Erik wrote:
Since everybody is nominating new sysops, I'd like to nominate James Duffy (Jtdirl), who is one of the most dedicated Wikipedians around. He has made tremendous contributions to dozens of articles, and I'm sure he would use these privileges responsibly.
I second the nomination with a caveat; The reason he wasn't part of my short list before is that I feared he might get burnt-out with the added sense of responsibility (so if you feel this may be the case JT, then please don't accept this nomination - losing you would be a great loss to the project).
He also reminds me a lot of myself a year ago when I was a bit of a hot head (perhaps an understatement) and such a major Wikiholic that it was adversely affecting my real life. But he, like me, seems to be improving.
And I always like to see in a person a desire to improve their interpersonal demeanor. So even though JT blows a gasket or two a bit more often than the average long-time user, I do see a trend towards improvement and I definitely see a true desire in him to make Wikipedia the best reference source on the Internet (all without the hint of a personal agenda).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On 5/13/03 12:48 AM, "Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Erik wrote:
Since everybody is nominating new sysops, I'd like to nominate James Duffy (Jtdirl), who is one of the most dedicated Wikipedians around. He has made tremendous contributions to dozens of articles, and I'm sure he would use these privileges responsibly.
He also likes attacking people, takes things personally, and doesn't handle disagreement gracefully.
I'm sure he would use these privileges responsibly.
1. The Cunctator turned up at the end, ignored all that had been said and all that has been agreed and demands his is best. 2. I will ignore the arrogant and illinformed misrepresentation of political theory and science. As someone knowledgeable in the area you know the facts. The Cunctator patently obviously doesn't. --Jtdirl
From Talk:Communist state May 11, 2003
Re The Cunctator: on a talk page tonight he let slip his real reason for his behaviour. It isn't this page at all. He refuses to accept the manner in which political scientists analyse questions. With monumental arrogance, he believes that his way of throw everything into one article, no matter how many problems he causes, is superior to the way used by academics, political scientists, researchers, historians and people who do this sort of analysis for a living. His edits here are simply part of pushing an agenda. The fact that this page is organised in the standard manner of international research bugs him, because our infallible all knowing Cunctator knows that everyone else's way is wrong, the way by which one rights up research is all wrong, because he knows best. The fact that he has a poor grasp of the facts and a monumental ignorance of how academic research is done don't bug him because he knows best and the entire academic world is going to have to do things his 'superior' way. Jtdirl 02:48 May 11, 2003
I oppose Jtdirl's nomination for the same reasons as Cunctator. Every indication is that like 172 he will stongly engage both in historical revisionism and abuse of other users.
Fred
On 5/13/03 11:08 AM, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I oppose Jtdirl's nomination for the same reasons as Cunctator. Every indication is that like 172 he will stongly engage both in historical revisionism and abuse of other users.
I just want to make it clear I'm not opposing Jtdirl's nomination. I'm just betting he'll use the sysop powers abusively.
The Cunctator wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I oppose Jtdirl's nomination for the same reasons as Cunctator. Every indication is that like 172 he will stongly engage both in historical revisionism and abuse of other users.
I just want to make it clear I'm not opposing Jtdirl's nomination. I'm just betting he'll use the sysop powers abusively.
I think it's good that some administrators really don't like each other. It means that as Wikipedia factionalises, the admin cabal won't take sides. As Fredbauder is an admin, so should 172 and Jtdirl be. (Hell, this philosophy goes all the way back to LMS and Cunc.)
If an admin abuses their superpowers, then let their status be revoked. But best to avoid prior restraint.
-- Toby
On Wed, 2003-05-14 at 17:06, Toby Bartels wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I oppose Jtdirl's nomination for the same reasons as Cunctator. Every indication is that like 172 he will stongly engage both in historical revisionism and abuse of other users.
I just want to make it clear I'm not opposing Jtdirl's nomination. I'm just betting he'll use the sysop powers abusively.
I think it's good that some administrators really don't like each other. It means that as Wikipedia factionalises, the admin cabal won't take sides. As Fredbauder is an admin, so should 172 and Jtdirl be. (Hell, this philosophy goes all the way back to LMS and Cunc.)
If an admin abuses their superpowers, then let their status be revoked. But best to avoid prior restraint.
Yup.
I'm just hoping Wikipedia doesn't significantly factionalize--or rather, stays in factions of one. I'm mildly disturbed by the way 172 invited particular people to work on an entry ("Wanted: Tannin, Sluberstien, and Jtdirl")http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Industrial_Revolution&a... because I don't see that kind of behavior boding well for the future.
