On Tuesday 04 March 2003 09:45 pm, Toby Bartels wrote:
Is 142 (that is, the person that's been posting
from
several 142.177.xxx.xxx addresses lately) banned?
If so, from which wikis?
The ideas that make me ask:
* 142 is suspected (strongly) of being 24. But 24 was unbanned.
Also, is the evidence of their identity conclusive (say to Jimbo)?
* When Lir was banned from [[en:]], Jimbo explicitly said
that she wasn't banned from [[m:]] (and thus might play chess there).
I'm asking for facts, not for a discussion about 142
(although I'm sure that other people will take the opportunity).
What I very specifically want to know is whether 142 is banned from [[m:]].
-- Toby
I'm copying my response to the above on [[meta:Talk:Main_Page]]:
:Yes - I was the one who unbanned 24. Ironic huh? IMO 24 and 142 are one and
the same (at least the majority of 142s - esp the ones that edit meta). The
topics 142 writes on, the use of meta (esp. telling is that 142 links to many
pages that 24 wrote or substantially contriubted to on meta), and also the
implied threats and severe dislike of Larry, Jimbo and other 'cabal' members
all are very similar to 24. There is also the fact that 142s isp is in the
same part of Canada that 24 is from. But being 24 shouldn't be reason to
extend any ban since 24 was unbanned. What matters the most is what 142 has
been doing and we do know that one person using one of the 142 IPs made an
implied threat to me (specifically a death threat via a [[en:straw man|straw
man]]). IMO, making such a threat is enough to be banned from the entire
project for a long time (permanently if 142 and 24 are the same person).
IIRC 24's threat on Larry (which was for 'great bodily injury' and not death
IIRC) was on meta but that was enough to also get him banned from en.wiki.
This is perhaps a better question for the mailing list.
--[[User:Maveric149|Maveric149]]
To which 142 responds:
::There are several false claims in the above, but, not my problem to sort
them out. The response to Maveric149's assertion that he's been personally
threatened is already on his talk page - saying people deserve things isn't
the same as saying you're going to do it to them - we are not all judges or
thugs or paranoids or Americans (same thing). As to agreeing with 24,
considering the alternatives, what choice is there? I suppose everyone that
thinks this project needs better [[governance]] is some kind of criminal or
traitor to the regime. The real answer is to ban Maveric149 and other
abusive sysops on a rotating basis, so they don't get such a sense of their
own invicibility. Go ahead and ban, loser, it makes up for your lack of
potency in person, I'm sure.
And me again:
:::Ah name calling - it only reflects negatively on you and tends to discredit
your arguments. Your continued insistence on being anonymous (therefore
making it difficult for other contributors to contact you and for our system
of checks and balances to work), throwing insults around, and making implied
threats only tends to discredit you and your ideas. If you were serious about
actually changing Wikipedia for the better you would work with the community
and not against it. You would also be nice and respectful to other users by
not constantly provoking them into flame wars. When you anger somebody it
doesn't really matter how correct your arguments are because the person you
have angered will protest your ideas because you made them.
--[[User:Maveric149|Maveric149]]
WikiKarma
The usual at [[March 2]]