User talk:John Stewart

Dear John,

See for more details on the 142.177 situation.

I'd just like to point out that great efforts were taken to attempt to work with and negotiate with this user before the ban, which was imposed with great reluctance. They have since knowingly ignored the ban, ignoring both the community consensus and the wishes of the site owner and operator.

They are making use of dynamic IP allocation from their provider to get around attempts to ban them by technical means. Therefore, they must be banned manually. This means reverting their edits. Until 142.177 is unbanned, their edits need to be deleted. Otherwise, there is, de facto, no ban. The Anome 23:31 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what happened ? I wrote something...and my edits were lost, and I could not access wikipedia for half a minute ... does it mean I have been rude to someone, and maybe already banned ?


 * I do not understand very well what you say above. But Maverick 149 showed me the same link that you did. I understood the edits could be deleted by people who think the edit is not good. I also understood edits could be placed back if people though they were good. I think the article need to be reedited, maybe even strongly, but it is better for the encyclopedia to have a rather good article, than just a stub. What is wrong with keeping a good article ??? John Stewart


 * Because it provides ego gratification for 142.177, who is banned from participating in this forum, for very good reasons, which I will not elaborate on here. Providing positive feedback to people who deliberately flout the (very few) rules of this site is not a good idea. You should subscribe to the Wikipedia-L mailing list for a fuller discussion of this whole issue. The Anome 23:48 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * I will consider looking at what this mailing list is. However, I still don't quite understand why interesting edits are removed because someone was rude (that is what Maverick 149 told me being the reason for the ban). Being rude, and writing things is different I think. I don't want to give positive feedback. I just want the encyclopedia to be good. I have been reading it often since last autumn, and I was quite impressed. I think these views are interesting with what I lived myself (not so much as dissident imprisonned in a hospital, but as a "political" refugee). Justice is a very important topic. John Stewart


 * Because user 142.177 is banned. That means they should not at all be able to edit. The method of the ban is to mannually revert his changes since he is trying to use technical means to subvert the ban. And when I said "rude" it wasn't only a single case, it was a pattern that included implied death threats and threats of great bodily harm. See User talk:Jimbo Wales for Jimbo's reply to your post and please stop feeding the 142.177 troll. --mav


 * What does that mean feeding the 142.177 troll ??? John Stewart


 * An Internet troll is someone who likes getting attention by creating controversy. The Anome 11:37 May 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * Is Maverick 149 a troll also ? John Stewart


 * Hardly. I'm the most active contributor and very well-respected around here. --mav


 * mav certainly doesn't need any endorsement, but just so you hear it from someone else - he is very respected here -- sannse 20:00 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

You might wish to go to http://www.internet-encyclopedia.info/wiki.phtml which is a less fascist, although new, wikipedia. Qwert


 * Hardly! Out of more than 10,000 users we have banned about 5 contributors in 2 and a half years. Of course simple vandals (who blank pages or who replace each "the" in an article with "penis") are banned with much greater regularity (after being warned - but usually we just revert all changes made by the vandal and don't bother with a ban). --mav


 * By careful definitions of the term "contributors" one can make the number of banned contributors as low as necessary. Martin


 * ouch, I understand less and less...John


 * I'm talking about people who have been banned by Jimbo. Jimbo has stated that simple vandals (page blankers, reverters, goat sex, etc.) can be banned by Admins - this is only self-defense. But anybody who makes an effort to contribute (like Clutch, Helga, 24/142.177, Lir/his many incarnations, and DW) are by definition contributors and can only be banned by Jimbo and then only for valid reasons (like making threats, not at all getting along with others, constantly inserting blatant POV into articles and they have not changed after being asked). --mav