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikiedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I oppose Jtdirl's nomination for the same reasons
as Cunctator. Every
indication is that like 172 he will stongly engage
both in historical
revisionism and abuse of other users.
I just want to make it clear I'm not opposing
Jtdirl's nomination. I'm just
betting he'll use the sysop powers abusively.
I think it's good that some administrators really don't like each other. It means that as Wikipedia factionalises, the admin cabal won't take sides.
I second you here. It is *more* than good. It is *very* important that some disagree.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
The Cunctator wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I oppose Jtdirl's nomination for the same reasons as Cunctator. Every indication is that like 172 he will stongly engage both in historical revisionism and abuse of other users.
I just want to make it clear I'm not opposing Jtdirl's nomination. I'm just betting he'll use the sysop powers abusively.
I think it's good that some administrators really don't like each other. It means that as Wikipedia factionalises, the admin cabal won't take sides. As Fredbauder is an admin, so should 172 and Jtdirl be. (Hell, this philosophy goes all the way back to LMS and Cunc.)
If an admin abuses their superpowers, then let their status be revoked. But best to avoid prior restraint.
-- Toby
I'm going to speak up too; I find that Jtdirl and 172 have very very similar behavior, and oppose Jtdirl's nomination on the same grounds as 172.
I realize this is not something that most people are going to care about, now that Lir is considered the archetypal troll, but if you take a look at History of the Soviet Union's talk page, Susan Mason seemed very willing to discuss edits with Jtdirl and 172. Jtdirl and 172 told me that it was worthless to discuss things with Susan Mason, since they are an evil evil banned troll, etc. I said "Just humor me, outline what's wrong with Susan Mason's edits, and maybe we can work out a compromise". I received some notes on my talk page that I was being naive in thinking Susan Mason could cooperate and that everyone else learned long ago that everything that Susan Mason does should be reverted. Well, from the experiences of others, this sort of treatment doesn't seem to be reserved to people widely considered to be trolls.
Fred Bauder wrote:
I oppose Jtdirl's nomination for the same reasons as Cunctator. Every indication is that like 172 he will stongly engage both in historical revisionism and abuse of other users.
Fred
They are correct with respect to Lir and his clones however. Lir must make his peace with us in some other way than continuing to make clones.
Fred
From: cprompt cprompt@tmbg.org Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:20:04 -0400 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Sysop nomination: Jtdirl
I'm going to speak up too; I find that Jtdirl and 172 have very very similar behavior, and oppose Jtdirl's nomination on the same grounds as 172.
I realize this is not something that most people are going to care about, now that Lir is considered the archetypal troll, but if you take a look at History of the Soviet Union's talk page, Susan Mason seemed very willing to discuss edits with Jtdirl and 172. Jtdirl and 172 told me that it was worthless to discuss things with Susan Mason, since they are an evil evil banned troll, etc. I said "Just humor me, outline what's wrong with Susan Mason's edits, and maybe we can work out a compromise". I received some notes on my talk page that I was being naive in thinking Susan Mason could cooperate and that everyone else learned long ago that everything that Susan Mason does should be reverted. Well, from the experiences of others, this sort of treatment doesn't seem to be reserved to people widely considered to be trolls.
Fred Bauder wrote:
I oppose Jtdirl's nomination for the same reasons as Cunctator. Every indication is that like 172 he will stongly engage both in historical revisionism and abuse of other users.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I've advised Lir in the past to stop making new accounts, apologize and ask the list for permission to return, and for guidance when he does something that makes people want to block him. He says that he's already done that, and he doesn't think that the list would respond well to that. So, what do you people think? If Lir came around and said all of that, how would you feel?
Fred Bauder wrote:
They are correct with respect to Lir and his clones however. Lir must make his peace with us in some other way than continuing to make clones.
Fred
From: cprompt cprompt@tmbg.org Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:55:58 -0400 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Lir and his clones (Was: Re: [WikiEN-l] Sysop nomination: Jtdirl)
I've advised Lir in the past to stop making new accounts, apologize and ask the list for permission to return, and for guidance when he does something that makes people want to block him. He says that he's already done that, and he doesn't think that the list would respond well to that. So, what do you people think? If Lir came around and said all of that, how would you feel?
