The moderators have agreed to ban this user from subscribing to the list. Since he was not making any positive contributions through his membership, it has been revoked.
Regards, John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
On 23/02/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The moderators have agreed to ban this user from subscribing to the list. Since he was not making any positive contributions through his membership, it has been revoked.
Wonder what name he'll try next.
(This is twice now the same person's been responsible for all new members being moderated.)
- d.
On 2/23/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The moderators have agreed to ban this user from subscribing to the list. Since he was not making any positive contributions through his membership, it has been revoked.
This is sort of sad; gadflys and contrary opinions help strengthen projects, and on his good days, he was on the "probably making me think enough that it's positive overall" side of things.
But I see why, from the bad days.
We need a better class of gadfly.
George Herbert wrote:
On 2/23/07, John Lee wrote:
The moderators have agreed to ban this user from subscribing to the list. Since he was not making any positive contributions through his membership, it has been revoked.
This is sort of sad; gadflys and contrary opinions help strengthen projects, and on his good days, he was on the "probably making me think enough that it's positive overall" side of things.
But I see why, from the bad days.
We need a better class of gadfly.
This seems like a fair evaluation of the situation. An effective gadfly gets under a person's or a group's skin, and gives one the urge to swat. This cost the life of the world's most celebrated gadfly. A quality gadfly still needs to be an irritant, but also needs the agility to avoid the swatting hand.
Courage cannot become foolhardiness, and agility cannot become evasiveness. That's a rare combination of qualities. Parker's agility is lacking, but it is unduly harsh to say that he was making no positive contributions. I am not so insecure in my views that I can tolerate no criticism.
Ec
On 24/02/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Courage cannot become foolhardiness, and agility cannot become evasiveness. That's a rare combination of qualities. Parker's agility is lacking, but it is unduly harsh to say that he was making no positive contributions. I am not so insecure in my views that I can tolerate no criticism.
Parker's LiveJournal should be just the thing, then: http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com/
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard stated for the record:
Parker's LiveJournal should be just the thing, then: http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com/
Hey, I've got a lieutenant-at-arms! Why doesn't anyone ever tell me these things?
Lieutenant Steel359! Get out there and ... um ... keep doing what you're doing!
By the way, does anyone have any idea what Peter means when he says "he [I, the Epopt] chose to block notification of this article's creation from Wikipedia's mailing list"? Am I getting credit for something a list admin did? (If so, I owe that admin a beer.)
- -- Sean Barrett | radiant cool, crazy nightmare, sean@epoptic.com | zen, new jersey, nowhere! | how now, brown bureaucrats?
David Gerard wrote:
On 24/02/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Courage cannot become foolhardiness, and agility cannot become evasiveness. That's a rare combination of qualities. Parker's agility is lacking, but it is unduly harsh to say that he was making no positive contributions. I am not so insecure in my views that I can tolerate no criticism.
Parker's LiveJournal should be just the thing, then: http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com/
I've had the impression that the relationship that you have with him is not based on mutual respect. ;-)
What he rants about in his own blog doesn't bother me. He has managed to anger a number of people in positions of power to the point where I wonder whether they feel so injured that they have lost sight of objectivity. He has his faults, but he also makes valid points.
I don't intend to start campaigning for his readmission to the list. Some important issues have been raised on the list, and Parker's presence on the list could be too disruptive even when he's right.
Ec
On 2/23/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/23/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The moderators have agreed to ban this user from subscribing to the list. Since he was not making any positive contributions through his membership, it has been revoked.
This is sort of sad; gadflys and contrary opinions help strengthen projects, and on his good days, he was on the "probably making me think enough that it's positive overall" side of things.
But I see why, from the bad days.
We need a better class of gadfly.
Speaking as an upper class gadfly, I have to say that Parker Peters wasn't that bad and shouldn't have been banned.
People need to learn how to killfile users they don't like, instead of appealing to moderators.
On 2/25/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking as an upper class gadfly, I have to say that Parker Peters wasn't that bad and shouldn't have been banned.
Wasn't so bad? He lied, repeatedly. It's obvious he pretended to be someone else (how many other sockpuppets did he have?) He ranted, he insulted, and generally behave like an ass. And, to top it all off, on his blog (which David linked to) he compared his ban with the Kristallnacht!
If you've any doubts about him, just read that entry. We cannot possibly want that kind of charater contributing.
--Oskar
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 2/25/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking as an upper class gadfly, I have to say that Parker Peters wasn't that bad and shouldn't have been banned.
Wasn't so bad? He lied, repeatedly. It's obvious he pretended to be someone else (how many other sockpuppets did he have?) He ranted, he insulted, and generally behave like an ass.
That's your characterization.
And, to top it all off, on his blog (which David linked to) he compared his ban with the Kristallnacht!
So what? It's only a blog.
If you've any doubts about him, just read that entry. We cannot possibly want that kind of charater contributing.
I find phrases like "that kind of character" to be very scary.
Ec
The Cunctator wrote:
On 2/23/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/23/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The moderators have agreed to ban this user from subscribing to the list. Since he was not making any positive contributions through his membership, it has been revoked.
This is sort of sad; gadflys and contrary opinions help strengthen projects, and on his good days, he was on the "probably making me think enough that it's positive overall" side of things.
But I see why, from the bad days.
We need a better class of gadfly.
Speaking as an upper class gadfly, I have to say that Parker Peters wasn't that bad and shouldn't have been banned.
People need to learn how to killfile users they don't like, instead of appealing to moderators.
I have to agree. I often wonder if the calls for banning from this list are more an attempt to punish than anything else.
-Rich
On 2/25/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking as an upper class gadfly, I have to say that Parker Peters wasn't that bad and shouldn't have been banned.
People need to learn how to killfile users they don't like, instead of appealing to moderators.
He repeatedly turned reasonable threads into trollfests, and started new ones. The quality of this list went noticeably down whenever he was participating. Individual killfiles don't help that situation.
Steve (mod)
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/25/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking as an upper class gadfly, I have to say that Parker Peters wasn't that bad and shouldn't have been banned.
People need to learn how to killfile users they don't like, instead of appealing to moderators.
He repeatedly turned reasonable threads into trollfests, and started new ones. The quality of this list went noticeably down whenever he was participating. Individual killfiles don't help that situation.
His actions were not unilateral, and our levels of tolerance vary.
Ec
On 2/23/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The moderators have agreed to ban this user from subscribing to the list. Since he was not making any positive contributions through his membership, it has been revoked.
Regards, John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Thank you!!!
--Oskar