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.
Funny the text that Cimon blanked is /exactly/ the
same as the text that 142.177 submitted.
Original by 142.177:
The only difference is one small line added by you at
the end. I could see how Cimon could have missed that.
I just noticed it myself - otherwise I would have
saved your line.
But that line was not in the version I deleted:
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 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 different matter.
Because to my opinion, banning does not
imply blind deletion.
That is a valid opinion.
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.
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
There is not ONE technique to enforce
a ban. There are a collection of options
to help exclude someone from a community.
Re-creating the exact article text the banned user
wrote, as you did, is not one of those techniques. It
is a violation of the ban order (and has other
problems which I already explained).
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).
I precisely question the "disregard for
No policy was ever written on the matter on meta.
Again Jimbo said he was banned /everywhere/. 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. 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.
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 ?
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
I like you and greatly respect you but sometimes you
really irritate me - moreso than your actions probably
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
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard