, has not shown even this level of justification for his streams of personal attacks.
- d. " .
As for my address. I thnk you should stop worrying less.
Date sent: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 02:07:01 +0930 From: Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] It is a sign. To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Send reply to: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe
John Bradley wrote:
Perhaps you can explain why I am required to act in this way but not the likes of Violet Riga, Matt Crypto or lots of other people.
They are too. Do you have examples of when they have done this?
My annoyance started when Violet Riga got me blocked on a totally spurious request and has both not been punished and has nor apologized. It is referenced earlier on, in the thread.
Which one?
I am quiet happy to have all my stuff up there provided other peoples is subject to the same conditions, but that does not seem to be the case.
I'd like to see some of these violations.
For instance I am chastised for not replying to people were as David Gerrard and most of the members of the arbcomm feel that they do not have to reply.
Sorry, can't answer that without a reference.
Or for instance why Pcpcpc would use a sock puppet to perform edits of extremely dubious quality and then not explain why he acted the way he did.
Unfortunately tracking sockpuppets is quite difficult. Can you provide a diff?
As for spam, the address is on several WWW sites as a contact so it is virtually impossible to make it worse and Spamihilator seems up to the job. I've also had this email for about 15 years now, which also means it is well known.
My concern about your address is about your *residential* address.
You'll find I have used a spell checker but there is no guarantee that word correctly spelt is the right word.
Spell checkers are notoriously innaccurate. They also can't check grammar.
-- Alphax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yours
John Bradley
Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
John Bradley wrote:
Seems the list is run by " ultrablue at gmail.com, dgerard at gmail.com, andrew.lih at gmail.com, fennec at gmail.com, ed.poor at att.net" WHo have no problem manipulating the user base.
It is *very* rare that users are removed from the mailing list, as it (together with IRC and standard email) are the only options of communication for blocked users.
Interestingly I haven't seen any sign of there explanation of for hat matter anything else. Seems a but antisoial to me.
Actually, I believe that they *have* tried to explain there actions - that they were acting in accordance with policy.
Check Violet Rigas mod to the "Grand National", for her own reasons she has decide it is in Liverpool. WHen actually due to little things like boroughs etc it is actualy in Sefton.
Sorry, I'm not an expert on British geography. You could probably raise the issue on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UK_Wikipedians%27_notice_board]. Anyway, for cosmetic reasons saying it is near Liverpool is a lot clearer than just saying it is in Sefton (or wherever it really is) because *Liverpool is the more notable location*. A city will always outdo a borough - if it's such a problem, just add "in the [[metropolitan_borough|borough]] of [[Sefton]]" and everyone will be happy.
You can check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incid entArchive1#3RR_at_the_troubled_Clitoris_article
I did. To be as polite as possible, I think you should read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks] again. If you would like a prompt reply from a user, leave a comment on their Talk page - that's what they're there for! Next time they login, they will see "You have new messages" and investigate.
The 3RR is a highly contentious issue - I don't know why - but if you feel hard done by, *politely* explain what you were doing, and take 24 hours (or however long the block is) off to think about it. Ultimately, edit warring just makes people angry and does nothing to improve Wikipedia. It harms its reputation because people will refer to it as "that thing on the internet where everyone yells at each other about what the facts are".
"
Her is a typical rant fro John Bradley (john@ontobus.co.uk) [050423 00:50]:
I think it is everyone who cares about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a social club stepped forward and be counted.
Personal attacks toward other editors are not tolerated because they drive other volunteers away from editing. This is bad for Wikipedia.
Really. I pretty much don't care how much of an expert a given editor is - if they're acting like an arsehole and making editing an unpleasant experience for others, we don't need them. There are PLENTY of really quite high-grade experts editing Wikipedia who don't in fact act like arseholes.
(This does, however, require a more than usual tolerance for and patience with stupid fellow volunteers amongst the experts in question, and occasional annoying having to prove things from first principles on talk pages when the well-meaning idjit doesn't get it. This is quite a bit less than ideal, and we need ways to deal with it, but it still isn't an excuse for personal attacks.)
Note that Irate, the user in question, has not shown even this level of justification for his streams of personal attacks.
- d.
" .
I don't think this was an attack - "if they are acting *like* an a-h" is quite different to saying "you f-ing f-t, w-t-f are you f-ing the article for? Stupid moron". It's like the distinction between [[newbie]] and [[n00b]] - fine but discernable.
BTW, what *are* you an expert in? If you don't like what someone has said, talk to them about it. Both of you might learn something, and then we get a better article out of it. Name-calling won't get anyone anywhere - it will get you less than nowhere, because people will continue to associate you with your actions long after you have taken them. It takes time to earn trust.
As for my address. I thnk you should stop worrying less.
OK then.
As for one of the others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:82.35.37.118&action=histo...
Did you list them at [[WP:VIP]]?
Anyway, take a break and when you come back, don't do *anything* that could be seen as abusive, controversial, policy breaking etc. Many users have a "blacklist" of articles they won't touch because they _know_ that they will only get into heated, non-productive edit wars.
When putting things into geographic catorgaries, the geography dictates not what looks best. I'm an expert, amongst other things, in looking at maps of of an area I live in.
I haven't seen anything saying "we the mail list admins are blocking you break policy 4.13"
Date sent: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:32:44 +0930 From: Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] It is a sign. To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Send reply to: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe
John Bradley wrote:
Seems the list is run by " ultrablue at gmail.com, dgerard at gmail.com, andrew.lih at gmail.com, fennec at gmail.com, ed.poor at att.net" WHo have no problem manipulating the user base.
It is *very* rare that users are removed from the mailing list, as it (together with IRC and standard email) are the only options of communication for blocked users.
Interestingly I haven't seen any sign of there explanation of for hat matter anything else. Seems a but antisoial to me.
Actually, I believe that they *have* tried to explain there actions - that they were acting in accordance with policy.
Check Violet Rigas mod to the "Grand National", for her own reasons she has decide it is in Liverpool. WHen actually due to little things like boroughs etc it is actualy in Sefton.
Sorry, I'm not an expert on British geography. You could probably raise the issue on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UK_Wikipedians%27_notice_board]. Anyway, for cosmetic reasons saying it is near Liverpool is a lot clearer than just saying it is in Sefton (or wherever it really is) because *Liverpool is the more notable location*. A city will always outdo a borough - if it's such a problem, just add "in the [[metropolitan_borough|borough]] of [[Sefton]]" and everyone will be happy.
You can check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incid entArchive1#3RR_at_the_troubled_Clitoris_article
I did. To be as polite as possible, I think you should read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks] again. If you would like a prompt reply from a user, leave a comment on their Talk page - that's what they're there for! Next time they login, they will see "You have new messages" and investigate.
The 3RR is a highly contentious issue - I don't know why - but if you feel hard done by, *politely* explain what you were doing, and take 24 hours (or however long the block is) off to think about it. Ultimately, edit warring just makes people angry and does nothing to improve Wikipedia. It harms its reputation because people will refer to it as "that thing on the internet where everyone yells at each other about what the facts are".
"
Her is a typical rant fro John Bradley (john@ontobus.co.uk) [050423 00:50]:
I think it is everyone who cares about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a social club stepped forward and be counted.
Personal attacks toward other editors are not tolerated because they drive other volunteers away from editing. This is bad for Wikipedia.
Really. I pretty much don't care how much of an expert a given editor is - if they're acting like an arsehole and making editing an unpleasant experience for others, we don't need them. There are PLENTY of really quite high-grade experts editing Wikipedia who don't in fact act like arseholes.
(This does, however, require a more than usual tolerance for and patience with stupid fellow volunteers amongst the experts in question, and occasional annoying having to prove things from first principles on talk pages when the well-meaning idjit doesn't get it. This is quite a bit less than ideal, and we need ways to deal with it, but it still isn't an excuse for personal attacks.)
Note that Irate, the user in question, has not shown even this level of justification for his streams of personal attacks.
- d.
" .
I don't think this was an attack - "if they are acting *like* an a-h" is quite different to saying "you f-ing f-t, w-t-f are you f-ing the article for? Stupid moron". It's like the distinction between [[newbie]] and [[n00b]] - fine but discernable.
BTW, what *are* you an expert in? If you don't like what someone has said, talk to them about it. Both of you might learn something, and then we get a better article out of it. Name-calling won't get anyone anywhere - it will get you less than nowhere, because people will continue to associate you with your actions long after you have taken them. It takes time to earn trust.
As for my address. I thnk you should stop worrying less.
OK then.
As for one of the others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:82.35.37.118&action=histo...
Did you list them at [[WP:VIP]]?
Anyway, take a break and when you come back, don't do *anything* that could be seen as abusive, controversial, policy breaking etc. Many users have a "blacklist" of articles they won't touch because they _know_ that they will only get into heated, non-productive edit wars.
-- Alphax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yours
John Bradley
Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
John Bradley wrote:
When putting things into geographic catorgaries, the geography dictates not what looks best. I'm an expert, amongst other things, in looking at maps of of an area I live in.