Hopeful
Fred
He has not done so. He continues to cause trouble with every name he uses. Jimbo Wales asked him to promise to be good, and he refused. How many multiples of hundreds of chances must one person get?
Zoe
--- cprompt cprompt@tmbg.org wrote:
I've advised Lir in the past to stop making new accounts, apologize and ask the list for permission to return, and for guidance when he does something that makes people want to block him. He says that he's already done that, and he doesn't think that the list would respond well to that. So, what do you people think? If Lir came around and said all of that, how would you feel?
Fred Bauder wrote:
They are correct with respect to Lir and his clones
however. Lir must make
his peace with us in some other way than continuing
to make clones.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
cprompt wrote:
I've advised Lir in the past to stop making new accounts, apologize and ask the list for permission to return, and for guidance when he does something that makes people want to block him. He says that he's already done that, and he doesn't think that the list would respond well to that. So, what do you people think? If Lir came around and said all of that, how would you feel?
I'm in a unique position to make unpopular decisions and have them stick, and I can say that if Lir were to mature and agree to act co-operatively, I'd buck some serious heat if necessary to give another chance. I've done it before and been disappointed, but my nature is to be very willing to allow people ways to grow, and to "save face" and become something other than a pariah.
I'm constantly concerned, as is well known, that threats of banning are tossed around too lightly, and that we should try (to a *point*, at least) to reform people with love rather than berate them into submission. A reformed Lir would be a great propaganda coup for me, illustrating that positive change is possible and desirable and so on.
However, the constant attacks -- and I consider making new accounts and editing while banned to be a form of 'fuck you' to my face -- make it difficult to believe that there's been any change at all.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
cprompt wrote:
I've advised Lir in the past to stop making new
accounts, apologize and
ask the list for permission to return, and for
guidance when he does
something that makes people want to block him. He
says that he's already
done that, and he doesn't think that the list
would respond well to
that. So, what do you people think? If Lir came
around and said all of
that, how would you feel?
I'm in a unique position to make unpopular decisions and have them stick, and I can say that if Lir were to mature and agree to act co-operatively, I'd buck some serious heat if necessary to give another chance. I've done it before and been disappointed, but my nature is to be very willing to allow people ways to grow, and to "save face" and become something other than a pariah.
I'm constantly concerned, as is well known, that threats of banning are tossed around too lightly, and that we should try (to a *point*, at least) to reform people with love rather than berate them into submission. A reformed Lir would be a great propaganda coup for me, illustrating that positive change is possible and desirable and so on.
However, the constant attacks -- and I consider making new accounts and editing while banned to be a form of 'fuck you' to my face -- make it difficult to believe that there's been any change at all.
--Jimbo
I used to think that Lir would change. I also used to believe in Santa Claus (acutally I never did, but you get my point). Lir will never change.
In all of the other wikis (except for the ones modeled after us), there is no "supreme-dictator-for-life" (as you put it, perhaps humorsly, in a previous post). Most other wikis despise that we have one person running the whole thing. I don't think we should keep doing your unpopular decisions just because you own the servers. When you created Wikipedia, you also gave up control of it. We are a community, not governed by one person, but by everyone. On many of the About, FAQ, and similar pages, you state that Wikipedia is an anarchy, but that really is not true. As long as you unilaterally make decisions like this, wikipedia will never be a true anarchy, always a dictatorship. --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 17:59, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I used to think that Lir would change. I also used to believe in Santa Claus (acutally I never did, but you get my point). Lir will never change.
In all of the other wikis (except for the ones modeled after us), there is no "supreme-dictator-for-life" (as you put it, perhaps humorsly, in a previous post). Most other wikis despise that we have one person running the whole thing. I don't think we should keep doing your unpopular decisions just because you own the servers. When you created Wikipedia, you also gave up control of it. We are a community, not governed by one person, but by everyone. On many of the About, FAQ, and similar pages, you state that Wikipedia is an anarchy, but that really is not true. As long as you unilaterally make decisions like this, wikipedia will never be a true anarchy, always a dictatorship. --LittleDan
That's not true. Lir has changed and will continue to do so. Not necessarily for the better, but he's a person, not a mythological creature.
There are plenty of non-anarchistic wikis. MeatballWiki is ruled with a velvet glove by Sunir Shah. Jimbo has made it plenty clear where the limits of anarchy lie.
You're off base here.
If you're really concerned, then agitate for forking. I wouldn't bother, and there are plenty of policies and decisions that I disagree with.
