Jonathan wrote:
To call those edits "vandalism" is to use far too strong a word, especially from an admitted newbie who isn't familiar with the full history of Lir's actions here.
Calling edits one doesn't agree with "vandalism" is analogous to calling racial/ethnic discrimanation "genocide". Yes, some UN-sponsored treaties have re-defined genocide so it means more (and less) than mass murder -- but that doesn't make killing 10 million civilians equivalent to not welcoming refugees. Inhospitality is not murder.
I would really like everyone to stop throwing around the word "vandalism" except in the narrowly-described cases of: * scribbling graffiti, like "Hi, I'm a newbie" * deleting a page without explanation * obvious obscenity
We don't have a firm rule on name-calling, but if we ever do then I'm going to make sure calling a fellow contributor a vandal is at the top of the list.
Making an edit that isn't neutral is not an offense so terrible that it justifies revenge. Besides, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves us all blind and wearing dentures".
Ed Poor
Ed and Jimbo,
*sigh* Clutch is a vandal, there's no doubt about it. Even when Lir was still unbanned, he kept changing her page, linking to articles about "good taste" to help her develop "the good taste she lacks", kept reverting her attempts to restore the page and threatened to do so until Lir would "call him uncle" (and not in the uncle Ed sense, I presume). Now that Lir is banned, he is, against the explicit will of others, changing Lir's page to contain the links he used to offend her, I presume as a last demonstration of his power.
This is vandalism of a user page -- it's identical to me editing Ed's page and inserting some snide remarks about the Unification Church and "Moonies", making it look like Ed wrote them. That's why everyone kept reverting Clutch's changes, but he is patient enough to re-insert his version again and again.
Now we have basically justified Clutch's vandalism by protecting the *vandalized* version of the page which links to the "how to develop good taste" etc. which Clutch deliberately inserted.
I don't care much about Lir's page, but I care about antisocial behavior. Rules should be enforced consistently, as Larry said. Please restore Lir's last version of the page and protect that one, instead of Clutch's vandalized one.
I've dealt with trolls a number of times, and I know one when I see one. Don't let Clutch pull your leg. He's an experienced troll. SoftSecurity won't work here.
Regards,
Erik
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:51:58PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
*sigh* Clutch is a vandal, there's no doubt about it. Even when Lir was still unbanned, he kept changing her page, linking to articles about "good taste" to help her develop "the good taste she lacks", kept reverting her attempts to restore the page and threatened to do so until Lir would "call him uncle" (and not in the uncle Ed sense, I presume). Now that Lir is banned, he is,
This is possibly a cultural difference. Your address and name indicates you are German. In English, when you make someone "holler uncle!" it means "do you give up now?" It is specifically used when someone is being an unbearable annoyance, so you sit on them, and you don't let them up until they indicate they recognize they have been an annoyance and are prepared to change, by hollering "uncle!" It's a fine old tradition, rarely used by people who are older than school age. In Lirs case I saw no other way to impress on him what he was doing to other Wikipedians.
And remember, Lir IS a "he", not a "she". He attends Iowa State University. He should know better.
This is vandalism of a user page -- it's identical to me editing Ed's page and inserting some snide remarks about the Unification Church and "Moonies", making it look like Ed wrote them. That's why everyone kept reverting Clutch's changes, but he is patient enough to re-insert his version again and again.
Now we have basically justified Clutch's vandalism by protecting the *vandalized* version of the page which links to the "how to develop good taste" etc. which Clutch deliberately inserted.
I asked you to please look at the edits more carefully. Fact is, Lir decided to add the link to the "Good Taste" article all by himself. He "incorporated" it into his own page after one of my edits. I ask you again: look carefully. I have added nothing to Lirs page that he did not add himself. I just cleaned it up, made it look more dignified and less careless, and removed the few things Lir had put in specifically to antagonize people.
I am happy with the compromise page that was achieved this morning, and hope Jimbo lets it stand.
I've dealt with trolls a number of times, and I know one when I see one. Don't let Clutch pull your leg. He's an experienced troll. SoftSecurity won't work here.
I am experienced in dealing with trolls. My troll days are long past; that's why I understand what Lir is going through, and can empathize with him. Unfortunately, this makes it worse for him. I know what it means to role-play at the cost of the community one role-plays in. Lir doesn't yet appreciate the cost, he just sees it as a game.
Jonathan
My troll days are long past;
That's not what I get from your changelog to Lir's page:
"Lir, I'm going to sit on you till you cry uncle" "No. Bad Lir. No more senseless linking!" "Still sitting on Lir; she isn't showing that she's interesting in developing good taste in editing" "We want good taste, or we'll spit you out." "adding link to important article on Good Taste" "Don't try to wriggle out of it Lir; a contributor of your stature needs to develope some TASTE" "Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. If you don't take other peoples feelings seriously Lir, why should we take your work seriously?" "Give me some evidence you know what good taste is Lir. C'mon, I challenge you" "not even close. try again, Lir baby" "(your fate is being decided; if you don't take your fate seriously, it will certainly take YOU very seriously" again: "putting in link to article on Good Taste"
This is when other Wikipedians started reverting your changes. Lir repeatedly *removed* your link to the good taste article and only left it in because you kept vandalizing her page and threatened to continue to do so. And yes, I'm going to continue to say "her", nobody seems to be female on the Internet anyway, so I can use it as a neutral gender [*].
You're falling back into your old trolling behavior, Jon. The sad thing is that you got away with it for too long, because nobody likes to stick up for Lir.
Regards,
Erik
[*] Yes, that was a joke.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:15:26PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
"Lir, I'm going to sit on you till you cry uncle" "No. Bad Lir. No more senseless linking!" "Still sitting on Lir; she isn't showing that she's interesting in developing good taste in editing" "We want good taste, or we'll spit you out." "adding link to important article on Good Taste" "Don't try to wriggle out of it Lir; a contributor of your stature needs to develope some TASTE" "Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. If you don't take other peoples feelings seriously Lir, why should we take your work seriously?" "Give me some evidence you know what good taste is Lir. C'mon, I challenge you" "not even close. try again, Lir baby" "(your fate is being decided; if you don't take your fate seriously, it will certainly take YOU very seriously" again: "putting in link to article on Good Taste"
You are quoting Clutches edit comments out of context; ignoring the edits that Lir made that triggered them. Lir was determined to show that he didn't give a damn about community standards, or trying to build quality articles. That is why Lir is banned.
As for the comment about Lir's fate being decided, that comment was made because just then Jimbos had sent out a mail to the mailing list saying he was going to ban Lir. Yet Lir's behavior that was causing Clutch to edit his page didn't cease; he continued it. He didn't believe anything could happen to him because "this is anarchy, and that means anything goes".
This is when other Wikipedians started reverting your changes. Lir repeatedly *removed* your link to the good taste article and only left it in because you kept vandalizing her page and threatened to continue to do so. And yes,
That is your perception. It is wrong. He thought he saw a humorous way to incorporate it into his webpage, and he did so. Lirs humor is often inappropriate and designed to enrage people, but it is pretty funny. As long as you persist in thinking of Lir as a poor, defenseless little girl who didn't have any idea what she was doing, you aren't going to understand Lir.
You're falling back into your old trolling behavior, Jon. The sad thing is that you got away with it for too long, because nobody likes to stick up for Lir.
You never knew my old trolling behavior. The Wikipedia is something I care about. Your defense of Lir's edits makes me wonder how much you care about it.
Jonathan
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 11:18, Jonathan Walther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:15:26PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
"Lir, I'm going to sit on you till you cry uncle" "No. Bad Lir. No more senseless linking!" "Still sitting on Lir; she isn't showing that she's interesting in developing good taste in editing" "We want good taste, or we'll spit you out." "adding link to important article on Good Taste" "Don't try to wriggle out of it Lir; a contributor of your stature needs to develope some TASTE" "Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. If you don't take other peoples feelings seriously Lir, why should we take your work seriously?" "Give me some evidence you know what good taste is Lir. C'mon, I challenge you" "not even close. try again, Lir baby" "(your fate is being decided; if you don't take your fate seriously, it will certainly take YOU very seriously" again: "putting in link to article on Good Taste"
You are quoting Clutches edit comments out of context; ignoring the edits that Lir made that triggered them. Lir was determined to show that he didn't give a damn about community standards, or trying to build quality articles. That is why Lir is banned.
The context doesn't matter. The above comments are rude, juvenile, and indefensible.
Lir certainly gave plenty of evidence of trying to build quality articles. To claim otherwise is not accurate.
You never knew my old trolling behavior. The Wikipedia is something I care about. Your defense of Lir's edits makes me wonder how much you care about it.
Lir cares about Wikipedia too. Caring about Wikipedia doesn't make you right.
Erik, could you please take this off the list? It's boring. Zoe Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:> My troll days are long past;
That's not what I get from your changelog to Lir's page:
"Lir, I'm going to sit on you till you cry uncle" "No. Bad Lir. No more senseless linking!" "Still sitting on Lir; she isn't showing that she's interesting in developing good taste in editing" "We want good taste, or we'll spit you out." "adding link to important article on Good Taste" "Don't try to wriggle out of it Lir; a contributor of your stature needs to develope some TASTE" "Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. If you don't take other peoples feelings seriously Lir, why should we take your work seriously?" "Give me some evidence you know what good taste is Lir. C'mon, I challenge you" "not even close. try again, Lir baby" "(your fate is being decided; if you don't take your fate seriously, it will certainly take YOU very seriously" again: "putting in link to article on Good Taste"
This is when other Wikipedians started reverting your changes. Lir repeatedly *removed* your link to the good taste article and only left it in because you kept vandalizing her page and threatened to continue to do so. And yes, I'm going to continue to say "her", nobody seems to be female on the Internet anyway, so I can use it as a neutral gender [*].
You're falling back into your old trolling behavior, Jon. The sad thing is that you got away with it for too long, because nobody likes to stick up for Lir.
Regards,
Erik
[*] Yes, that was a joke.
Jonathan Walther (Clutch?) wrote:
In English, when you make someone "holler uncle!" it means "do you give up now?" It is specifically used when someone is being an unbearable annoyance, so you sit on them, and you don't let them up until they indicate they recognize they have been an annoyance and are prepared to change, by hollering "uncle!"
No, that's not how it's used. It's used to *bully* somebody, pure and simple. I've dealt with many a bully in my day, so I should know. (And I am an American.)
-- Toby
Jonathan Walther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:51:58PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
*sigh* Clutch is a vandal, there's no doubt about it. Even when Lir was still unbanned, he kept changing her page, linking to articles about "good taste" to help her develop "the good taste she lacks", kept reverting her attempts to restore the page and threatened to do so until Lir would "call him uncle" (and not in the uncle Ed sense, I presume). Now that Lir is banned, he is,
This is possibly a cultural difference. Your address and name indicates you are German. In English, when you make someone "holler uncle!" it means "do you give up now?" It is specifically used when someone is being an unbearable annoyance, so you sit on them, and you don't let them up until they indicate they recognize they have been an annoyance and are prepared to change, by hollering "uncle!" It's a fine old tradition, rarely used by people who are older than school age.
Rarely used by them because it's the tactic of a schoolyard bully. A lot of effort has been put by British Columbia schools in recent years to prevent this kind of bullying that amounts to lynch mob justice.
Eclecticology
Erik Moeller wrote:
*sigh* Clutch is a vandal, there's no doubt about it.
Clutch, knock it off.
(Similar words added to Clutch user talk page.)
I'm reverting Lir's user page to Lir's last version.
I don't think we should really care much about this stupid page anyway.
On Monday 25 November 2002 10:36, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I would really like everyone to stop throwing around the word "vandalism" except in the narrowly-described cases of:
- scribbling graffiti, like "Hi, I'm a newbie"
- deleting a page without explanation
- obvious obscenity
"Hi, I'm a newbie" is not vandalism. It's a newbie experiment. OTOH IMHO, repeatedly changing Athens to Istanbul in [[Greece]] is vandalism, though it is none of the above.
phma
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I would really like everyone to stop throwing around the word "vandalism" except in the narrowly-described cases of:
- scribbling graffiti, like "Hi, I'm a newbie"
- deleting a page without explanation
- obvious obscenity
I totally agree with this. But I also think it's important that we keep this word, as it is indispensible precisely for those cases. No one should ever be accused of misusing the word "vandalism" when quite properly labelling pictures of goatse, for example, and why they're removed.
Larry
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org