[Wikipedia-l] Eric's abuse of his sysop powers

Tue Oct 21 01:15:38 UTC 2003

James-

> Not so. NPOV requires balence in content.

Actually, NPOV requires that views are attributed. We have no obligation  
to "invent" positive views if all we have is negative information. For  
example, there is no obligation for us to write 10K about how great a  
painter a dictator was to compensate for the 10K we write about how many  
people he killed. Certainly we should strive for balance especially in a  
case like Mother Teresa, and I would have been the first to agree that  
more should have been written about her life and work. In fact, I have  
always stated that
- all sections should be continually expanded
- as soon as a certain length is reached, the article should be split into  
different sections regardless of their content.

It does not matter who or when people protested against the controversies  
being listed on the Mother Teresa page, what matters is whether the course  
of action to split away *only the controversial* parts of the article is  
proper and in line with our established policy or not. I think it is quite  
clear that it is not. The simple reality is that most people do not know  
much about the criticisms concerning Mother Teresa, and there is a large  
gulf between the reality of her work and the media portrayal thereof. It  
is therefore to be expected that people will assume that an article is  
biased when it presents more critical information than they would expect.  
However, there is clear precedent on what to do in cases like this, for  
example, the [[Scientology]] article, where individual sections were split  
away as the article became too long. It is not NPOV to split away only the  
controversy section.

You repeatedly insist that your only commitment is to neutrality and  
academic standards. Why, then, do you not mention with a single word the  
objections that have been raised by other contributors to your actions?  
Both Bryan Derksen and Jiang, long-term Wikipedia contributors with a  
positive track record, have objected to your splitting away. Clearly there  
was no consensus for your actions, yet you persisted in reverting to your  
preferred version. Are you seriously trying to tell me that this was in  
the spirit of cooperation and Wikiquette? I think even you know that it  
was not, since you seem to imply that it was OK because I would do the  
same (use consensus only when it suits me).

>> I did not edit the page for the next few hours and nor did you,

> You know I am not on during the daytime.

I don't watch your edits. My unprotection of the page had a single  
purpose, to allow other contributors to continue working on the article  
because of the beatification on Sunday in spite of our silly edit war. The  
protection did not stop me or you from editing the page, but it stopped  
others, so it seemed very unfair to uphold it. You will have to admit that  
this is not even close to being abusive behavior.

>> In addition to that, you continue to play your usual games, which consist
>> of
>> - personal attacks (always singling out one contributor, even though
>> several users have expressed disagreement with your actions)

> I have to say at this point that a ban of Jtdirl is no longer out of the
> question for me.?Eloquence 22:07, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

At the point where your behavior became so crass and clearly in violation  
of what this community stands for, it was only logical for me to bring up  
the question of whether you should be allowed to persist in this kind of  
behavior, as we have clear rules on these matters.

To compare a tongue-in-cheek remark like "valiant defender of truth" to  
the kind of personal attacks you have made against me -- that I don't know  
what I'm talking about, that my prose is poorly written, convoluted etc.,  
that I tried to rewrite the article based on the claims of a single  
person, that I wanted to turn all of Wikipedia into some kind of anti- 
Catholic bashfest -- is quite obviously inaccurate. You have a long  
history of rudeness and it would be helpful if you would begin to  
acknowledge at least that, for this would be the first step towards better  
cooperation.

> So why then accuse me of a 'pro-catholic bias' and censoring criticism of
> MT, when I was doing nothing of the sort, merely trying to NPOV an article
> and give stuff not about MT its own article?

Because moving away everything that is critical while then providing a  
one-paragraph-summary thereof is not even close to neutral.

> Which is why, I suppose, every edit I made for ages tonight was screwed
> around when you went in and began changing past tense to present tense

Oh please. I don't give a hoot about past or present tense. I have told  
you a zillion times before that you should not complain about lost changes  
if you don't try to resolve one matter before making the next change.

>> That cannot always be
>> done, of course, but there are reasonable courses of actions in the cases
>> where it can't (act based on established precedent, hold a vote, ask Jimbo
>> etc.). Just trying to get "your way or the highway" will not lead to any
>> kind of solution.

> More threats from 'The User Who Does Not Make Threats', eh?

Huh? Where exactly is the threat in the above paragraph?

> I have co-operated with many people on wikipedia. The only fights I have had
> here in ages have been with you

That's funny. My mailbox is full of long flames written by you which have  
not been directed at me. Look, James, everyone who knows even a little bit  
about you knows that you frequently resort to attacking people personally.  
You often apologize later when these attacks are directed at regulars, and  
that is good. But why do you attack people in the first place? Isn't it  
obvious that this whole conflict would never have arisen if you had just  
made your suggestion for changes on the talk pages and tried to find a  
solution together with me? Do you think that I am so incredibly biased  
that it is not possible to work with me?

Regards,

Erik