Finally, an anarchy is not governed by everyone--it's governed by noone. You're thinking of a (true) democracy.
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 17:59, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I used to think that Lir would change. I also used
to
believe in Santa Claus (acutally I never did, but
you
get my point). Lir will never change.
In all of the other wikis (except for the ones
modeled
after us), there is no "supreme-dictator-for-life"
(as
you put it, perhaps humorsly, in a previous post). Most other wikis despise that we have one person running the whole thing. I don't think we should
keep
doing your unpopular decisions just because you
own
the servers. When you created Wikipedia, you also
gave
up control of it. We are a community, not governed
by
one person, but by everyone. On many of the About, FAQ, and similar pages, you state that Wikipedia
is an
anarchy, but that really is not true. As long as
you
unilaterally make decisions like this, wikipedia
will
never be a true anarchy, always a dictatorship. --LittleDan
That's not true. Lir has changed and will continue to do so. Not necessarily for the better, but he's a person, not a mythological creature.
There are plenty of non-anarchistic wikis. MeatballWiki is ruled with a velvet glove by Sunir Shah. Jimbo has made it plenty clear where the limits of anarchy lie.
You're off base here.
If you're really concerned, then agitate for forking. I wouldn't bother, and there are plenty of policies and decisions that I disagree with.
Finally, an anarchy is not governed by everyone--it's governed by noone. You're thinking of a (true) democracy.
I'd never think of forking. It's more trouble than it's worth. I guess I'll just stick with this. Sorry for my bouts of pointless rage. --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
I used to think that Lir would change. I also used to believe in Santa Claus (acutally I never did, but you get my point). Lir will never change.
In all of the other wikis (except for the ones modeled after us), there is no "supreme-dictator-for-life" (as you put it, perhaps humorsly, in a previous post). Most other wikis despise that we have one person running the whole thing. I don't think we should keep doing your unpopular decisions just because you own the servers. When you created Wikipedia, you also gave up control of it. We are a community, not governed by one person, but by everyone. On many of the About, FAQ, and similar pages, you state that Wikipedia is an anarchy, but that really is not true. As long as you unilaterally make decisions like this, wikipedia will never be a true anarchy, always a dictatorship. --LittleDan
Sorry for my harsh wording
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I used to think that Lir would change. I also used to believe in Santa Claus (acutally I never did, but you get my point). Lir will never change.
Many kids stop believing in Santa Claus long before they let their parents know that they've stopped believing. That's an economic self-interest decision!
In all of the other wikis (except for the ones modeled after us), there is no "supreme-dictator-for-life" (as you put it, perhaps humorsly, in a previous post). Most other wikis despise that we have one person running the whole thing. I don't think we should keep doing your unpopular decisions just because you own the servers. When you created Wikipedia, you also gave up control of it. We are a community, not governed by one person, but by everyone. On many of the About, FAQ, and similar pages, you state that Wikipedia is an anarchy, but that really is not true. As long as you unilaterally make decisions like this, wikipedia will never be a true anarchy, always a dictatorship. --LittleDan
Dumping the dictator is not always the panacea that many expect. Those unpopular decisions are often necessary for the well being of the collective. An unpopular decision can be much better than no decision at all. What killed the Paris Commune of 1871 was too much democracy; it prevented the communards from mounting an effective defence. There's a paradox in the idea that a benevolent dictatorship is what allows an anarchy to flourish. An openly democratic system is fertile ground for cliques, and the tyranny of minorities in decision making positions.
Ec
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
In all of the other wikis (except for the ones modeled after us), there is no "supreme-dictator-for-life" (as you put it, perhaps humorsly, in a previous post).
I don't think I ever said that, but if I did, I want to make sure to dispel the notion that I think such a thing would be appropriate.
I'm the servant of wikipedia, not the master.
On many of the About, FAQ, and similar pages, you state that Wikipedia is an anarchy, but that really is not true.
I also don't think Wikipedia is an anarchy.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
In all of the other wikis (except for the ones
modeled
after us), there is no "supreme-dictator-for-life"
(as
you put it, perhaps humorsly, in a previous post).
I don't think I ever said that, but if I did, I want to make sure to dispel the notion that I think such a thing would be appropriate.
I'm the servant of wikipedia, not the master.
Someone wrote it when describing the heirarchy of wikipedia.
On many of the About, FAQ, and similar pages, you
state that
Wikipedia is an anarchy, but that really is not
true.
I also don't think Wikipedia is an anarchy.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com