[WikiEN-l] administrator's status

[james duffy]

* sigh * Is there no end to Fred's inability to grasp facts? For the VERY 
LAST TIME, the page in question was merely concerned with a political 
science definition of the the term [[Communist state]], in terms of the link 
between constitutional system and party in the process of governance. IT WAS 
NOT ABOUT COMMUNISM. Everyone on wiki could grasp that. The entire planet 
could grasp it. Fred still cannot. The stuff he wanted in was as irrelevant 
to a mere 'definition' as putting details on Bill Clinton and interns would 
be in a page on the definition 'Federal Republic'. Detailed discussion of 
what happens IN a communist state, or IN a federal republic, belongs in a 
page on  history and politics IN those states or systems, not on formal 
definitions.

Fred's problem with 172, Tannin, myself and others is that we would not 
allow him in effect to vandalise an article by putting in 100% irrelevant 
stuff when it belonged elsewhere, and when all the wiki users on the talk 
page were screaming almost in unison 'not here. Put it somewhere else'. (His 
reponse was to keep plonking the badly written POV addition onto the wrong 
page nearly 20 times, until people threatened to call for his banning, when 
he finally stopped his bizarre behaviour, to everyone's relief.) As to the 
other stuff, most of it was OTT POV. Those bits that weren't were being put 
in the wrong parts of articles, and yet again no matter how many wikians 
collectively screamed at Fred 'not there. Put it in a different paragraph' 
he ignored them.

172 may indeed hold rather stronger left wing views than most people. But he 
is also a professional historian who tries to apply academic standards to 
what he works on, including such basic requirements as accuracy, relevance, 
proper location and definition. On the basis of his behaviour in the last 
few weeks, Fred doesn't know the meaning of the words let alone how to apply 
them. Now issue closed. I am backing 172 to become an admin.

BTW Fred, you still haven't apologied for libeling people who disagree with 
you by calling them the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. And if you are 
going to use terms like 'Historical revision', try to understand what it 
actually means.

JT

>Historical revision is not limited to Nazis. But don't put on the steel 
>boot
>unless it fits. I was doing my best to write a truthful neutral point of
>view article which could have have been made more balanced by adding more
>material about the achievements of the communist state not by removing
>material about its problems. Its the repeated removal of factual negative
>material which is the issue regarding 172.
>
>Fred
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail