From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
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
have been created to begin with. However, if you had
created them independent of any action by 142.177
the existence of the articles would be fine. Since
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
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
If it is reverted *again*, how do you plan proving
that articles touched by banned users are freely
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 ?
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
be in violation of the GNU FDL (since you would deny
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
one 'contributor') and give it to the wider
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
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
edit a subject just because the banned user brought
to your attention. This denies the banned user
influence over our content and the direction of
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
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
/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
Among the edits Cimon reverted, two were written on
Netesq talk page
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 :-)
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
and in response to a request by another user to
immediately delete the articles in question. You
acting on your own authority. So who is making up
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.
So, I ask again, why the attack on *me* ? Am I so
scary ?? Why ???
>Perhaps you have not read this email:
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
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
not taken issue with their edits. What I do take
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
I have reached an understanding.
Yes ? I am glad to hear that. Indeed, the
understanding must have been clear :
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
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
Other users just close the eyes and pretend they have
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
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
>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.
Where in that email have I called for de-sysoping
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
And this is where you confirm that you did ask for my
I did consider doing that but then I realized
that it really wasn't an abuse of sysop power that
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
No, two times, you removed my comments from the page.
Two times you removed comments that were never done by
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
And I explained in length why I deleted them and
reverted 142.177's edits.
So we discuss, and when we do not agree, you ask for
>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
the GNU FDL. Just because others are doing it too
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
>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
Stop the appeal for pity on simplification of the
issue, Mav, you are taking it far too personally.
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 ?
"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
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
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
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard