User Lir insists on claiming that Christopher Columbus was a slave trader prior to his 1492 voyage. He refuses to substantiate his claim, and continually reverts the page when his claim is removed. Can someone deal with him?
Zoe
s/he may settle down eventually; I had much the same attitude when I started & wanted to write everything I 'knew' to be true about cannabis, completely without citations or opposing points of view. :-/
kq
(Sorry for the top edit -- Yahoo makes you do it.)
Yeah, but you should see how he reacted when people changed his NPOV comments on Iowa State University. The guy's a psycho. -- Zoe koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:>User Lir insists on claiming that Christopher Columbus was a slave trader prior to his 1492 voyage. He refuses to substantiate his claim, and continually reverts the page when his claim is removed. Can someone deal with him?
Zoe
s/he may settle down eventually; I had much the same attitude when I started & wanted to write everything I 'knew' to be true about cannabis, completely without citations or opposing points of view. :-/
kq
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
I would like to weigh in here to say that I'm just slightly disturbed that we are getting into the habit of publicly proposing, on this list, to use the banning power to settle acrimonious edit wars. I've noticed this in the case of Lir and of DW. When Jimbo and I were the only ones who had the authority to ban people, we never used it for this purpose, or at least, I can't remember a single case. This is the first time I recall anyone proposing to ban someone for *one hour* so that the person could "cool off." This is the first I've heard of "cooling people off" as a reason to *ban* them for any length of time.
If I could see immediately that Lir were simply a *vandal*, I could understand. But I do not see that Lir is simply a vandal, whatever his/her merits.
Like everybody, I totally understand :-) the frustration involved in working with people I regard as unreasonable, difficult, and even trollish. But banning them isn't the way that, up until just the last month or two, we have dealt with them.
Let me be clear here (it's so easy to be misunderstood): on the one hand, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with outright banning an IP number (if it's stable) or perhaps, temporarily, a block of IP numbers, if it's perfectly clear that the person being banned is just a vandal. On the other hand, I do not think we should ban people who appear to be making a good faith effort to contribute, unless we have gone through a long public process and ensured that the bar is set very high.
In particular, we do not ban people for merely failing to follow the "rules," even rules like [[netiquette]]. At least part of the point of making the first rule "ignore all rules," I thought, is the notion that we all understand that we aren't going to *enforce* these rules except in the most egregious cases, which Lir and DW aren't, as far as I can tell. For non-vandals, the bar has to be set really, really high, I think.
--Larry
Larry, weigh in directly against me; I'm the first who wondered aloud whether a one-hour ban might help. I will only point out that it is the first time I have ever proposed a ban, and I don't think a single occurance should be called a "habit."
Did you follow the battle with Lir through all the various talk pages? On the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page, Lir accused Zoe of "defacing the Columbus page, probably due to some form of inherent racism against Africans and Amerindians." Lir has no comprehension of NPOV, utterly refuses to compromise, rejects even proposals that I consider absurdly accomodating, and insists on entirely unsubstantiated historical revisionism.
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Larry Sanger Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 08:05 To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus
I would like to weigh in here to say that I'm just slightly disturbed that we are getting into the habit of publicly proposing, on this list, to use the banning power to settle acrimonious edit wars. I've noticed this in the case of Lir and of DW. When Jimbo and I were the only ones who had the authority to ban people, we never used it for this purpose, or at least, I can't remember a single case. This is the first time I recall anyone proposing to ban someone for *one hour* so that the person could "cool off." This is the first I've heard of "cooling people off" as a reason to *ban* them for any length of time.
If I could see immediately that Lir were simply a *vandal*, I could understand. But I do not see that Lir is simply a vandal, whatever his/her merits.
Like everybody, I totally understand :-) the frustration involved in working with people I regard as unreasonable, difficult, and even trollish. But banning them isn't the way that, up until just the last month or two, we have dealt with them.
Let me be clear here (it's so easy to be misunderstood): on the one hand, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with outright banning an IP number (if it's stable) or perhaps, temporarily, a block of IP numbers, if it's perfectly clear that the person being banned is just a vandal. On the other hand, I do not think we should ban people who appear to be making a good faith effort to contribute, unless we have gone through a long public process and ensured that the bar is set very high.
In particular, we do not ban people for merely failing to follow the "rules," even rules like [[netiquette]]. At least part of the point of making the first rule "ignore all rules," I thought, is the notion that we all understand that we aren't going to *enforce* these rules except in the most egregious cases, which Lir and DW aren't, as far as I can tell. For non-vandals, the bar has to be set really, really high, I think.
--Larry
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Sean Barrett wrote:
Larry, weigh in directly against me; I'm the first who wondered aloud whether a one-hour ban might help. I will only point out that it is the first time I have ever proposed a ban, and I don't think a single occurance should be called a "habit."
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that one-hour bans were a habit; but proposing to ban people over content disputes has become a regular habit, it seems to me.
Did you follow the battle with Lir through all the various talk pages? On the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page, Lir accused Zoe of "defacing the Columbus page, probably due to some form of inherent racism against Africans and Amerindians." Lir has no comprehension of NPOV, utterly refuses to compromise, rejects even proposals that I consider absurdly accomodating, and insists on entirely unsubstantiated historical revisionism.
I'd agree that's all pretty bad, and Lir is certainly an abrasive character who doesn't understand what's generally accepted to be Wikipedia policy. I just looked at the talk page and histories of two of the mentioned pages, and didn't find anything so completely outrageous as to require an outright ban.
For all I know, you're absolutely in the right. I just want to try to slow us down, that's all.
Larry
Thank you Larry. That sums up my feelings on bans nicely.
Stephen G.
--- Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
I would like to weigh in here to say that I'm just slightly disturbed that we are getting into the habit of publicly proposing, on this list, to use the banning power to settle acrimonious edit wars. I've noticed this in the case of Lir and of DW. When Jimbo and I were the only ones who had the authority to ban people, we never used it for this purpose, or at least, I can't remember a single case. This is the first time I recall anyone proposing to ban someone for *one hour* so that the person could "cool off." This is the first I've heard of "cooling people off" as a reason to *ban* them for any length of time.
If I could see immediately that Lir were simply a *vandal*, I could understand. But I do not see that Lir is simply a vandal, whatever his/her merits.
Like everybody, I totally understand :-) the frustration involved in working with people I regard as unreasonable, difficult, and even trollish. But banning them isn't the way that, up until just the last month or two, we have dealt with them.
Let me be clear here (it's so easy to be misunderstood): on the one hand, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with outright banning an IP number (if it's stable) or perhaps, temporarily, a block of IP numbers, if it's perfectly clear that the person being banned is just a vandal. On the other hand, I do not think we should ban people who appear to be making a good faith effort to contribute, unless we have gone through a long public process and ensured that the bar is set very high.
In particular, we do not ban people for merely failing to follow the "rules," even rules like [[netiquette]]. At least part of the point of making the first rule "ignore all rules," I thought, is the notion that we all understand that we aren't going to *enforce* these rules except in the most egregious cases, which Lir and DW aren't, as far as I can tell. For non-vandals, the bar has to be set really, really high, I think.
--Larry
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
I don't care if Lir is banned or not, I just wish that she would be civil. I have NEVER said that I would refuse to accept "slave trader" as Columbus's occupation, I only said that I would accept it if Lir would give us some proof, something which she refuses to do.
Zoe Stephen Gilbert canuck_in_korea2002@yahoo.com wrote:Thank you Larry. That sums up my feelings on bans nicely.
Stephen G.
--- Larry Sanger wrote:
I would like to weigh in here to say that I'm just slightly disturbed that we are getting into the habit of publicly proposing, on this list, to use the banning power to settle acrimonious edit wars. I've noticed this in the case of Lir and of DW. When Jimbo and I were the only ones who had the authority to ban people, we never used it for this purpose, or at least, I can't remember a single case. This is the first time I recall anyone proposing to ban someone for *one hour* so that the person could "cool off." This is the first I've heard of "cooling people off" as a reason to *ban* them for any length of time.
If I could see immediately that Lir were simply a *vandal*, I could understand. But I do not see that Lir is simply a vandal, whatever his/her merits.
Like everybody, I totally understand :-) the frustration involved in working with people I regard as unreasonable, difficult, and even trollish. But banning them isn't the way that, up until just the last month or two, we have dealt with them.
Let me be clear here (it's so easy to be misunderstood): on the one hand, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with outright banning an IP number (if it's stable) or perhaps, temporarily, a block of IP numbers, if it's perfectly clear that the person being banned is just a vandal. On the other hand, I do not think we should ban people who appear to be making a good faith effort to contribute, unless we have gone through a long public process and ensured that the bar is set very high.
In particular, we do not ban people for merely failing to follow the "rules," even rules like [[netiquette]]. At least part of the point of making the first rule "ignore all rules," I thought, is the notion that we all understand that we aren't going to *enforce* these rules except in the most egregious cases, which Lir and DW aren't, as far as I can tell. For non-vandals, the bar has to be set really, really high, I think.
--Larry
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org