Anthere wrote:
I encourage editors to consider the three articles I have been restoring. These three have any right to be on meta. The content of these is uncontroversial.
Article quality is irrelevant because they should not have been created to begin with. However, if you had created them independent of any action by 142.177 then the existence of the articles would be fine. Since all you did was copy /exactly/ what 142.177 wrote Cimon Avaro has blanked them. If somebody wants to create their own unique content about those subjects, then do so. But re-creating the exact text by a hard banned user is subverting that ban.
It could be edited by anyone, and I am ready to put any effort necessary in those to modify them, as I indicated to Mav,
They are a clean slate now. Go ahead. However we should not do this too often since it allows 142.177 to direct our attention to certain topics. Thus also subverting the ban.
provided that they are not deleted again, even when I recreate them under my name.
The text in these particular articles is minimal. However if you did that for larger ones then you would be in violation of the GNU FDL (since you would deny 142.177 credit). If this were a generally accepted policy then the Wikimedia Foundation would be open to a copyright infringement lawsuit or at least a take down order. Please don't give such ammunition to a person who wants to destroy Wikipedia as it is and who severely hates "Jimbo and his friends."
I do not feel ready to put some work on articles that are being deleted immediately after. I fear that instant deletion of these articles as now practiced, under any editors name, even trusted ones, is likely to slow down discussion and evolution of meta.
No it won't. It will just take control of meta's content away from 142.177 (who is, BTW, meta's number one 'contributor') and give it to the wider community. As it is 142.177's idiosyncratic garbage is chocking meta.
It is not a good idea that any topic touched by a banned user, becomes de facto a topic which must not be mentionned any more.
What? I already explained on your talk page that this is not the case. There is nothing stopping you from writing on topics that a banned user 'touches'! Just don't recreate the banned users exact (or even substantial) edits and try hard not to be prompted to edit a subject just because the banned user brought it to your attention. This denies the banned user influence over our content and the direction of discussion.
I entirely recognise and accept the decision over the banning of 142.
Then why are you recreating his edits!
But the fact is that unfortunately, 142 is writing on many topics, two of them being my favorite topics.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here: A banned user 'touching' a subject does /not/ prevent you from contributing to that subject. Besides that is /not/ what you have been doing: you have been reverting the deletion of the text that 142.177 has written and you have also been responding to his posts. That is very different than just happening to write in the same areas. Your involvement is direct and with the banned user.
....
The second is ecology, .... 2)feel that I am not gonna stop participate on my favorite topics just because a banned user has put a black hand on it.
Again, any edits unique to you are perfectly acceptable. But don't give 142.177 the reward of having any of his text survive in the top edit. 142.177 can write a lot; if only 20% of what he writes survives then that is encouragement for him to keep coming back. He is also a self-described troll, so engaging him in conversation and doing things like recreating his content that causes a great deal of controversy is /exactly/ what he wants. Please stop feeding the troll.
If this goes to this, preventing regular users to edit topics because of their smell, where is Wikipedia going ?
I think I have already proven that this is a weak argument, if not a strawman.
The second point is this one : Meta is for everyone who is interested in wikipedia wide building. It is not only the english meta, it is also everyone meta. And all those involved in the matter, should feel concerned about how meta is growing, and in particular how rules are currently being made on meta.
I agree with this. However the banning of 142.177 was an "everywhere" decision and was very justified. That includes meta.
The rules should not be decided by Mav,
Since when have I been deciding the rules in this regard? I was acting on a decision authorized by Jimbo and in response to a request by another user to immediately delete the articles in question. You were acting on your own authority. So who is making up the rules?
the rules should not be automatically the english rules that suit him.
Perhaps you have not read this email:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-March/009407.html
....
Just like the english main page, not editable by most users. Just like the wikimedia guide, just you editing it, and calling other attempts forks.
What? Please stop the personal attacks and lies. In addition to myself these other users have also edited the user's guide: Patrick, Brion, Nanobug, Hashar, Kat, Mintguy, Archivist, and MyRedDice. And that is just from the first several pages of the guide! I have not taken issue with their edits. What I do take issue with is the creation of a competing MediaWiki documentation project instead of simply adding to the current one. However I think the person doing this and I have reached an understanding.
Mav, I recognise you are doing a great job, and you have been hurt by that user, and that 142 is indeed banned;
Then why are you aiding and abetting him in the subversion of the ban?
what I have troubles accepting is that you decide the way we should enforce the ban, you remove my comments on talk pages, you delete articles I created under my name, assuming if need there is their authorship, and finally, that you try to break the only opposition to your decisions on meta by calling for unsysoping people.
Perhaps you have not read my first email: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-November/013113.html
Where in that email have I called for de-sysoping anyone? I did consider doing that but then I realized that it really wasn't an abuse of sysop power that you were doing, but a basic disregard for policy. I also recreated your edits (a one line response to 142.177) and removed just what 142.177 wrote. Yet you reverted that.
So Mav, there is a point there. I explained in length on meta why I was restoring these three articles.
And I explained in length why I deleted them and reverted 142.177's edits.
...You just do not consider my explanations.
And you either do not read what I write or do not recognize Jimbo's authority to authorize bans everywhere.
I also remind you that other users on en are also doing this, and that it has suggested that in case this is done, the articles should be recreated under another person name.
Again that is subverting the ban and is a violation of the GNU FDL. Just because others are doing it too does not make it right.
....
In any place, there should be balance. The fact you delete them is fine with me; the fact you refuse to accept that other people have different opinions on how meta should work is just plain not wiki.
The fact that you are helping a banned user get his content into meta is a direct subversion of the ban. The ban was for /everywhere/ so stop trying to pretend that that does not include meta.
It is also highly insulting and in fact disgusting that you are helping a person who stated that my murder would be justified because I am being a censor.
From 142.177:
"Murder of vast numbers of people who believe as you do becomes justified, when you use control of a technology that they don't have, to censor their views on what you are doing, and make it impossible for them to stop you any other way."
ref: http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Maveric149&diff=4...
He goes on to say that if I continue to IP block "someone" that "they" can use things such as guns and anthrax to silence me:
From 142.177:
"It is entirely reasonable to say, ethically, that if you use technology (e.g. IP bans and sysop priveleges they don't have) to silence someone, they may also use technology that you don't have (e.g. guns, anthrax) to silence you,.."
ref: http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Maveric149&diff=5...
And recently he stated this:
From 142.177:
"There are very few things you will regret more in your life than defending your little clique of friends here, Daniel Mayer. What they are doing is wrong, racist, illegal, immoral and stupid. You seemed to realize this for a while, but, you have stepped back in, so, you deserve what you get."
ref: http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Maveric149&diff=1...
On top of this he also used my real name in a very slanderous and false statement and if believed by my employer could get me fired. That diff has since been deleted from the database thanks to Brion.
Do I deserve that Anthere? By subverting the ban you are implicitly saying that what 142.177 wrote above is OK since in effect you are directly opposing the ban as if it did not have merit. In fact I'm going to inform the cops about 142.177 (I've never read all his threats in quick order before - it creeps me out).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree