For some unfathomable reason, people want to allow Lir to come back. Why, is beyond me. He has been nothing but disruptive since he first came onto the scene. See the Talk page on [[Iowa State University]] for Lir's very first comments on Wikipedia, in which he called people who disagreed with him morons and specifically said that a dean at Iowa State was a liar for disputing a quote Lir attributed to him. It's also worth noting that Lir tried to delete the Talk page, but I've restored it so people can see just what he had to say.
His next forary into collegiality was his attempt to make us believe that Christopher Columbus's sole reason for visiting America was to take slaves. We also encountered a long edit war in which Lir insisted that the article be at [[Cristobal Colon]] (with accent marks I'm not going to try to reproduce here). He then went into a crusade to rename all places and people by the names they're known in their native languages, instead of by the names they're known to English speakers, even though this is the English wikipedia. He has never made any attempts to be polite, cordial or cooperative, but insists that only his way can prevail.
When he was finally banned, he went outside the Wikipedia and tried to make people believe, on his personal blog page and elsewhere, that he was banned for his politics, not for his personality and inability to cooperate with others. So then he came back as Vera Cruz, and continued his lack of cooperation. Even 172, someone who has the same sort of personality as Lir/Vera Cruz/Adam/Bridget, found him impossible to work with on the [[New Imperialism]] page, even though at first the two of them were allies against those of us who wanted to keep the page NPOV and useful.
And now he claims he's repentant and won't behave in the same manner. I find it hard to believe, but for some reason, the rest of you think he's reformed. I've had a long night thinking about this. At first, I felt that if you thought it was more important to have Lir here than me, that fine, I'd leave and you could have him, and more power to you. But I've decided that was childish, and I apologize to everybody for saying that.
However ...
If you let Lir back, I'd like to be a sysop. I've avoided asking for the authority before, even though some people have encouraged me to do it. But I know that Lir will be as disruptive as before, and I want to be able to deal with him. I promise I will be on my best behavior, and will not act abruptly. If you grant me this authority, then I'll go along with the odd request that Lir be allowed to come back. But if he continues to disrupt, and people don't step in to get rid of him for good, then I do swear I will leave, and I'm not just blowing smoke this time.
Zoe
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Just for the record, I also don't want Lir back, under any name. I was one of the first to suggest banning she/he/it at the start of the Columbus tantrum, and was roundly condemned for my uncommunal attitude. I stand by my original position: Lir is a waste of electrons, to say nothing of time, and should not be allowed to darken our towels again.
the Epopt -- Sean Barrett | Will the Internet be open tomorrow? sean@epoptic.com |
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 11:33 To: WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] The Lir situation
For some unfathomable reason, people want to allow Lir to come back.
Why, is beyond me. He has been nothing but disruptive since he first came onto the scene. See the Talk page on [[Iowa State University]] for Lir's very first comments on Wikipedia, in which he called people who disagreed with him morons and specifically said that a dean at Iowa State was a liar for disputing a quote Lir attributed to him. It's also worth noting that Lir tried to delete the Talk page, but I've restored it so people can see just what he had to say.
His next forary into collegiality was his attempt to make us believe
that Christopher Columbus's sole reason for visiting America was to take slaves. We also encountered a long edit war in which Lir insisted that the article be at [[Cristobal Colon]] (with accent marks I'm not going to try to reproduce here). He then went into a crusade to rename all places and people by the names they're known in their native languages, instead of by the names they're known to English speakers, even though this is the English wikipedia. He has never made any attempts to be polite, cordial or cooperative, but insists that only his way can prevail.
When he was finally banned, he went outside the Wikipedia and tried to
make people believe, on his personal blog page and elsewhere, that he was banned for his politics, not for his personality and inability to cooperate with others. So then he came back as Vera Cruz, and continued his lack of cooperation. Even 172, someone who has the same sort of personality as Lir/Vera Cruz/Adam/Bridget, found him impossible to work with on the [[New Imperialism]] page, even though at first the two of them were allies against those of us who wanted to keep the page NPOV and useful.
And now he claims he's repentant and won't behave in the same manner.
