I have decided not to deal with Vera Cruz, ceding to he she or it any article he she or it wants to work on, on the grounds that life is too short to waste fighting him her or it and then literally losing sleep over afterwards. He she or it is a pure troll, as anyone with eyes can see.
Look at what he she or it has contributed to [[Talk:Isaac Asimov]], dragging people into debates over pointless subjects, subtly shifting ground from one tiny truism to another while everyone else fumes, engaging in look-at-me-I'm-horrible ploys, and generally poisoning the well. So I don't want to drink from it.
Her his its latest triumph is to drive the earnest but hapless 172 from the [[New Imperialism]] article, which I had quit in frustration several weeks back. I only got into the article because I asked a naive question as to why this imperialism was "new". After much back and forth with 172, tiresome but ultimately productive, I managed to get a paragraph into the article that clarified what was new, which 172 promoted to the lead for the whole article.
Now I find a note in my talk page (and Tannin's) from 172 begging me to get back and save the [[New Imperialism]] article from Vera Cruz. 172 and Slrubenstein and Tannin have spent a great deal of effort turning political guff about imperialism (much of it from 172) into an NPOV article on the topic while Vera has slouched on the sidelines, periodically reverting the whole article, including totally neutral typographical fixes, and generally doing what he she or it does best, roiling, confusing, annoying, enraging.
As much as I wish the article was better I will *not* step back in to it because I have no facility, other than logic and committment, for dealing with trolls, and that has been proven not to work.
I'm not one for banning, but if Vera Cruz is Lir and Lir is banned, then . . .
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
Erik Moeller wrote:
If Lir is causing trouble again, just re-ban her. We don't even need another trial since, technically, she is still banned.
That's right. Vera Cruz is welcome to appeal to me with proof of not being Lir. Otherwise, sayonara.
Don't count on her to stay away, though.
At some point, I'll be willing to take legal (or similar) steps.
We're crazy tolerant, but not suicidal.
--Jimbo
Vera Cruz edited Ed's talk page a few minutes ago. Is she banned or not?
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
If Lir is causing trouble again, just re-ban her. We don't even need another trial since, technically, she is still banned.
That's right. Vera Cruz is welcome to appeal to me with proof of not being Lir. Otherwise, sayonara.
Don't count on her to stay away, though.
At some point, I'll be willing to take legal (or similar) steps.
We're crazy tolerant, but not suicidal.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Tom Parmenter (Ortolan88) wrote:
Look at what he she or it has contributed to [[Talk:Isaac Asimov]], dragging people into debates over pointless subjects, subtly shifting ground from one tiny truism to another while everyone else fumes, engaging in look-at-me-I'm-horrible ploys, and generally poisoning the well. So I don't want to drink from it.
I don't want to get involved in any discussion right now about the merits or otherwise of Vera Cruz's edits, but here is one of my conclusions from the Isaac Asimov argument.
As a general matter of principle, I think that any Wikipedian should be prepared to back up any of their additions - if specifically asked to by another Wikipedian - by pointing to some reference source. I do not think that saying that "everybody except you agrees", which some people (not Ortolan88, I hasten to add) were doing, is at all acceptable as a response. Of course, people will not always have their references to hand, but they can always just say on the Talk page that they will check. Then, once they have a reference, they can put their addition back in, with the reference. Just reverting things back and forth doesn't help anyone. If someone is not able (or simply refuses) to back up an addition to an article, then they should not complain about it being removed. Otherwise, the Wikipedia will never be a reliable reference source, as it will always contain unsubstantiated statements.
I also think that removed sections should always be placed on the relevant Talk page, with a note saying why it was removed. It's quite tiresome having to look through an article's history to find out what people have removed, and since there are often no comments explaining the removal, I never know whether I should just put the sections back in or not.
As I say, I don't want to get into an argument about Vera Cruz's edits, but do let me know if you disagree with my general principle!
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+
|From: Oliver Pereira omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk |X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean |Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 01:35:28 +0000 (GMT) | |On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Tom Parmenter (Ortolan88) wrote: | |> Look at what he she or it has contributed to [[Talk:Isaac Asimov]], |> dragging people into debates over pointless subjects, subtly shifting |> ground from one tiny truism to another while everyone else fumes, |> engaging in look-at-me-I'm-horrible ploys, and generally poisoning the |> well. So I don't want to drink from it. | |I don't want to get involved in any discussion right now about the merits |or otherwise of Vera Cruz's edits, but here is one of my conclusions from |the Isaac Asimov argument. | |As a general matter of principle, I think that any Wikipedian should be |prepared to back up any of their additions - if specifically asked to by |another Wikipedian - by pointing to some reference source. I do not think |that saying that "everybody except you agrees", which some people (not |Ortolan88, I hasten to add) were doing, is at all acceptable as a |response. Of course, people will not always have their references to hand, |but they can always just say on the Talk page that they will check. Then, |once they have a reference, they can put their addition back in, with the |reference. Just reverting things back and forth doesn't help anyone. If |someone is not able (or simply refuses) to back up an addition to an |article, then they should not complain about it being removed. Otherwise, |the Wikipedia will never be a reliable reference source, as it will always |contain unsubstantiated statements. | |I also think that removed sections should always be placed on the relevant |Talk page, with a note saying why it was removed. It's quite tiresome |having to look through an article's history to find out what people have |removed, and since there are often no comments explaining the removal, I |never know whether I should just put the sections back in or not. | |As I say, I don't want to get into an argument about Vera Cruz's edits, |but do let me know if you disagree with my general principle! | |Oliver |
I certainly agree with this, both with the principles pronounced and with the suggested practices. However, I have to add two points:
1 -People just plain get tired of arguing over and over as the ground shifts beneath their feet, as, in this case, a discussion of "the best known short story" turns almost undetectably into a discussion of "the best known work in any genre" and they lose their manners and good sense sometimes.
2 -Vera Cruz *never* documents or justifies his her or its changes in any way and trolls just as hard in the talk pages as in the article.
Tom P. O88
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 09:11:16PM -0500, Tom Parmenter wrote:
2 -Vera Cruz *never* documents or justifies his her or its changes in any way and trolls just as hard in the talk pages as in the article.
The evidence, especially the behavioral similarities, point to Vera Cruz being Lir. Because of his anti-social behavior, which is harming the Wiki community, and more importantly because his actions show a real lack of respect for his fellow project members, and for the project itself, I am 100% behind a total ban of Vera Cruz.
I hope that the user ban will include an IP ban, which would cover all IP's Vera Cruz and Lir have edited from.
Jonathan
At 19:25 18/01/2003 -0500, Tom Parmenter wrote:
I'm not one for banning, but if Vera Cruz is Lir and Lir is banned, then . . .
For the record, I just left a note on Vera Cruz' talk page, asking if Vera Cruz is/was Lir. It seemed the obvious thing to do. The exchange went as follows:
Camembert: Hi VC - quick question: are you the user formerly known as [[User:Lir]]? --[[User:Camembert|Camembert]]
Vera Cruz: Why? [[User:Vera Cruz|Vera Cruz]]
Camembert: Because there have been several suggestions that you are, and, as such, should be banned immediately (for the reason that, as I understand it, the being who used the name Lir is banned pending discussion with [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] on the matter). --[[User:Camembert| Camembert]]
Vera Cruz: Im obviously [[User:Vera Cruz]] [[User:Vera Cruz|Vera Cruz]]
I don't have the inclination to pursue it any further (I don't know if there's any point anyway). And I'm so far successful in my effort to not form an opinion on the whole "let's ban Vera Cruz" thing, by the way.
lp (camembert) Wikikarma: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islay_whisky
Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] as much as admits it on his webpage, 2 days ago, see http://qwert.diaryland.com/
It says:
2003-01-19 3:23 PM:
"Well wikipedia banned me again. Its been an interesting study in totalitarianism, it is clear to me now that even a "benevolent totalitarianism" is to be avoided. It is often argued that anarchism is to be avoided due to "mob rule" but in fact totalitarianism is just that "mob rule", anarchism is really an overthrow of that mob rule and an insistnce on equal rights, something which wikipedia refuses to accept. I guess that's their right, it's a shame that so many people are unwilling to even attempt to discuss their issues. I guess Ill go back to studying chess."
"unwilling to even attempt to discuss their issues" -- I got a chuckle out of that one -- since that's all we do, some days.. discuss our issues. :-)
Since Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] was never unbanned, the "banned me again" arguably refers to the Vera Cruz banning decision.
Those interested in the level of intellect that we are losing (high? low? you decide) by banning this person should review: http://qwert.diaryland.com/older.html
Tom Parmenter wrote:
I have decided not to deal with Vera Cruz, ceding to he she or it any article he she or it wants to work on, on the grounds that life is too short to waste fighting him her or it and then literally losing sleep over afterwards. He she or it is a pure troll, as anyone with eyes can see.
Look at what he she or it has contributed to [[Talk:Isaac Asimov]], dragging people into debates over pointless subjects, subtly shifting ground from one tiny truism to another while everyone else fumes, engaging in look-at-me-I'm-horrible ploys, and generally poisoning the well. So I don't want to drink from it.
eek! That was an edit was I hope to forget. It was impressive the way Vera managed to shift the focus each time.
Her his its latest triumph is to drive the earnest but hapless 172 from the [[New Imperialism]] article, which I had quit in frustration several weeks back.
There's been criticism of 172, but I thought his/her suggestion on [[Talk:New Imperialism]] for both 172 and Vera to stop work on the article was made in good faith. It's a pity that vera Cruz misunderstood -- wilfully or not I don't know. I tried to give the benefit of the doubt and got dragged into get more incomprehensible debate. I can never work out if Vera does this deliberately, or has some sort of behavioural problem. Either way, I'm fed up. I suport a ban.