From: Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com
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.
This morning, I added one line (it was a *personal* addition, not in the original article by the banned user) to the consumerium article. That line was blanked by Cimon nonetheless. That means, whatever *I* add to the article, it is considered bad and blanked and reverted. Even if *I* Anthere, wrote that line.
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.
I put MY line back. That line alone looks very stupid.
Look by yourself http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerium
If it is reverted *again*, how do you plan proving that articles touched by banned users are freely editable ?
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 ?
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).
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 * 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 ?
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.
Yes, it will. Even my poor edition was removed, and I dare not even put the external link to the project.
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 am all ready to wait one full month before editing any of these articles; Problem is that after one month, the article is long gone. If proper articles are not deleted, I will gladly respect a certain time before editing them if that suits you.
I entirely recognise and accept the decision over the banning of 142.
Then why are you recreating his edits!
Because to my opinion, banning does not imply blind deletion.
.... 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.
In the past three days, Cimon has been consistantly reverting edits by 142. This is ok by me. Everyone is free to look or not to look at them. I do not see a problem there. Among the edits Cimon reverted, two were written on Netesq talk page
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3ANetesq
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.
Seriously Mav !
...
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.
what about my line on consumerium ?
Okay, just kidding. You are right of course :-)
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?
Right now ? You. Clearly. When two people are trying to discuss together, and one is requesting unsysoping of the other one, and accusing her of about every bad action he can figure out (such as her acting in illegality as regards gfdl), that is *intentionally* trying to remove any legitimacy in her participating to setting the rules
Leaving you alone.
Btw, we two are not the only sysops on meta. I did not notice the other sysops were jumping on the delete button each time they saw 142.
Even more, others have been deleting some 142 edits, to restore them under their names, in order to remove unnice comments to you.
See http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Banned_user
So, I ask again, why the attack on *me* ? Am I so scary ?? Why ???
Perhaps you have not read this email: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-March/009407.html
Given that you paste it in every mail, it would be hard to miss it :-)
....
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.
Yes ? I am glad to hear that. Indeed, the understanding must have been clear : http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Documentation&diff=0&ol...
So, yours is the old manual. Hum...
And of course, no one *ever* complained about the fact you basically own the english main page ? Apologies, I must have been inventing this fact :-)
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?
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.
There are other alternatives. For example, I already told you I was sorry for you, and really can feel the unhappiness this whole story is causing to you. However, one can feel sorry, recognise the ban, but not follow your technique to inforce a ban.
There is not ONE technique to enforce a ban. There are a collection of options to help exclude someone from a community.
Perhaps everyone just naturally accept there is a ban. But not everyone choose to follow the same techniques as regards this ban.
On en, users have chosen different paths. Some choose to delete immediately, without even taking into consideration other people edited the page afterwards sometimes
Other users just close the eyes and pretend they have seen nothing
Other users actively seek to save the good articles, usually by kidnapping them, keeping them aside for a while, and then recreating them under other author names, with some refactoring.
These three techniques are tolerated on en.
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.
When I suggest that we talk about this, you completely evade the issue, and refuse to answer to me, limiting yourself to appeal to authority and to repeat that the only way is immediate deletion, and claiming it is the only technique practiced, while obviously it is not.
Then you ask for unsysoping me, me alone, for doing things that others are doing as well.
Sadly, you are just attacking the one that appears the feablest.
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?
You are assuming that I said you wrote that in the email, but it is not; it was on my talk page on meta
this is where you mention that you are going to strongly advocate me being unsysoped http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Anthere&diff=2164...
And this is where you confirm that you did ask for my unsysoping http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Anthere&diff=0&am...
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 am sure glad you changed your mind.
I precisely question the "disregard for policy". No policy was ever written on the matter on meta.
So, everyone assume it is the english policy, which I regret, as every wikipedia is also setting up personal policy, which might be different from the en one. There is no reason why meta should endorse the en one.
However, even if meta is basically currently 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 ?
recreated your edits (a one line response to 142.177) and removed just what 142.177 wrote. Yet you reverted that.
No, two times, you removed my comments from the page. Two times you removed comments that were never done by 142. The first line was certainly not a response, that was gently asking 142 to be nicer to you. My poor attempt to cool things down didnot deserve censorship. The second paragraph that you censored, was something I wrote several days ago. It had nothing to do with the current issue. You removed it blindly anyway.
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.
So ? So we discuss, and when we do not agree, you ask for desysoping ?
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.
I do not believe it is a violation of the GNU FDL. This is nicely made up to suit the situation. "making it right" is a personal opinion. And that does not justify jumping on Anthere, just because you think you can jump on me, while it would perhaps less confortable to jump on others (I hope I am not claiming to be fat here, though I am far from skinny either)
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.
...
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.
Stop the appeal for pity on simplification of the issue, Mav, you are taking it far too personally. Really.
I have a question btw.
Your disagreement with 142 is from ... I do not remember...perhaps a year ago (say). At that time, you were naturally and quite understandebly shaken.
After a few months, you decided that though the ban was still in place, you would tolerate 142 edits, provided that he behaved. That is...somehow, even if you could not forget, not really forgive, there was a good step in the direction of forgiveness though, and I told you how happy that made me. I was real glad you were going over that stress.
Later, there was the attack on RK. Not on you again; just on RK. And following this attack on RK, you decided to enforce the ban again. 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 ?
......
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."
Yes, this is very unnice. It is very unlike you who are very open.
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.
Shall I dare to say ? I also abandonned any attempt to contact professionals to talk about Gaia matters as I had thought of doing at some point. Too afraid of them seeing what was in the discussion page. Too afraid of them being said nasty things, that would have covered Wikipedia image with opprobe. And that is why, even if one day I give my real name, I will not change my contribution from my pseudo to my real name. I also can't really figure my own boss finding some of the emails adressed to me and widely available on the net.
This is irrelevant to the current personal matter, but just to refocus things on other personal matters :-)
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).
No, you do not deserve these comments. No, what he said is not ok, and I do not support it.
I really hope we can work a way out of this Mav.
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 ?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org