I have apoligized, on numerous occasions and via numerous channels of communication. I have apoligized both publicly and privately. I have apoligized both to the general community and to specific individuals.
I have even apoligized for specific behaviour which I felt was inappropriate but which the general community does not view as bannable behavior and which nobody has ever attacked me for and that several sysops frequently enage in without any condemnation; for example, swearing.
It would be appropriate, for those who argue that I am a vandal, to stop stating that I have refused to abide by wiki guidelines, that I have refused to apoligize, or that I have refused to admit that my behavior was inappropriate.
I would like to further note, that while my opponents my claim I am a vandal for referring to the people of "Minoa" (an allegedly fictitous empire), engaging in an edit war over the name of Christopher Columbus, referring to the Queen of England as Ms. Bowes-Lyon, and insisting that regime is a POV term...I must note, I have NEVER taken paragraphs of text inserted by any user and deleted them - the worst I have done is taken paragraphs of text and moved them.
Nor have I ever entered swearwords into an article or changed dates, names, people, places, or any other information in such a way as to render the article clearly fallacious. The closest allegation of this sort which was made against me was, "I don't see anything factually wrong with Lir's additions; but I'm certain there is some hidden POV which we will find upon further investigation."
I was banned for 1 week because when other users deleted my additions, leading to an edit war, I started swearing at them and making personal attacks. That was a very very long time ago, at a point in time where I was suffering from a nicotine addiction.
It is true that I violated my ban, first with one account and then another, but during all that time and all those thousands and thousands and thousands of edits, did I ever vandalize an article? Did I ever swear at anybody? In all those thousands of edits, did I ever do anything wrong besides being me, admitting to being me, writing on topics which only I have been working on, and use an identifiable OS/browser/IP?
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
On 5/14/03 12:52 AM, "Adam von [name omitted for privacy reasons]" cddvdlenscleaner@yahoo.com wrote: <snip>
It is true that I violated my ban, first with one account and then another, but during all that time and all those thousands and thousands and thousands of edits, did I ever vandalize an article? Did I ever swear at anybody? In all those thousands of edits, did I ever do anything wrong besides being me, admitting to being me, writing on topics which only I have been working on, and use an identifiable OS/browser/IP?
Yes. You continued to do the things that caused you to get banned in the first place.
I'm not saying that you should have been banned, or need to still be banned, or are a threat to Wikipedia, but it's certainly the case that you have not demonstrated that you understand that there are reasons other than knee-jerk fear and hatred that people don't want you to participate in Wikipedia.
For example: Do you remember when you continually edited other people's comments to change their meaning? That was wrong.
Adam ..
It is true that I violated my ban, first with one account and then another, but during all that time and all those thousands and thousands and thousands of edits, did I ever vandalize an article? Did I ever swear at anybody? In all those thousands of edits, did I ever do anything wrong besides being me, admitting to being me, writing on topics which only I have been working on, and use an identifiable OS/browser/IP?
Well, "being you" was not so much of a problem. Why did you misrepresent yourself in the first place? Jimbo was always open for discussions, and so were other members of this list. Heck, even I have emailed you a couple of times. But no, you had to create "Vera Cruz" and "Susan Mason" to get back in. Why? For what other reason than to avoid dealing with the conflicts that were, in large part, caused by you?
The ironic part is that this, of all things, harmed your case more than anything else you've done: After it was conclusively proven that you were Vera Cruz, Jimbo declared that it was unlikely for you to get back in; further, your appearance under multiple identities led users to speculate that every petty vandal, every anonymous POV edit was yet another incarnation of yourself. Had you not chosen to play that game in the first place, such suspicions would never have arisen. You can't blame this identity nonsense on nicotine addiction, you can't blame it on Zoe, it was your choice, and I haven't seen an apology for it.
There were other things. You have been asked repeatedly to use the preview function. I even hacked in a "Preview on top" feature because you asked me to. Still, you continued to save your articles every second, causing dozens of changes for just one edit. Example from a random article you worked on:
# (cur) (last) . . M 08:15 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz # (cur) (last) . . M 07:53 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz # (cur) (last) . . M 07:49 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz # (cur) (last) . . M 07:46 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz # (cur) (last) . . M 07:45 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz # (cur) (last) . . M 07:43 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz # (cur) (last) . . M 07:42 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz # (cur) (last) . . M 07:41 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz # (cur) (last) . . M 07:40 Feb 3, 2003 . . Vera Cruz
Doing these kind of things initially can be forgiven. When people are stubborn and refuse to listen to arguments, cause others trouble for their own minor convenience, then we're getting into the territory where people start getting annoyed. Again, for these kind of things you never apologized -- instead it was the software that was at fault, or other people who were not listening to your problems.
People have reached out to you. I have given you a long list of things that you need to do to start working on Wikipedia again. It is only now that I see you beginning to do these things. It's good that you are using your real name, that's a start, so we don't have to play "guess Lir's gender" anymore. I don't care particularly for a comprehensive apology, but I would support your application for official re-entrance if you pledged to abide by the following:
1) Use a single identity and stick to it.
2) Find a solution for your 40000 edits per page problem. I don't care if you write your texts in a text editor, if you use preview or whatever - just don't clutter the database, article history and recent changes with needless noise.
3) Be nice to other contributors. That does not just mean "no swearing", but also avoiding snappy remarks, acknowledging other people's contributions and trying to work cooperatively. Wikilove, Wikiquette, whatever you want to call it.
Three simple conditions, no? I am sure others have more complaints, but Jimbo is a relaxed person. If you behave properly, he will probably let you back in.
I do wonder why you care so much about Wikipedia, though. You would probably be a high level noder on Everything2 by now ..
Regards,
Erik
I don't see what's wrong with multiple consecutive edits on one page. Sometimes I submit the page and then I realise that I forgot to put in some information, or I forget to preview.
-LittleDan
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
- Find a solution for your 40000 edits per page
problem. I don't care if you write your texts in a text editor, if you use preview or whatever - just don't clutter the database, article history and recent changes with needless noise.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
LittleDan-
I don't see what's wrong with multiple consecutive edits on one page. Sometimes I submit the page and then I realise that I forgot to put in some information, or I forget to preview.
Do you see nothing wrong with 3 consecutive edits to the same page? Right, neither do I. How about 30? 300? Obviously there is a point at which it gets annoying, and Lir regularly got past this point. Please familiarize yourself with Lir's edit history before defending him. Here are some highlights, but these are not exceptions -- Lir frequently made 2 or more edits *per minute* to the same page. Now if you think that isn't excessive, then we may have slightly different standards. When this was pointed out, Lir complained that it was the fault of the software and refused to change his behavior in any way. He did not use the preview function *at all*.
# 08:08 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation # 08:07 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation # 08:06 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation # 08:05 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation # 08:05 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation # 08:04 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation # 08:04 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation # 08:03 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation # 08:03 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation # 08:02 Feb 2, 2003 RAND Corporation
# 16:54 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:54 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:53 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:53 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:52 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:51 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:48 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:47 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:46 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:45 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:07 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:05 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:05 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:03 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:02 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:01 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 16:01 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 15:48 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 15:48 Jan 18, 2003 Bail # 15:47 Jan 18, 2003 Bail
# 18:57 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore # 18:56 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore # 18:55 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore # 18:55 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore # 18:54 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore # 18:53 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore # 18:45 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore # 18:45 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore # 18:44 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore # 18:44 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore # 18:43 Jan 17, 2003 Hal Moore
# 07:14 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science) # 07:10 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science) # 07:09 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science) # 07:06 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science) # 07:05 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science) # 07:05 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science) # 07:04 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science) # 07:04 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science) # 07:03 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science) # 07:03 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science) # 07:02 Jan 17, 2003 Inheritance (computer science)
# 17:20 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable # 17:19 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable # 17:17 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable # 17:17 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable # 17:16 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable # 17:16 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable # 17:15 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable # 17:15 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable # 17:14 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable # 17:13 Jan 16, 2003 Class variable
# 11:18 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie # 11:18 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie # 11:12 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie # 11:11 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie # 11:07 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie # 11:04 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie # 11:03 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie # 10:59 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie # 10:58 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie # 10:56 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie # 10:45 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie # 10:45 Jan 16, 2003 Elaine Riddick Jessie
# 16:14 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 15:51 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 15:42 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 15:39 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 15:35 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 15:20 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 15:15 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 15:11 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 15:09 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 15:09 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 15:07 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 14:40 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 14:19 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 14:18 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 14:06 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:58 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:55 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:55 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:45 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:42 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:42 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:41 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:40 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:35 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:28 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:26 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:26 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:25 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:25 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:24 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:18 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:17 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:15 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:12 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson # 06:12 Jan 14, 2003 Colin Ferguson
# 15:05 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas # 15:04 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas # 15:00 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas # 15:00 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas # 14:59 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas # 14:55 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas # 14:54 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas # 14:52 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas # 14:50 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas # 14:50 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas # 14:50 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas # 14:48 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas # 14:48 Jan 13, 2003 Jesse Timmendequas
# 14:03 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas # 14:02 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas # 13:20 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas # 13:18 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas # 13:17 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas # 13:17 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas # 13:13 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas # 13:13 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas # 13:06 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas # 12:59 Jan 13, 2003 Polly Klaas
# 03:25 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 03:25 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 03:21 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 03:20 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 03:20 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 03:17 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 03:16 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 03:15 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 03:14 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 03:08 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 03:07 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 03:04 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 03:00 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 02:59 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 02:58 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 02:53 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 02:53 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 02:52 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 02:51 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 02:51 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 02:50 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 02:44 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 02:41 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 02:41 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator # 02:40 Jan 13, 2003 World Church of the Creator
# 07:08 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 07:08 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 07:07 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 07:04 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:50 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:48 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:47 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:47 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:44 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:40 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:36 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:34 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:34 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:33 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:32 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:28 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:27 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:19 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:18 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:17 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:13 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:13 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:09 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 06:09 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 04:12 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 04:04 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 04:03 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis # 03:59 Jan 10, 2003 German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
--- Adam von [name omitted for privacy reasons] cddvdlenscleaner@yahoo.com wrote:
I have apoligized, on numerous occasions and via numerous channels of communication. I have apoligized both publicly and privately. I have apoligized both to the general community and to specific individuals.
The number of apologies is not a quantifier to true apology. Sincerity is. Sincerity in apology is demonstrated by change in behavior. One apology should have been enough.
I have even apoligized for specific behaviour which I felt was inappropriate but which the general community does not view as bannable behavior and which nobody has ever attacked me for and that several sysops frequently enage in without any condemnation; for example, swearing.
Swearing is part of the human language for a reason, and it allows for a fuller range of expression of human emotion. Swearing in a contextual, constructive and meaningful way is generally never frowned upon.
It would be appropriate, for those who argue that I am a vandal, to stop stating that I have refused to abide by wiki guidelines, that I have refused to apoligize, or that I have refused to admit that my behavior was inappropriate.
It is inappropriate to tell other people what to do when you yourself do not want other people telling you what to do.
I would like to further note, that while my opponents my claim I am a vandal for referring to the people of "Minoa" (an allegedly fictitous empire), engaging in an edit war over the name of Christopher Columbus, referring to the Queen of England as Ms. Bowes-Lyon, and insisting that regime is a POV term...I must note, I have NEVER taken paragraphs of text inserted by any user and deleted them - the worst I have done is taken paragraphs of text and moved them.
I can take paragraphs of text and reorganize them to mean something completely different than what was intended by the author. If original meaning is retained, then that is fine. If original meaning is altered, then it would have been better had those paragraphs been cut out altogether.
Nor have I ever entered swearwords into an article or changed dates, names, people, places, or any other information in such a way as to render the article clearly fallacious. The closest allegation of this sort which was made against me was, "I don't see anything factually wrong with Lir's additions; but I'm certain there is some hidden POV which we will find upon further investigation."
Except of course the names of the aforementioned Christopher Columbus and Queen of England. Truth and lies are not so much in what is written, but rather in what is left unwritten. To have wholesomeness, a subject matter must be complete.
I was banned for 1 week because when other users deleted my additions, leading to an edit war, I started swearing at them and making personal attacks. That was a very very long time ago, at a point in time where I was suffering from a nicotine addiction.
A very long time ago? This project will still be here in 10 years. (with a lot more articles). You'll be around. You may have a completely different attitude about life then.
Your suffering from a nicotine addiction is not an excuse to engage in belligerent behavior. We are not your counselors or medical professionals. I would suggest that you specifically not engage in working on the W until your personal issues have been resolved satisfactorily.
Please do not interpret my last comment to mean that I am condemning you for your ailments. We all face challenges of many sorts in our life, from day-to-day stress to difficult childhoods to insufferable co-workers (arrgghhh--Wew, feeling better already). It is my wish that you would find healing and restfulness and clarity of thought for yourself in your life. It is for that reason that I recommend you lay off the Wiki since in and of itself it can cause stress and confrontation and addictive behavior (we have a page about that somewhere), and it may not be the best thing for you at this stage in your life.
It is true that I violated my ban, first with one account and then another, but during all that time and all those thousands and thousands and thousands of edits, did I ever vandalize an article? Did I ever swear at anybody? In all those thousands of edits, did I ever do anything wrong besides being me, admitting to being me, writing on topics which only I have been working on, and use an identifiable OS/browser/IP?
The fact that we could not trust the author meant that the articles had to be scrutinized, and that means extra work and irritation and often frustration. I am looking forward to the day when I see A. v. [name omitted for privacy reasons] next to an edit and say to myself "Nothing to see here; must be solid edit; moving on down the recent changes list."
Adam,
I have tried in the past to work with you, and I have often been at a loss of what to feel about you. I am sure this emotion is echoed by many of the people who make up this remarkable community.
I don't care a great deal about policies, etiquette and formalities. What I do care about is people. I respect people, lend my ear to their complaints and praise (it happened once, you know), and try to get along.
It hasn't always been easy. I've had it rough in my life, and the chip on my shoulder was always a sizeable boulder. But I made a decision that even if people were not nice to me, I would be nice to them. This was purely selfish, if you must know. I just felt better when I wasn't blaming and hating and scheming and backstabbing. I just did it for me. The end-result, though, is that the people that now gather around me are nicer, friendlier, supportive, and forgiving. (end of sermon)
I like this community. Zoe's quirky, Mav's ranting, Jimbo non-committal, and Ed, well, he's Ed. And sometimes I read all the post on the mailing list, and sometimes I just delete them all. And sometimes I don't even go to the W for a few weeks. But all in all, I like the people and the place.
So, now that you know where I'm coming from, here's my advice:
Take a break off the W, like 3 months. Rent some movies. Go to the park and walk. Take photos of trees. When you come back, talk to Jimbo. Tell him you'll behave and that you want another shot. If he says no, respect his decision.
If he says yes, then act in a kind, courteous manner at all times. Reference all material, maintain detachment, and think like a historian.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
I would be interested in hearing what Adam considers defacing my User page repeatedly in the span of one evening, if it is not vandalism.
Zoe
--- Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Adam von [name omitted for privacy reasons] cddvdlenscleaner@yahoo.com wrote:
I have apoligized, on numerous occasions and via
numerous channels
of communication. I have apoligized both publicly
and privately. I
have apoligized both to the general community and
to specific
individuals.
The number of apologies is not a quantifier to true apology. Sincerity is. Sincerity in apology is demonstrated by change in behavior. One apology should have been enough.
I have even apoligized for specific behaviour
which I felt was
inappropriate but which the general community does
not view as
bannable behavior and which nobody has ever
attacked me for and
that several sysops frequently enage in without
any condemnation;
for example, swearing.
Swearing is part of the human language for a reason, and it allows for a fuller range of expression of human emotion. Swearing in a contextual, constructive and meaningful way is generally never frowned upon.
It would be appropriate, for those who argue that
I am a vandal, to
stop stating that I have refused to abide by wiki
guidelines, that
I have refused to apoligize, or that I have
refused to admit that
my behavior was inappropriate.
It is inappropriate to tell other people what to do when you yourself do not want other people telling you what to do.
I would like to further note, that while my
opponents my claim I am
a vandal for referring to the people of "Minoa"
(an allegedly
fictitous empire), engaging in an edit war over
the name of
Christopher Columbus, referring to the Queen of
England as Ms.
Bowes-Lyon, and insisting that regime is a POV
term...I must note,
I have NEVER taken paragraphs of text inserted by
any user and
deleted them - the worst I have done is taken
paragraphs of text
and moved them.
I can take paragraphs of text and reorganize them to mean something completely different than what was intended by the author. If original meaning is retained, then that is fine. If original meaning is altered, then it would have been better had those paragraphs been cut out altogether.
Nor have I ever entered swearwords into an article
or changed
dates, names, people, places, or any other
information in such a
way as to render the article clearly fallacious.
The closest
allegation of this sort which was made against me
was, "I don't see
anything factually wrong with Lir's additions; but
I'm certain
there is some hidden POV which we will find upon
further
investigation."
Except of course the names of the aforementioned Christopher Columbus and Queen of England. Truth and lies are not so much in what is written, but rather in what is left unwritten. To have wholesomeness, a subject matter must be complete.
I was banned for 1 week because when other users
deleted my
additions, leading to an edit war, I started
swearing at them and
making personal attacks. That was a very very long
time ago, at a
point in time where I was suffering from a
nicotine addiction.
A very long time ago? This project will still be here in 10 years. (with a lot more articles). You'll be around. You may have a completely different attitude about life then.
Your suffering from a nicotine addiction is not an excuse to engage in belligerent behavior. We are not your counselors or medical professionals. I would suggest that you specifically not engage in working on the W until your personal issues have been resolved satisfactorily.
Please do not interpret my last comment to mean that I am condemning you for your ailments. We all face challenges of many sorts in our life, from day-to-day stress to difficult childhoods to insufferable co-workers (arrgghhh--Wew, feeling better already). It is my wish that you would find healing and restfulness and clarity of thought for yourself in your life. It is for that reason that I recommend you lay off the Wiki since in and of itself it can cause stress and confrontation and addictive behavior (we have a page about that somewhere), and it may not be the best thing for you at this stage in your life.
It is true that I violated my ban, first with one
account and then
another, but during all that time and all those
thousands and
thousands and thousands of edits, did I ever
vandalize an article?
Did I ever swear at anybody? In all those
thousands of edits, did I
ever do anything wrong besides being me, admitting
to being me,
writing on topics which only I have been working
on, and use an
identifiable OS/browser/IP?
The fact that we could not trust the author meant that the articles had to be scrutinized, and that means extra work and irritation and often frustration. I am looking forward to the day when I see A. v. [name omitted for privacy reasons] next to an edit and say to myself "Nothing to see here; must be solid edit; moving on down the recent changes list."
Adam,
I have tried in the past to work with you, and I have often been at a loss of what to feel about you. I am sure this emotion is echoed by many of the people who make up this remarkable community.
I don't care a great deal about policies, etiquette and formalities. What I do care about is people. I respect people, lend my ear to their complaints and praise (it happened once, you know), and try to get along.
It hasn't always been easy. I've had it rough in my life, and the chip on my shoulder was always a sizeable boulder. But I made a decision that even if people were not nice to me, I would be nice to them. This was purely selfish, if you must know. I just felt better when I wasn't blaming and hating and scheming and backstabbing. I just did it for me. The end-result, though, is that the people that now gather around me are nicer, friendlier, supportive, and forgiving. (end of sermon)
I like this community. Zoe's quirky, Mav's ranting, Jimbo non-committal, and Ed, well, he's Ed. And sometimes I read all the post on the mailing list, and sometimes I just delete them all. And sometimes I don't even go to the W for a few weeks. But all in all, I like the people and the place.
So, now that you know where I'm coming from, here's my advice:
Take a break off the W, like 3 months. Rent some movies. Go to the park and walk. Take photos of trees. When you come back, talk to Jimbo. Tell him you'll behave and that you want another shot. If he says no, respect his decision.
If he says yes, then act in a kind, courteous manner at all times. Reference all material, maintain detachment, and think like a historian.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
I note that on several fronts you are still arguing. It is that habit of arguing which is the real issue. Wikipedia has a number of conventions (so many that only an addict could remember them all). A user will inevitably violate them from time to time. What distinguishes you is that instead of gritting your teeth and cursing a bit is that you then acually engage in a fight. Like for example your insistance in the James I article. You were right (in my opinion) but engaging in serious fussing over crap makes no sense. (Of course it takes two).
Anything you did was colored by the fact you were editing in violation of a ban (which gave everyone license to delete, revert and ignore. So right or wrong the other user was always right. So you were in the wrong in each and every dispute you engaged in after you were banned or started creating clones.
Anyway the tone of your apology is rather argumentative promising more arguement down the line. You joust (but not with real monsters).
Fred
From: Adam von [name omitted for privacy reasons] cddvdlenscleaner@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 21:52:44 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] I have apoligized
I have apoligized, on numerous occasions and via numerous channels of communication. I have apoligized both publicly and privately. I have apoligized both to the general community and to specific individuals.
I have even apoligized for specific behaviour which I felt was inappropriate but which the general community does not view as bannable behavior and which nobody has ever attacked me for and that several sysops frequently enage in without any condemnation; for example, swearing.
It would be appropriate, for those who argue that I am a vandal, to stop stating that I have refused to abide by wiki guidelines, that I have refused to apoligize, or that I have refused to admit that my behavior was inappropriate.
I would like to further note, that while my opponents my claim I am a vandal for referring to the people of "Minoa" (an allegedly fictitous empire), engaging in an edit war over the name of Christopher Columbus, referring to the Queen of England as Ms. Bowes-Lyon, and insisting that regime is a POV term...I must note, I have NEVER taken paragraphs of text inserted by any user and deleted them - the worst I have done is taken paragraphs of text and moved them.
Nor have I ever entered swearwords into an article or changed dates, names, people, places, or any other information in such a way as to render the article clearly fallacious. The closest allegation of this sort which was made against me was, "I don't see anything factually wrong with Lir's additions; but I'm certain there is some hidden POV which we will find upon further investigation."
I was banned for 1 week because when other users deleted my additions, leading to an edit war, I started swearing at them and making personal attacks. That was a very very long time ago, at a point in time where I was suffering from a nicotine addiction.
It is true that I violated my ban, first with one account and then another, but during all that time and all those thousands and thousands and thousands of edits, did I ever vandalize an article? Did I ever swear at anybody? In all those thousands of edits, did I ever do anything wrong besides being me, admitting to being me, writing on topics which only I have been working on, and use an identifiable OS/browser/IP?
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
Thanks to wikipedia, I know that the following argument is invalid because of [[Appeal to pity]] (not to mention I told everyone here to disregard my defense of Adam}, I think Wikipedia has caused Adam some emotional trauma, which may have been why he was smoking. I think nicotene addition is just as much a disease as alcoholism (which I think is a disease), as should be considered drug addition. Adam had problems with wikipedia so he turned to smoking.
-LittleDan
--- Adam von [name omitted for privacy reasons] cddvdlenscleaner@yahoo.com <snip>
I was banned for 1 week because when other users deleted my additions, leading to an edit war, I started swearing at them and making personal attacks. That was a very very long time ago, at a point in time where I was suffering from a nicotine addiction.
</snip>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Adam von [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
I have apoligized, on numerous occasions and via numerous channels of communication. I have apoligized both publicly and privately. I have apoligized both to the general community and to specific individuals.
You have also repeatedly signed up for accounts in violation of the ban, thus illustrating that the apologies were meaningless, that you don't respect community norms, and that nothing has changed.
It would be appropriate, for those who argue that I am a vandal, to stop stating that I have refused to abide by wiki guidelines, that I have refused to apoligize, or that I have refused to admit that my behavior was inappropriate.
But you *have* refused to abide by wiki guidelines. You have repeatedly, and against both private and public warnings, persisted in behavior that I have promised you will keep you banned.
--Jimbo