I find it hard to believe, but for some reason, the rest of you think he's reformed. I've had a long night thinking about this. At first, I felt that if you thought it was more important to have Lir here than me, that fine, I'd leave and you could have him, and more power to you. But I've decided that was childish, and I apologize to everybody for saying that.
However ...
If you let Lir back, I'd like to be a sysop. I've avoided asking for
the authority before, even though some people have encouraged me to do it. But I know that Lir will be as disruptive as before, and I want to be able to deal with him. I promise I will be on my best behavior, and will not act abruptly. If you grant me this authority, then I'll go along with the odd request that Lir be allowed to come back. But if he continues to disrupt, and people don't step in to get rid of him for good, then I do swear I will leave, and I'm not just blowing smoke this time.
Zoe
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus
http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Zoe,
thanks for thinking about this. The thing is, while Lir has made many edits that justified her ban, as Mav and others have observed, her behavior has somewhat improved recently. I don't recall her calling anyone a moron under the "Vera Cruz" identity, for example. I also think that any ban should be temporary, and that we should give everyone an opportunity to reform.
Regarding your connected sysop request, I have no objections under these conditions, which every sysop should meet:
1) That you are not an editor, but a moderator; 2) That you do not use the "page protection" privilege in conflicts where you yourself are involved; 3) That you only delete pages which are obvious nonsense ("aihwerjfoaijw"), or have been listed on "Votes for deletion" for a while without significant dissent.
Given these restrictions, I also find it hard to see what you could do regarding Lir's behavior with sysop privileges that you cannot presently do?
Regards,
Erik
I have no problem with Erik's provisos, they're pretty much what I would have done anyway. Except for being a moderator, not an editor. Are you saying you don't want me working on any articles on my own? If that's what you're saying, I can't live with that. Zoe Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:Zoe,
thanks for thinking about this. The thing is, while Lir has made many edits that justified her ban, as Mav and others have observed, her behavior has somewhat improved recently. I don't recall her calling anyone a moron under the "Vera Cruz" identity, for example. I also think that any ban should be temporary, and that we should give everyone an opportunity to reform.
Regarding your connected sysop request, I have no objections under these conditions, which every sysop should meet:
1) That you are not an editor, but a moderator; 2) That you do not use the "page protection" privilege in conflicts where you yourself are involved; 3) That you only delete pages which are obvious nonsense ("aihwerjfoaijw"), or have been listed on "Votes for deletion" for a while without significant dissent.
Given these restrictions, I also find it hard to see what you could do regarding Lir's behavior with sysop privileges that you cannot presently do?
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
At 02:43 PM 2/8/03 -0800, Zoe wrote:
I have no problem with Erik's provisos, they're pretty much what I would have done anyway. Except for being a moderator, not an editor. Are you saying you don't want me working on any articles on my own? If that's what you're saying, I can't live with that.
That's not what it means. It just means that we (sysops) need to separate our editing from our adminning/sysop work. If I think an article needs protection from vandals, _I stop editing it myself_. This is to avoid the temptation to use sysop powers unfairly in an edit war.
It doesn't mean I can't edit pages, or that you wouldn't be able to.
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 06:49:38PM -0500, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
That's not what it means. It just means that we (sysops) need to separate our editing from our adminning/sysop work. If I think an article needs protection from vandals, _I stop editing it myself_. This is to avoid the temptation to use sysop powers unfairly in an edit war.
It doesn't mean I can't edit pages, or that you wouldn't be able to.
In practice, it amounts to that. I have seen Eric and Ortolan and some others attack Ed Poor when he appropriately protected a page to stop an edit war, when he had recently been involved in editing that page himself.
I believe that attack on Ed Poor was unjustified, and I don't want to see a repeat of such attacks made on Zoe.
Jonathan
On 2/8/03 6:51 PM, "Jonathan Walther" krooger@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 06:49:38PM -0500, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
That's not what it means. It just means that we (sysops) need to separate our editing from our adminning/sysop work. If I think an article needs protection from vandals, _I stop editing it myself_. This is to avoid the temptation to use sysop powers unfairly in an edit war.
It doesn't mean I can't edit pages, or that you wouldn't be able to.
In practice, it amounts to that. I have seen Eric and Ortolan and some others attack Ed Poor when he appropriately protected a page to stop an edit war, when he had recently been involved in editing that page himself.
I believe that attack on Ed Poor was unjustified, and I don't want to see a repeat of such attacks made on Zoe.
It's only your judgment that Poor's action was appropriate.
One of the most effective ways of avoiding seeing things you don't like is to close your eyes.
None of us here are saints, and we all err. These errors should be pointed out and our actions challenged--within the bounds of, shall we say, ahimsa. Those with power and authority have the capacity to make more harmful errors. Thus challenges to their action should be more vociferous.
But what's going on is the inevitable problem with the establishment of an arbitrary hierarchy of power.
-tc
Jonathan Walther wrote:
In practice, it amounts to that. I have seen Eric and Ortolan and some others attack Ed Poor when he appropriately protected a page to stop an edit war, when he had recently been involved in editing that page himself.
There will always be the possibility of "judgment calls" where sysops question each other. These need never turn into heated arguments unless there's some kind of ongoing problem.
As general wisdom on edit wars, I recommend that people sometimes (not always, it depends on the circumstances, and different people will judge things differently at times)... that people sometimes let the other person "win" for now. Just drop the debate, and come back to the page tomorrow. Maybe the other person will be gone then. Maybe they will have a change of heart by then. Maybe you'll think of a way to make the article NPOV *and* satisfy their concerns.
--Jimbo
Thanks for clearing that up, Vicki. I don't have a problem with that. Zoe Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org wrote:At 02:43 PM 2/8/03 -0800, Zoe wrote:
I have no problem with Erik's provisos, they're pretty much what I would have done anyway. Except for being a moderator, not an editor. Are you saying you don't want me working on any articles on my own? If that's what you're saying, I can't live with that.
That's not what it means. It just means that we (sysops) need to separate our editing from our adminning/sysop work. If I think an article needs protection from vandals, _I stop editing it myself_. This is to avoid the temptation to use sysop powers unfairly in an edit war.
It doesn't mean I can't edit pages, or that you wouldn't be able to.
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 05:46:40PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up, Vicki. I don't have a problem with that.
If things were the way Vikki said they were, that would be fantastic. The incident with Ed Poor that I referred to was where he was helping edit an article, then noticed an edit war, and froze the page.
After the page was frozen there were howls of protest from Eric, Ortolan88 and so forth that he had left the page in a "biased" form. On THEIR request he took the disputed text out entirely, until such time as the page could be unprotected.
Then he got attacked by these individuals for doing the very thing they had begged him to do previously.
What I'm trying to say, Zoe, is that you can't win unless you are willing to stick to your guns. Do what you feel is the right thing for the Wikipedia, and I will back you up.
Jonathan
At 02:43 PM 2/8/03 -0800, Zoe wrote: >I have no problem with Erik's provisos, they're pretty much what I would >have done anyway. Except for being a moderator, not an editor. Are you >saying you don't want me working on any articles on my own? If that's >what you're saying, I can't live with that. That's not what it means. It just means that we (sysops) need to separate our editing from our adminning/sysop work. If I think an article needs protection from vandals, _I stop editing it myself_. This is to avoid the temptation to use sysop powers unfairly in an edit war. It doesn't mean I can't edit pages, or that you wouldn't be able to.
I'm glad to say that so far as I know, Ed has never frozen another page in which he was personally involved and you have never edited anyone else's user page again. Good for both of you.
Howlin' Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
|From: Jonathan Walther krooger@debian.org |Content-Disposition: inline |Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 20:57:55 -0800 | | |--pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt |Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed |Content-Disposition: inline |Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable | |On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 05:46:40PM -0800, Zoe wrote: |> Thanks for clearing that up, Vicki. I don't have a problem with that. | |If things were the way Vikki said they were, that would be fantastic. |The incident with Ed Poor that I referred to was where he was helping |edit an article, then noticed an edit war, and froze the page. | |After the page was frozen there were howls of protest from Eric, Ortolan88 |and so forth that he had left the page in a "biased" form. On THEIR |request he took the disputed text out entirely, until such time as the |page could be unprotected. | |Then he got attacked by these individuals for doing the very thing they |had begged him to do previously. | |What I'm trying to say, Zoe, is that you can't win unless you are |willing to stick to your guns. Do what you feel is the right thing for |the Wikipedia, and I will back you up. | |Jonathan | |> At 02:43 PM 2/8/03 -0800, Zoe wrote: |> >I have no problem with Erik's provisos, they're pretty much what I |> would |> >have done anyway. Except for being a moderator, not an editor. Are y= |ou |> >saying you don't want me working on any articles on my own? If that's |> >what you're saying, I can't live with that. |> |> That's not what it means. It just means that we (sysops) need to |> separate |> our editing |> from our adminning/sysop work. If I think an article needs protection |> from |> vandals, _I |> stop editing it myself_. This is to avoid the temptation to use sysop |> powers unfairly in |> an edit war. |> |> It doesn't mean I can't edit pages, or that you wouldn't be able to. | |--=20 | Geek House Productions, Ltd. | | Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting, | QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation, | General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998 | |Phone: 604-435-1205 |Email: djw@reactor-core.org |Webpage: http://reactor-core.org |Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2 | |--pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt |Content-Type: application/pgp-signature |Content-Disposition: inline | |-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) | |iQCVAwUBPkXf08K9HT/YfGeBAQGsoQP9H7ccJQ0cUtCbcZu7RuseG7T7Ig5AJdMb |ekkzviOFEpL4BCKYYsN/nhg0edBcKzANkT5n8BjyvDyq+6nMvGDntSd53cmTgAZN |YA8FYdfUqzaqAswaBx8HRK5peRtqHepfReoVCr35DrnQKd0Nr90wMWT6ltoqiOPx |6N+OJiMTf2w= |=XGWO |-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- | |--pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt-- |_______________________________________________ |WikiEN-l mailing list |WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 02:18:06AM -0500, Tom Parmenter wrote:
I'm glad to say that so far as I know, Ed has never frozen another page in which he was personally involved and you have never edited anyone else's user page again. Good for both of you.
On the flip side, good for the rest of you that Ed and I have not yet *needed* to take such action again.
Jonathan
|From: Jonathan Walther krooger@debian.org |Content-Disposition: inline |Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 23:23:26 -0800 | | |--Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v |Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed |Content-Disposition: inline |Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable | |On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 02:18:06AM -0500, Tom Parmenter wrote: |>I'm glad to say that so far as I know, Ed has never frozen another |>page in which he was personally involved and you have never edited |>anyone else's user page again. Good for both of you. =20 | |On the flip side, good for the rest of you that Ed and I have not yet |*needed* to take such action again. | |Jonathan |
There is never any such "need". There's always another sys op. There's always a place to complain about another user.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
|--=20 | Geek House Productions, Ltd. | | Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting, | QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation, | General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998 | |Phone: 604-435-1205 |Email: djw@reactor-core.org |Webpage: http://reactor-core.org |Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2 | |--Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v |Content-Type: application/pgp-signature |Content-Disposition: inline | |-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) | |iQCVAwUBPkYB7sK9HT/YfGeBAQEPugP9HspARuYZ7GmVtupUgYTX7WbubIF+/QFr |dPDhwg8D7fm3VjGXoIWrRamUr9iTuHr/uZmT05I6N+IHOjenzznu1fVZKe7rAVys |9Pu8NpXn8wmkEKZKvFv1c6Iat/XgAxux9Vq+HgbKTJgYKmzC6W9H5Im9t+mT71Bz |SPh0Ty2ZJLE= |=zZfh |-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- | |--Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v-- |_______________________________________________ |WikiEN-l mailing list |WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org writes:
That's not what it means. It just means that we (sysops) need to separate our editing from our adminning/sysop work. If I think an article needs protection from vandals, _I stop editing it myself_.
But this depends on your good jugdement if an article is really vandalized.
Just having reverted some content that Zoe unjustifiedly deleted without giving any reasons[1] I must say I don't trust Zoe to use sysop powers - at least in everything which concerns the arab-israeli conflict - in a fair way.
greetings, elian [1] Irgun: she deleted a remark that some regard the organization as terrorist. With a short look at us-israel.org she could have seen that even the Israeli mainstream considers Irgun to be terrorist.