I could say "Adelaide International Raceway is in the City of Playford", which is correct, but "Adelaide International Raceway is *near Virginia*" is more helpful. You have to go with what is most recognised; after that you can explain detail.
I haven't seen anything saying "we the mail list admins are blocking you break policy 4.13"
Perceived continuing personal attacks, but I don't agree with the ban when dispute resolution is taking place. You're not being blatantly abusive, so I think this was probably a little over the top.
Perceived continuing personal attacks, but I don't agree with the ban when dispute resolution is taking place. You're not being blatantly abusive, so I think this was probably a little over the top.
There is no ongoing dispute resolution - the ArbCom has reached a decision and he has been banned from editing! His continued spamming of this mailing list with accusations of childishness and bias against him has pushed the wikien-l (and IRC channel) admins too far.
~~~~ Violet/Riga
On 4/27/05, John Bradley john@ontobus.co.uk wrote:
I haven't seen anything saying "we the mail list admins are blocking you break policy 4.13"
Hello, John. I must say I am not surprised you have been banned from Wikipedia. Your extremely antagonistic attitude in my dealings with you were a good indication.
You are right in that there is no specific policy relating to banning users from the mailing list. I, for one, have never done it before and needed help even finding the feature in the software. In lieu of actually having clear policy, it is up to the mailing list administrators to use their discretion. They (we?) weren't made administrators of the mailing list for nothing, you know.
In an effort to pre-empt situations like this, I inserted the followin text on the Mailing List information page (http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l):
"There are no formal rules for the mailing list. However, users are generally expected to follow good practice similar to Wikiquette. That is, users should assume good faith and be polite and constructive. Users who are extremely disruptive or uncivil may be banned from the mailing list by the administrators."
For more about Wikiquette, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette.
I know it's probably a bad thing making up policy like this, but as I'm sure you'll agree, John, it's better to have some policy rather than none at all, as you had been complaining. Since I unilaterally made up this guideline, I welcome input from the mailing list and other administrators to help shape it into a practical policy that is acceptable to everyone.
~Mark Ryan
On 4/28/05, ultrablue@gmail.com ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
In an effort to pre-empt situations like this, I inserted the followin text on the Mailing List information page (http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l): "There are no formal rules for the mailing list. However, users are generally expected to follow good practice similar to Wikiquette. That is, users should assume good faith and be polite and constructive. Users who are extremely disruptive or uncivil may be banned from the mailing list by the administrators." For more about Wikiquette, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette.
Sounds sensible to me.
I know it's probably a bad thing making up policy like this, but as I'm sure you'll agree, John, it's better to have some policy rather than none at all, as you had been complaining. Since I unilaterally made up this guideline, I welcome input from the mailing list and other administrators to help shape it into a practical policy that is acceptable to everyone.
Actively controlling the list membership is something to be avoided except in egregious cases (e.g. when someone abusive keeps rejoining to continue being abusive), because it resembles work and work is bad, as is [[m:Instruction creep]]. But this sounds obviously sensible.
- d.
On Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:36 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Actively controlling the list membership is something to be avoided except in egregious cases (e.g. when someone abusive keeps rejoining to continue being abusive), because it resembles work and work is bad, as is [[m:Instruction creep]]. But this sounds obviously sensible.
Fully agreed, as you'd expect.
Yours,
Of course, I agree, but only in repeat cases, not one-offs.
--Mgm
On 4/28/05, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
On Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:36 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Actively controlling the list membership is something to be avoided except in egregious cases (e.g. when someone abusive keeps rejoining to continue being abusive), because it resembles work and work is bad, as is [[m:Instruction creep]]. But this sounds obviously sensible.
Fully agreed, as you'd expect.
Yours,
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Mail: james@jdforrester.org | jon@eh.org | csvla@dcs.warwick.ac.uk IM : (MSN) jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MacGyverMagic/Mgm (macgyvermagic@gmail.com) [050428 22:31]:
On 4/28/05, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
On Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:36 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Actively controlling the list membership is something to be avoided except in egregious cases (e.g. when someone abusive keeps rejoining to continue being abusive), because it resembles work and work is bad, as is [[m:Instruction creep]]. But this sounds obviously sensible.
Fully agreed, as you'd expect.
Of course, I agree, but only in repeat cases, not one-offs.
I think inertia will be sufficient to protect this ;-)
- d.
As for one of the others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:82.35.37.118&action=histo...
Yours
John Bradley
Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk