As I said this
morning, where is the sense of
editing these now "black" articles if what we
add, us, good and honest editors is reverted
without consideration ?
No - you should not be reverted without consideration.
However I seriously doubt you would have edited these
articles /at all/ if 142.177 had not created them
I think this is incorrect. We are many contributors on wikipedia Mav. You can't know
all of them. As things are, I know not really Metaweb. So, I would not have edited it, but
I am doubly interested by the links and description.
I have been following Consumerium for quite a while now, 3 or 4 months. I think you would
gracefully admit that the goal of this project fits quite well with some of the topics
which interest me. Such as again all the GMO matters.
But also local food http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_food
or ecoregion http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecoregion
or perhaps biopiracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopiracy
or ecotourism http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotourism
or precautionary principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
someone improve that low quality article ?)
All these, I believe, somehow related to that project. As for disinfopedia, I do not think
I ever wrote anything in it (though I might have on a few iraki related topics), but I
sure regularly read it and referenced to it many times on some french mailing lists or
private discussions I had. I think it is valuable.
I think both consumerium and disinfopedia are very important to be mentionned in meta. Why
not limit ourselves to the encyclopedia space ? Easy. These two projects have a pecularity
that goes beyond what is encyclopedic. And this pecularity does not belong to the
They are both a justification and a "faire valoir" (my, what is the english word
for this ?)
I mean :
1) they strongly rely on the existence of the encyclopedia, since they use it widely as a
reference. Without Wikipedia, it is likely these projects would not be viable really. Or
much tougher to build. They do not need to include everything themselves, they can use us
as a source, and may focus on what is important to them => disinformation and
consumerism. They are specialists sources. They directly benefit from Wikipedia growth.
2) at the same time, they augment the quality, the interest, the traffic and the growth of
Wikipedia. They directly link to us (not pick up the information to use it freely) hence
bringing us new readers and new contributors. As specialists projects, they increase the
value of our work. They refer to us. Wikipedia directly benefits from their existence as
In ecology, that is called a symbiosis :-)
I do not have the proper words to explain this perhaps, but this is important. It is
important to increase the visibility of such projects. And I cannot figure putting this in
the encyclopedia article itself.
Now, if I put this, without even an introduction explaining what the project is, or
without the external link to the projects (which is the currently banned content), it is
>I noted with interest that in your reply
>on my other mail, you said that * when you mentionned in the comment box
>(upon my pressing request), that the
>agronomy article was authored by me and
>not by Robert or you, this is ok with
>the GNU license Yes it is since I named the original author, you.
>* but when I mention in the comment box
>(upon no one request) that I am not the
>author, but avoid mentionning the original
>author (whose name is available in the
>deletion history) for ***your*** sake,
>this is illegal ?
Huh? If the text is by 142.177 it should be credited to
that IP. The deletion >history /cannot/ be read by anybody but Admins. Thus it is
useless for author credit. >However, whether or not we should host that text is a
I did not mention the ip on purpose, to avoid giving authorship to a banned user.
This is a legal matter anyway (for the legal list). Either we need attributions, or we do
>Netesq reverted these two edits back and
>engaged in discussion with 142.
>Discussion, much more than my poor line
>asking that 142 be nicer with you.
>But this is just further staking the deck
>on *me* : I communicated (1 line !) with a
>banned user. I am said involved, while
>obviously no one else is.
User talk pages brings up touchy issues. In those cases
my rule of thumb is to revert >the edit but not to re-revert if the user resurrects the
banned user's edit. I don't like it but >as I said user pages are a bit more of
a special case.
Agreed. So let's apply the same principles about discussion to all of us.
>Mav. I am not *aiding* him. It would
>be nice that you stop placing people
>in a black and white state : the ones
>who pity you and inforce the banning,
>versus the ones who don't care and
>help the banned users.
.... I don't need your pity or anyone's
else's. Americans at least don't think that being >pitied is a good thing. It
is in fact a bit insulting to say that you pity someone.
Ah ? Really ? I apology then.
I wonder if you read pity in the sense I used it (or rather if I used it in the sense you
I looked in my dictionnary, and it seems it may have different meanings
either commiseration mixed with scorn
I meant pity/compassion. Compassion is not really an emotion, it is "suffering
with". It is an attitude that make us tend to be sensible to another one suffering.
It is different from identification, where we put ourselves in the other person shoes. I
see you are suffering, but I have no idea how I would react to such comments made to me.
It is also different from empathy, because empathy is when one is able to understand what
the other one is feeling "from the inside". It is tough to understand what the
other one is feeling inside. But you can also understand but not feel concerned.
I had a thought the other day. I was reflecting once again on how it could be acceptable
that someone call another one a nazi without much reaction. Someone said to me, not a very
long time ago, that for american people, though it was an insult, it is not a very bad
insult. From this exchange, I concluded that it appear calling someone a nazi is a much
ruder insult for a french than for an american.
If so, perhaps a french person should be able to measure the weight of the insult,
depending on who said it; and perhaps the insult in the mouth of an american is more
acceptable than in the mouth of a french then.
But also perhaps when a american call a french a nazi, should he be aware that the insult
is much more offensive to the one receiving it than it would have been to the american
Consequently, not only do identical words do not carry the same meaning, but when they do,
they do not even carry the same emotional weight.
I will drop the use of the word "pity". I feel compassion. Even if you do not
>Curiously, you chose to attack me, and
>request my unsysoping because I was
>following one of the alternative techniques,
>that others are following as well.
Again -- STOP PRETENDING THAT I REQUESTED TO DE-SYSOP
YOU!!! I did no >such thing (stating that I was going to do so on your talk page is NOT
a request for de->sysoping, but a warning that I planned to. I changed my mind for
reasons already >stated, however).
A conversation where
person A : I am gonna request a de sysoping
:person B : you may do that
::person C : done
Sound like you did it. I appear to have misunderstood that. But I understand that you were
upset, and reconsidered calmly. That is ok. Let's forgive and forget about that, would
>I precisely question the "disregard for
>No policy was ever written on the matter on meta
However you seem to be talking about techniques and I
am talking about the ban itself. >I think we have not been communicating. In fact I am
open to discussions on hard ban >techniques. This is the first time I recall you
talking about techniques though.
When I look backward, I have the feeling I have done basically nothing but considering
blocking and banning options in the past weeks.
If you look at the comments on the ban and block page on en, I have wrote quite a good
bunch of comments there in the past 2 months or so. Since then, I dropped participation in
en meta matters, as it is too heavy for me to follow conventions that appear to change too
often; conventions that you are expected to know and respect to the latest point. At one
point, I was really willing to participate in that policy, but it was eating too much
time, and it is frustrating because I do not edit policies myself as these require to be
crystal clear. After a while, discussing things, and seeing that it has little, if no
impact gets bothersome.
On fr, I think I am the main contributor of all the pages dealing with vandalism. I have
begun setting a ban and block page some time ago, but I feel the topic has to cool down
first before we can seriously work on it.
I have spent the past two months, as many contributors on fr, trying to figure out what to
do with Papotages, first in my case initially trying to integrate him, second to have him
soft ban rather than hard banned.
Mercifully for the community sake, Papotages finally switched to full gear vandalism,
allowing all contributors to agree a hard ban was a must (though we disagreed on the means
to inforce that ban for a little while). I have personnaly spent a lot of time bugging Tim
Starling, to have technical support in inforcing the ban.
Before I switched to full inforcing activity (I perhaps blocked 50 Papotages ip adresses
and deleted or reverted perhaps a hundred of pages in two weeks), I tried to pick up all
information I could around. Even going to MeatBall to try to gain some understanding,
interpretation on what was going on and what we could do.
I also invite you to check french mailing list history to see whether I have been
discussing banning and blocking options, and how they could be inforced in august,
september, october, november, and in particular what I felt of displaying real names of
vandals in public, what I felt of contacting isp as a technical way to block a vandal (as
Tim said, I finally gave my blessing to this, poor me). I also tried to see how Jimbo
could be involved in the whole hard banning process on our pedia, as an ultimate resort, a
neutral third party insurring some standards are respected.
In truth, what else than spending hours on block and bans matters have I been doing
Far too much is the big truth. I am here to improve the amount of knowledge made
available, and to improve access to the information. Not here to block and ban people all
the time. Not here to delete other people work. Not here to spent all my time fighting
with the ones I disagree with on minor topics. Not here to see the articles that I have
not the time to write myself, be deleted just because of their author.
When it comes to the point we spent most of our available time doing this, then something
is badly wrong.
So you can understand my frustration at seeing you
re-create the exact article I >deleted. It looked to me like you were thumbing your
nose to the ban.
Please, receive my apologies
>... >However, even if meta is basically
>following en policy (which is perhaps fine
>for the moment), I repeat that some en users
>are also restoring some articles, just as I
>did, so why should I be attacked on doing
>what other people also think is proper ?
Sorry, but I do have a life outside of Wikipedia so I
can't argue with everybody who does >things I don't like. You just happened to
be the person to set me off when I had some >time to respond. This seems to happen more
with you than with other people -- sorry >about that. That just reflects the fact that
our personalities clash.
You noticed as well ? :-)
We might reflect on that both of us.
I like you and greatly respect you but sometimes you
really irritate me - moreso than >your actions probably justify sometimes.
Nod. I feel the same.
>It appears that the attack on RK made all
>the sourness of your case go up again. And
>that because of the attack on another person,
>you are all angry and shaken again on your
>own case. Why did not you call the police
>then, when you were attacked, rather than now ?
Slow boiling. It took reading all his threats together
to prompt me to do so. I am also a >very forgiving person and didn't want to make
trouble for him hoping that he would just >go away. Well he hasn't gone away and is
still doing the same things which got him >banned in the first place. There is only so
much a person can take.
>What about, if one finds an article ok
>(**only** in this case of course), to
>blank it, perhaps even to orphan it, to
>put it aside for a while, perhaps to
>move it in a user space, and perhaps to
>recreate it by any means you might think
>acceptable later, with modifications ?
Yes, we can discuss this since it deals with hard ban
techniques and not whether or >not the ban applies to meta (which of course it does).
Let's do so on the RfD talk page. >-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
That suits me. I thank you. I am sure we will find a satisfying agreement. I will see that
later in the week on meta. Lots of work planned for the next two days for me.
Please, would you accept my apologies to have been tough on you ?
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard