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
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
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
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
I agree with this. However the banning of 142.177 was
an "everywhere" decision and was very justified. That
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
the rules should not be automatically the
english rules that suit him.
Perhaps you have not read this email:
Just like the english main page, not editable
by most users. Just like the wikimedia guide,
just you editing it, and calling other attempts
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:
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
So Mav, there is a point there. I explained
in length on meta why I was restoring these
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
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.
"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."
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:
"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
And recently he stated this:
"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."
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