Poor,-
BTW - this is Eric's latest threat:
I have to say at this point that a ban of Jtdirl is no longer out of the question for me. -Eloquence 22:07, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
No, Erik would never do that
No, I would not ban Jtdirl myself, and I have never said that I would. But it is beginning to look like a necessity. I will look at this again when Jimbo is back and if I deem it necessary, supply the evidence to him that would support a temporary ban.
Oh, and this still belongs on wikien-l.
Regards,
Erik
On 10/20/03 7:05 PM, "Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Poor,-
BTW - this is Eric's latest threat:
I have to say at this point that a ban of Jtdirl is no longer out of the question for me. -Eloquence 22:07, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
No, Erik would never do that
No, I would not ban Jtdirl myself, and I have never said that I would. But it is beginning to look like a necessity. I will look at this again when Jimbo is back and if I deem it necessary, supply the evidence to him that would support a temporary ban.
Oh, and this still belongs on wikien-l.
Sounds like a threat to me.
Cunc-
No, I would not ban Jtdirl myself, and I have never said that I would. But it is beginning to look like a necessity. I will look at this again when Jimbo is back and if I deem it necessary, supply the evidence to him that would support a temporary ban.
Oh, and this still belongs on wikien-l.
Sounds like a threat to me.
Hardly surprising, as you see every ban as a threat. However, this is the proper procedure for banning users on Wikipedia, whether you like it or not.
Regards,
Erik
On 10/21/03 12:15 AM, "Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Cunc-
No, I would not ban Jtdirl myself, and I have never said that I would. But it is beginning to look like a necessity. I will look at this again when Jimbo is back and if I deem it necessary, supply the evidence to him that would support a temporary ban.
Oh, and this still belongs on wikien-l.
Sounds like a threat to me.
Hardly surprising, as you see every ban as a threat. However, this is the proper procedure for banning users on Wikipedia, whether you like it or not.
I was responding to Ed Poor's mistaken belief that you weren't serious about initiating banning procedures on Jtdirl.
("No, Erik would never do that -- no more than I would. In a moment of anger, anyone might 'think aloud' and talk about doing something. But that is not a threat.
Saying, "I wish Bush was dead" or even "Someone ought to kill the president" is NOT THE SAME as an assassination threat. Sheldon Rampton's wish that the software would give him the ability to send a million volts through my chair is not a murder threat.
Erik and I both spoke (rashly, perhaps) of a DESIRE to temporarily block or even permanently ban contributors who use Wikipedia in ways we didn't like.
But Jimbo knows we wouldn't really do that.")
Unless I misinterpreted Ed.
Cunc-
I was responding to Ed Poor's mistaken belief that you weren't serious about initiating banning procedures on Jtdirl.
You are correct, that belief is mistaken. However, as I have stated countless times, if Jtdirl works with me peacefully on the article in question, then I see no reason to continue this procedure, and I will only make a decision after a few days of cooling down. I value him as a contributor, but I find it impossible to work on an article if my edits are reverted without discussion or explanation.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
You are correct, that belief is mistaken. However, as I have stated countless times, if Jtdirl works with me peacefully on the article in question, then I see no reason to continue this procedure, and I will only make a decision after a few days of cooling down. I value him as a contributor, but I find it impossible to work on an article if my edits are reverted without discussion or explanation.
Not to mention-- since it be *you in the edit war with JT --it wont be *you who be doing any banning.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Are you saying you are prepared to ban a user because you are having an edit war with him? That is MOST DEFINITELY an abuse of your sysop powers, and should cause YOU to be instantly banned.
RickK
Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote: Cunc-
I was responding to Ed Poor's mistaken belief that you weren't serious about initiating banning procedures on Jtdirl.
You are correct, that belief is mistaken. However, as I have stated countless times, if Jtdirl works with me peacefully on the article in question, then I see no reason to continue this procedure, and I will only make a decision after a few days of cooling down. I value him as a contributor, but I find it impossible to work on an article if my edits are reverted without discussion or explanation.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
RickK wrote:
Are you [Eloquence] saying you are prepared to ban a user because you are having an edit war with him? That is MOST DEFINITELY an abuse of your sysop powers, and should cause YOU to be instantly banned.
No, he is not.
That's what Ed thought that he meant, which is why Ed said that he wasn't serious about it. But that's not what he meant at all, it seems.
In any case, he is now talking about bringing it before Jimbo, under the charge of being an uncooperative fellow editor. Whether or not that charge is valid, it's not an abuse of any power. In fact, it doesn't use adminstrator power; anybody could do it.
-- Toby
Rick wrote:
Are you saying you are prepared to ban a user because you are having an edit war with him? That is MOST DEFINITELY an abuse of your sysop powers, and should cause YOU to be instantly banned.
That isn't what he said, actually. (I know I'm a few days late, just back from a wedding, so maybe what I'm about to say has already been said.)
Erik has proposed that Jtdirl's actions on the Mother Theresa article were of the sort that, in his view, ought to lead us to consider a ban of Jtdirl. Not having yet reviewed the whole conflagration, I can't say for sure, but I'm rather inclined to suppose that I would not agree with that assessment.
I prefer for people to not be very quick at all to rush to the notion that a ban is the proper solution for a problem. And that's why we are headed toward a system where formal mediation is the "first final step".
Particularly for longtime contributors like Jtdirl and Erik, both of whom know and accept the NPOV policy as foundational, it strikes me as very unlikely that we'll be unable to produce an article that both find satisfactory.
The process of getting to that version may be a bit rough and tumble at times, of course. It might occassionally, and regrettably, involve some heated words. But as long as we all remain passionately and lovingly committed to the overarching ideal of neutrality, we can see effective progress made.
--Jimbo