172 has stated on my user talk page that he will act more cautiously in the future under similar circumstances, hat he would not again protect [[New Imperialism]] under the same conditions, and that he would try to be communicative instead of antagonistic in cases similar to the [[Catholicism]] one before protecting the page. That's good enough for me, so I have restored his sysop status. If there are any objections, please post.
Regards,
Erik
I have never withdrawn my objection to sysop status for 172. I knew he would abuse his status and he has repeatedly, you are just looking at the tip of the iceberg; most instances result from his leftist POV urge to revise history.
Fred Bauder
http://wwww.internet-encyclopedia.org
From: erik_moeller@gmx.de (Erik Moeller) Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: 24 Jul 2003 13:36:00 +0200 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] 172 sysop status restored
172 has stated on my user talk page that he will act more cautiously in the future under similar circumstances, hat he would not again protect [[New Imperialism]] under the same conditions, and that he would try to be communicative instead of antagonistic in cases similar to the [[Catholicism]] one before protecting the page. That's good enough for me, so I have restored his sysop status. If there are any objections, please post.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred-
I have never withdrawn my objection to sysop status for 172. I knew he would abuse his status and he has repeatedly, you are just looking at the tip of the iceberg; most instances result from his leftist POV urge to revise history.
I have not ignored your objection at the time, but it was overridden by Jimbo Wales. If you feel that 172 has "repeatedly" abused his sysop status, please document all instances of him doing so.
Regards,
Erik
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 24 July 2003 13:00, wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org <> wrote:
I have never withdrawn my objection to sysop status for 172. I knew he would abuse his status and he has repeatedly, you are just looking at the tip of the iceberg; most instances result from his leftist POV urge to revise history.
Urgh. Quite apart from anything else, 'leftist' is a relativistic, and hence inherently-POV, word; that you consider 'leftist' persons' examination of past events is "revis[ing] history", that you implicitly push the idea that such historical revisionism is bad, and that you generalise on this point, implying that the cause celebre of 'leftist'-ism is said historical revisionism and that all 'leftist' persons, also lend to a disregard for your opinion based on the way you have stated it, I would have thought.
Also, I have no idea what you mean by 'leftist'; perhaps the evil scum- like Red Commies? Disgusting weak French Socialism? Easy-going overly- amenable benevolents, like Stalin? [1]
Surely peoples' politics shouldn't affect what you think of them as responsible people? I know many people more towards (what I would consider) the 'left' and 'right' sides of the political spectrum than I am, and I don't think (significantly)[3] less of them for their views, even though I may disagree with them. Certainly, I don't think they are less capable of rational argument, nor do I consider them more (or less) likely to not want to 'play fair' and attempt to subvert social processes they interact with.
[Snip]
[1] - Yes, these were all picked deliberately to initiate a commentary[2], and are exceptionally extreme both in my depiction and imagery, but as I have no particular concept of the political background you come from and what you would consider 'normal'. I don't agree with any of my characterisations, for the record.
[2] - Or 'start a fight', if you prefer ;-)
[3] - Obviously, being but an imperfect human, I cannot wholly remove my inherent disregard for the concepts and beliefs of others, but merely reduce them.
Yours, - -- James D. Forrester mailto:jon@eh.org | mailto:csvla@dcs.warwick.ac.uk mailto:jamesdforrester@hotmail.com | mailto:james@jdforrester.org
James D. Forrester wrote:
Urgh. Quite apart from anything else, 'leftist' is a relativistic, and hence inherently-POV, word;
Sure, but he wasn't writing an encyclopedia article, he was editorializing. I am a strong libertarian, politically, and I should hope that if I started going around turning various articles into libertarian rants, people would complain about it.
that you consider 'leftist' persons' examination of past events is "revis[ing] history", that you implicitly push the idea that such historical revisionism is bad, and that you generalise on this point, implying that the cause celebre of 'leftist'-ism is said historical revisionism and that all 'leftist' persons, also lend to a disregard for your opinion based on the way you have stated it, I would have thought.
Well, I don't know. There is such a thing as a generally leftist POV, as you've acknowledge. And such a POV is not good for an encyclopedia article, which should be neutral.
Surely peoples' politics shouldn't affect what you think of them as responsible people?
Not usually, at least not in the Wikipedia context. But I think his claim was that 172 puts leftist pov into articles, which is a legitimate complaint, if true. (Whenever I've looked, 172's edits aren't particular problematic. We all come from a perspective, of course, and he's no different.)
--Jimbo
Fred Bauder wrote:
I have never withdrawn my objection to sysop status for 172. I knew he would abuse his status and he has repeatedly, you are just looking at the tip of the iceberg; most instances result from his leftist POV urge to revise history.
I appreciate this concern, and I have it, too. But whenever I've looked into it, 172/Abe has worked reasonably well with others.
I'm a bit constrained here because I myself come from an extremely strong libertarian POV, very different from Abe's, and so I have to be very careful not to let my own political perspective inappropriately enter into my analysis.
What matters here is a willingness to work well with others towards NPOV, not where you come from personally.
--Jimbo
At 08:07 AM 7/24/03 -0700, Jimmy wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I have never withdrawn my objection to sysop status for 172. I knew he would abuse his status and he has repeatedly, you are just looking at the tip of the iceberg; most instances result from his leftist POV urge to revise history.
I appreciate this concern, and I have it, too. But whenever I've looked into it, 172/Abe has worked reasonably well with others.
I'm a bit constrained here because I myself come from an extremely strong libertarian POV, very different from Abe's, and so I have to be very careful not to let my own political perspective inappropriately enter into my analysis.
What matters here is a willingness to work well with others towards NPOV, not where you come from personally.
Indeed. I'm well to the left of Jimbo, but *that doesn't matter* because we share the goal of building an encyclopedia.
And it does bother me when Fred assumes that his own views are neutral, and mine, because leftist, are not. We *all* have points of view, and thus we all have to be careful to be neutral *when writing or editing Wikipedia articles.*