To all who were concerned: Please accept my appologizes, I did not mean
to hurt anybody. It was not meant the way many felt. I lost, nobody
picked up the case. But as a good loser I will keep on cooperating and
endorsing wikipedia (as on the teacher page of our server
ecoscope.com). I do not want the sysop status anymore. Good luck with
your project - Uwe Kils
In a message dated 6/2/2003 7:09:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jwales(a)bomis.com writes:
> , too, object strongly to this practice of creating '/ban' pages as a
> place to complain about people. It seems likely to escalate a
> conflict rather than to resolve it.
>
I want to second that. I do not like these ban pages as a place to complain
about other users. Remember, bans are only a last resort and one that is taken
only after careful consideration. This also tends to make the banning process
more accessible, in my mind.
Danny
Dear Mr. Moeller!
I asked you to erase my talk page which you reverted even though I
erased some of it as invited sysop. Instead of doing it you threat me
now you will leave it up longer and even blocked it, opend the ugly
content of [[user:Mbecker]] discussions and threat me that only if I
voluntarily let go of the sysop status you will open the "protection".
If you think you can take these liberties as a developer and act
accordingly I ask you hereby to immediately erase the whole user:kils
page or immediately give me back my sysop status so I can do it. I am
not willing to appear in a project which hosts images like the
clitoris.jpg on
http://www.wikipedia.org/upload/archive/1/19/20030520015715!
Clitoris.jpg , which is a clear conflict with USA pornography law,
probably even copyright law. This image has been mounted by your
partner Michael Becker [[user:Mbecker]]
who made a motion to ban our viking project. After I read as
administrator that six users on the sysop mailing list requested to ban
viking I did what they asked me for as sysop.
As soon as the pornographic content is gone and some other pages are
edited to be within the rules again I might discuss with BOMIS CEO
about a further cooperation as editor and the reason for the pause.
Sincerely yours Dr. Uwe Kils [[User:Kils|Kils]] 03:28 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
-------------------------
Dr. Uwe Kils
161 South Concord Terrace
08205 Galloway
New Jersey USA
kils(a)comcast.net
001 609 748 9693
I don't think the blanket reverting efforts directed
at Michael are good. I went through the contrabutions
of 24.130.213.24x (those of you reverting know who I'm
talking about) and many, if not most, of his edits
were useful and even factual. I will be un-reverting
all of his useful edits, but only after fact checking.
--LittleDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
CGS is one of the good guys. Seconded.
He will be an asset to the team.
Tony
(Tannin)
(By the way, what happened to the nomination for JTDirl? That one seems
to have fallen through the cracks. It's been ages.)
Just a little note.
In the interest of fairness I wanted to state that it may not be strictly
true that no one objects to the ban on User:Viking. I believe User:Triton
may. The following is from Triton on my Talk page (now archived at User
Talk:Dante Alighieri/clovis et al.):
Take a look now at the new way of humiliating a user. A new file has been
made called <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viking/ban>User
talk:Viking/ban that will keep showing up on the Recent Changes list as
many times as their attacker(s) wish. When someone not involved sees that,
what is the impression of UserViking?
Now, I don't know for CERTAIN that this means Triton objects to the ban,
but I certainly would want to give Triton the chance to clarify himself. I
wouldn't want his comments to go unheard and risk us banning Viking without
giving anyone who cares to defend him a chance to do so.
Let's not ban Viking until we give Triton a clear chance to voice himself.
I would hate for Triton to go unheard.
-----
Karim Moussally
kmoussally(a)cal.berkeley.edu
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly
submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his
intelligence."
-Albert Einstein, attributed
I deleted [[Conflict (band)]] because it was created
by Micheal. Admittedly, it had a lot of
Quercusrober's additions, but it was a Michael
creation. GrahamN put it on [[Votes for undeletion]],
and Camembert undeleted it. I have redeleted it and
put the information back in my name that Quercusrobur
added.
Will people PLEASE quit recreating Michael entries?
And I don't appreciate being character assassinated by
people like GrahamN.
Zoe
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
I just want to reiterate my full support for Zoe on this one. Zoe (and
several other good Wikicitizens) have been implementing a soft ban on
our misguided friend with the dynamic IP. People, we *can't* implement
a hard ban. At least not without banning several good and useful
contributors as well. On the whole, much as I'd like to see the back of
our socially-challemged friend, I'd rather contribute to a Wikipedia
that had Micheal around than a Wikipedia that managed to ban him only
at the expense of banning Danny as well!
If Mav's suggestion of complaining to AOL works, then great! But I
won't hold my breath for that.
The soft ban is the answer. Zoe and about six or eight others (incuding
me) have taken to ruthlessly reverting *everything* that Michael posts.
We don't bother reading it or tying to work out if it contains a shred
of fact or not (with Michael's stuff, this is damn near impossible
anyway - in 10 minutes he can post up enough of that devilishly twisted
mixture of fact and fiction to keep two or three copy-editors busy
checking on "facts" and correcting 50% of them for several hours). None
of us have time for that idiocy: the only sensible way to deal with
Michael is to revert on sight and without compunction. Three clicks and
the 'pedia is idiocy-free once more, and *you* are back to working on
something *useful* again.
Best of all, because it only takes a few moments and hardly any thought
at all to blanket-revert Michael edits (excuse me while I shout this
bit) ... WE REVERSE THE BURDEN OF LABOUR! For the first time, it's
harder for him than it is for us. Instead of *us* taking hours to clean
up the mess that *he* creates in mere minutes, when we just revert
Michael unread and on sight, we can undo his many minutes of creative
vandalism in just a few seconds. I know he's a determined little
horror, but no-one can push that sort of load uphill for too long.
Hell, if I was Tsar Jimbo, I think I'd un-ban his user names in the
hope that he started posting as "Michael" or "No-FX" again - 'cause
that just makes it easier to spot Michael edits and revert them.
Anything he can post in an hour, Zoe can rollback in three minutes
flat.
Or me. Or Quercus. Or *you*.
Let's all pitch in, people. Think of it as an experiment in psychology.
How long would *you* keep on making contributions to the 'pedia for if
every single edit you ever made was reverted without coment inside of
ten minutes?
Tony Wilson
(Tannin)
*sigh* this is rediculous. For the record, Fred and I disagreed strongly on
the issue of [[Communist state]]. However I sought to compromise
1. by creating a special link page for the stuff he tried to to add to
Communist state. Most academics on reading what he was writing would have
binned it or given it an 'f' grade. I didn't. I created a special page
whereby his ideas could be explored, worked on and re-written by wikipedia
users, INCLUDING FRED.
2. I went further and told him, as he had a 'problem' with me, that I would
not edit the page but leave it to others. My only role on that page was to
reinstate it when another user kept deleting it and moving its text
elsewhere.
3. When I saw that a goggle page contained a statement I thought unfair to
Fred, out of professional courtesy and a desire to ensure that his
professional reputation was not tarnished by the that statement (which was
written by another user over THEIR experience of his behaviour) I CONTACTED
HIM, told him of the page, suggested ways by which that link could be
broken, etc. (And suggested that he should remove my comments from his page
with my backing just in case a google search ever threw up a another link to
the issue, my attempt to inform him of the original link, which was now on
his talk page.)
For all of this, I have enduring character assassination - I have been
compared by a Holocaust denier, accused of being a communist, accused of
bullying, and in the last case, accused of writing a 'nasty comment' on his
page. Tannin and 172 have been similarly slandered and smeared.
For the record: I have disagreed strongly with Stevertigo over a page, yet
we have worked together subsequently and I welcomed him back when he
reappeared lately. I disagreed with Taku over the renamining of Japanese
emperors. Nevertheless, when he began a process of sorting out the situation
I wished him all the best and we both effectively agree on a solution to the
problem. Our current disagreement now involved subtle nuances on the
solution, not fundamental points and I have supported his proposed solution.
I have regularly expressed my respect for Mav yet we have disagreed on
issues. Yet I continue to work with him, seek his advice, ask him to look at
pages I have worked on. I did on one occasion disagree with Zoe and agree
with Susan Mason. I disagreed with Mintguy over soccer, yet work well with
him and he has asked me to look at particular pages, as I have asked him.
And contrary to the impression Fred has, I have disagreed with 172 on a
number of pages, notably [[Robert Mugabe]].
Put simply, I have not hidden my disagreement but never EVER waged a
campaign against anyone, with the exception of repeatedly banned trolls. I
have disagreed with people on a Monday, worked closely with them on a
Tuesday, etc. (I even told Dietary Fiber that I did not care that they were
Adam/Lir and I would work with them if they didn't slip back to the
Adamesque standard of behaviour. But unfortunately they did!) Even after
Fred made comments than in Ireland would have allowed me to sue him for
defamation, I have tried and tried and tried to be constructive with him. In
response all I have got is more slander, more wild accusations and more
ludicrous claims. I will continue to try to work with Fred, even if
establishing a working relationship with him seems like trying to climb
Mount Everest backward in the nude. :-) But it would be nice if once, Fred
showed the same spirit of comradeship and stopped engaging in patently
absurd levels of abuse.
I will work on anyone on wiki. It would be nice for once Fred showed even
the slightest willingness to work with me, rather than stooping to personal
abuse, slander and defamation. And if for one he actually apologised for
something like that mentioned below that he got so patently, absurdly and
obviously wrong.
JD
>Fred Bauder wrote:
>OK, as to that point. I do admit to fear. However, for whatever reason
>Tannin, 172, have more or less creased the behavior I complained of. I
>doubt
>they are "cured", but I think enough attention has been directed to the
>matter.
>
>Fred
>
>I wrote
>
> > For the record:
> >
> > 1. I left no nasty comment on Fred's page. When checking out how wiki
>list
> > references show up on google, I came upon on rather nasty link that
>exists
> > regarded Fred Bauder. I left a message on his page telling him of the
>link
> > because I thought as a colleague that he should know it existed. I told
>him
> > that though we had disagreements I thought that particular link was
>wrong
> > and unfair to him. I suggested that if we blocked list pages from google
> > searches, that link might disappear. It was something that I had written
>on
> > the list about, and I thought then and believe now that that unfair link
>to
> > Fred's name highlighted the dangers of direct links to the list. I made
> > other suggestions as to how we could avoid anyone else being wronged in
>the
> > way Fred was being in that google search. Finally I suggested that, in
>case
> > a new link connected to that message from me on his wiki page and so
>gave
> > another source to the reference to 'Fred Bauder and academic
>dishonesty', he
> > should feel free to delete my message. How is that nasty?
> >
> > 2. My name is FearÉireann, which meaning in gaelic ''Man of Ireland'',
>the
> > gaelic version of my previous english language usernic, ÉIREman. I
>thought
> > it fitting to use my national language in my usernic.
> >
> > 3. Lol was intended to mean, as it does and is used by many wiki users,
> > 'Lots of love', ie, an expression of goodwill.
> >
> > I fail to see where Fred's paranoia about my message came from. All I
>did
> > was tell a colleague that I had come across an unfair google link to
>them
> > and made it clear just how unfair I thought it was, as well as making a
> > suggestion about how that link could be broken. I cannot understand how
>an
> > act of professional courtesy and concern for the reputation of a
>colleague
> > could be seen as a 'nasty comment'.
> >
> > JT
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Listen sport, its way past time you pulled your head in and started to
act like a responsible Wikipedian.
I have not "ceased doing" *any* bloody thing.
Why not?
Because it's a bit bloody hard to stop doing something you haven't
*started* doing in the first place. But if you'll take a momemt to
remind me of whatever ridiculous bloody acussation it is that you have
in mind this time - your constant stream of nasty personal comments is
long on innuendo and short on evidence, logic or sense - then maybe I
should take a little while out to make sure that I START doing whatever
ludicrous thing it is that you have taken it into your blinkerd mind to
accuse me of this time.I am really fucking sick of it.
No more slandering Wikipedia contributors, Fred. Got it?
It is bad form.
It is contrary to the goals of this community.
It makes *you* look like a blathering fool.
And it makes decent people extremely fucking angry.
Tony Wilson
(Tannin)