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 04:37:43AM +0100, elian wrote:
Just having reverted some content that Zoe unjustifiedly deleted without giving any reasons[1] I must say I don't trust Zoe to use sysop powers - at least in everything which concerns the arab-israeli conflict - in a fair way.
When not dealing with Lir, naturally Zoe will be expected to use her sysop powers in the same manner, and to the same high standard as all the other sysops.
Jonathan
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
That's not what it means. It just means that we (sysops) need to separate our editing from our adminning/sysop work. If I think an article needs protection from vandals, _I stop editing it myself_. This is to avoid the temptation to use sysop powers unfairly in an edit war.
That's very well said.
As for me, since I get to be the "heavy" at the end of the day, I find myself uncomfortable editing at all.
--Jimbo
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 09:22:00PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
Regarding your connected sysop request, I have no objections under these conditions, which every sysop should meet:
- That you are not an editor, but a moderator;
- That you do not use the "page protection" privilege in conflicts where
you yourself are involved; 3) That you only delete pages which are obvious nonsense ("aihwerjfoaijw"), or have been listed on "Votes for deletion" for a while without significant dissent.
I think none of these restrictions should apply to Zoe when she is dealing with Lir, and her actions pertaining to Lir should not be reversed by another sysop unless there is a consensus, not only that Lir made an "ok" contribution, but that he was showing proper respect for the fact that we all have to work together here.
If he is willing to cooperate, let's let him. If he wants to compete and call people names, we shouldn't have to sit on our hands and weep while we wait for Jimmy to reinstitute a ban.
I suggest that Zoe can be Lir's mentor; if Lir ignores Zoe, then only he is to blame for whatever action she uses her sysop powers for to deal with him. Not only is it poetic justice, but I feel Lir has progressed enough that spending time deliberately trying not to piss off Zoe would complete the polish on his Wiki-indoctrination and make him the valued contributor we all know he is capable of being.
Jonathan
Jonathan Walther wrote:
I suggest that Zoe can be Lir's mentor; if Lir ignores Zoe, then only he is to blame for whatever action she uses her sysop powers for to deal with him. Not only is it poetic justice, but I feel Lir has progressed enough that spending time deliberately trying not to piss off Zoe would complete the polish on his Wiki-indoctrination and make him the valued contributor we all know he is capable of being.
I can't decide whether Jonathan is showing Gandhi-esque genius for the resolution of a tough problem, or being the matchmaker for a romance from hell. They'd have to talk together.
Eclecticology
I believe that's "Solomon-esque". I think it's a great idea.
Saurabh
------ "Ever think of introducing yourself?" Y.T. says. "Nah," he says, "people always forget names. You can just think of me as that one guy, y'know?" -Snow Crash
In message 3E45B2D6.6010204@telus.net, Ray Saintonge said:
Jonathan Walther wrote:
I suggest that Zoe can be Lir's mentor; if Lir ignores Zoe, then only he is to blame for whatever action she uses her sysop powers for to deal with him. Not only is it poetic justice, but I feel Lir has progressed enough that spending time deliberately trying not to piss off Zoe would complete the polish on his Wiki-indoctrination and make him the valued contributor we all know he is capable of being.
I can't decide whether Jonathan is showing Gandhi-esque genius for the resolution of a tough problem, or being the matchmaker for a romance from hell. They'd have to talk together.
Eclecticology
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I suggest that Zoe can be Lir's mentor; if Lir ignores Zoe, then only he is to blame for whatever action she uses her sysop powers for to deal with him. Not only is it poetic justice, but I feel Lir has progressed enough that spending time deliberately trying not to piss off Zoe would complete the polish on his Wiki-indoctrination and make him the valued contributor we all know he is capable of being.
I can't decide whether Jonathan is showing Gandhi-esque genius for the resolution of a tough problem, or being the matchmaker for a romance from hell. They'd have to talk together.
The whole idea of a mentor system (which I proposed) rests on the fact that the person being mentored acknowledges the mentor as someone they respect, not that the "mentor" can punish the "pupil" to "complete the polish on his Wiki-indoctrination" (Clutch's words - the same Clutch who repeatedly vandalized Lir's user page to instill "good taste" into her).
Aside from that, this goes far beyond the purposes for which sysop powers are intended and moves us away from a wiki-community to one ruled by editorial police forces who can reign arbitrarily with no process of appeal, much like Everything2.
One thing is clear: There are more grounds to ban Clutch, based on his past behavior, than to ban Lir.
Regards,
Erik
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 03:50:00AM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
I can't decide whether Jonathan is showing Gandhi-esque genius for the resolution of a tough problem, or being the matchmaker for a romance from hell. They'd have to talk together.
The whole idea of a mentor system (which I proposed) rests on the fact that the person being mentored acknowledges the mentor as someone they respect, not that the "mentor" can punish the "pupil" to "complete the polish on his Wiki-indoctrination" (Clutch's words - the same Clutch who repeatedly vandalized Lir's user page to instill "good taste" into her).
To call the tasteful improvements I made to Lir's page "vandalism" shows your particular form of bias, Eric. Your conviction that my desire for neutrality equates to anti-Semitism shows it's impact in your other comments about me.
For someone who self-identifies as a humanist, you sure lack a humanist ethic.
Jonathan
On 2/9/03 12:05 AM, "Jonathan Walther" krooger@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 03:50:00AM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
I can't decide whether Jonathan is showing Gandhi-esque genius for the resolution of a tough problem, or being the matchmaker for a romance from hell. They'd have to talk together.
The whole idea of a mentor system (which I proposed) rests on the fact that the person being mentored acknowledges the mentor as someone they respect, not that the "mentor" can punish the "pupil" to "complete the polish on his Wiki-indoctrination" (Clutch's words - the same Clutch who repeatedly vandalized Lir's user page to instill "good taste" into her).
To call the tasteful improvements I made to Lir's page "vandalism" shows your particular form of bias, Eric. Your conviction that my desire for neutrality equates to anti-Semitism shows it's impact in your other comments about me.
Heh..."tasteful"...
"(We want good taste, or we'll spit you out.)" "(adding link to important article on Good Taste)" "(Don't try to wriggle out of it Lir; a contributor of your stature needs to develope some TASTE)" "(Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. If you don't take other peoples feelings seriously Lir, why should we take your work seriously?)" "(Give me some evidence you know what good taste is Lir. C'mon, I challenge you.)" "(not even close. try again, Lir baby)"
"Hopefully the user behind this account will use this week to read some other encyclopedias to get an idea of what properly belongs in an encyclopedia, and what does not. If this user wishes to return peacefully, develop even a MODICUM of taste, and resign her Grolier-funded job of sabotaging the Wikipedia, she will be welcomed back with open arms."
"(your fate is being decided; if you don't take your fate seriously, it will certainly take YOU very seriously)" "(Oliver Pereira is probably Lir, based on his mailing list posts, the date he created his account, and his pattern of editing. If he tries to play nice, then that is fine.)" "(Oliver, your defense of Lir makes me wonder if you aren't planning to be similarly anti-social yourself. I will indeed be watching your edits.)"
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 04:30:03AM -0500, The Cunctator wrote:
To call the tasteful improvements I made to Lir's page "vandalism" shows your particular form of bias, Eric. Your conviction that my desire for neutrality equates to anti-Semitism shows it's impact in your other comments about me.
Heh..."tasteful"...
<snip>
You probably intended that to be a witty putdown, but a) the edit comments are not the edits. You seem to be making the map-is-the-territory fallacy. And b) you pasted a single paragraph from an older version of Lirs page, not the one I finally edited. Deceptive behavior, I think.
Jonathan
Zoe wrote:
If you let Lir back, I'd like to be a sysop. I've avoided asking for the authority before, even though some people have encouraged me to do it.
As a side note, unrelated to Lir, I think it is unfortunate that people have come to the idea that being a sysop is a big enough deal that it's the sort of thing that one might want to avoid asking for.
Sysop is supposed to be just a technical matter. The sysop is given powers that are limited in nature, to be used solely to combat simple vandals and to execute some commands that are a bit complex and hard to reverse.
I see that there's a lot of discussion about Zoe's comments here, so I won't weigh in until I've read all of that.
--Jimbo