[WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too!

Wed Jun 2 08:15:25 UTC 2004

This is my first ever posting to the mailing list.  Hi everybody!  I
wish the circumstances surrounding my introduction were more pleasant,
but alas I'm here because of this conflict, as I feel the need to
respond to a few of Eloquence's points.

> 172 has long proposed a compromise, namely a footnote behind the "United
> States backed" to clarify what it means, but VV has ignored that
> compromise.

Eloquence, I'm disappointed by this summary.

To say that I ignored this faux "compromise" is wholly untrue.  Both
Cadr and I have expended thousands of words explaining our objection.
172 has responded with evasiveness, word games, and personal attacks.
Just watch one of the long threads between him and Cadr to see how he
dances around the issues.

You've witnessed 172's behavior, have you not?  This does not come
through in your posting.

As for the "new" evidence, I not long ago laid out a detailed,
500-word case summarizing responses point by point.  No one has
refuted it.  172 is just resting on the protection.  Furthermore, I, Cadr, AstroNomer, and perhaps JamesMLane have all objected to this
wording.  Text which this many regular contributors strongly object to
is prima facie controversial (the bogus poll notwithstanding).

I know how people feel about revert wars, and I have likely hurt my
reputation by partaking in them.  But understand that I am tired of
allowing 172's bully tactics to carry the day.  And the quickpoll
experience, accurately relayed by Eloquence, demonstrates how
seriously the 3-revert "rule" is taken, even when it was supposedly
being enforced.

Of late I have been perusing the archives both here and on the 'pedia
and see *many* occasions of 172 exhibiting the same behavior in other
cases, with sometimes even talk of banning (e.g., a thread "It's time 
for 172 to be banned").  It is bad enough he claims "ownership" of
certain articles and reverts others' edits, but in this case he came
to an article others were working on, erased our work, reverted
attempts to restore it even in part, and began dictating terms to the
editors (e.g., "If [the edit] makes you uncomfortable, you'll probably
have to bear it", "I offered you a footnote... take it or leave it").

Perhaps the question comes down to whether a user who does make
valuable contributions but grossly flouts standards of neutrality,
civility, and conduct is desirable.  You can guess my answer.

Best,
VeryVerily

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com