User talk:Non-liberals are stupid

OK, this user name is just trolling. Ban it immediately. --mav 23:37, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * done. FearÉIREANN 23:43, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I meant dev access ban. The person said that they are an admin so they could just log into their sysop account to unban themselves. If they do then I'll suggest that the person lose sysop status. --mav 23:48, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't feel insulted by the name. Keep it if you want toSmith03 23:42, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I question whether the same standards applied to articles should be applied to user names. It would be one thing if someone edited an article to say, "Non-liberals are stupid"; that should be reverted immediately by someone else as it is so obviously POV.  But are we really going to say that user names should be NPOV?  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:11, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * If you really are a sysop, you ought to know better than trying to prove a point through the creation of ridiculous pages and accounts. Angela 23:46, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for testing anarchism. --mav 23:48, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I guess we'll simply have to keep watch on who unbans the banned user. I agree if the person responsible for the page is a sysop, they should be desysoped (if such a word exists!) immediately. FearÉIREANN 00:00, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sysops shouldn't create accounts for the purpose of trolling and then declare that they can't be blocked. If there are no complaints, I will look up this user's IP address and attempt to find out which sysop is pulling the strings. -- Tim Starling 00:00, Oct 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Please do. Although I'm pretty sure I think I know which sysop is responsible. But I'll keep my mouth shut until you are able to grep the IP. --mav


 * No need to look up the IP - see the mailing list: . Angela 00:10, Oct 13, 2003 (UTC)

I am surprised that User:LittleDan did this, but I have enormous respect for him. In the circumstances taking his sysop status away would be wrong. I don't understand why LittleDan thought it necessary to create two user accounts. I suppose we all make our youthful follies. But he is too good a contributor to lose. Maybe tomorrow he will wake up and wonder 'what the heck did I do that for?' We have forgiven people for far worse (rightly in my view). I think we should simply say 'LD, don't do that, please' and forget about it. FearÉIREANN 00:19, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree, as long as he realises that he has wasted a lot of people's time in doing this. There are far more untoward things he could have done with the account, so I don't think this alone should constitute a ban/desysoping etc. Angela 00:23, Oct 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Echo JT and Angela. --mav

Based on what Jtdirl and mav have said, I have unblocked the account. Hope this was ok. Angela 00:27, Oct 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Fine. I was about to myself. I've just realised, with all this excitement I'm an hour late for bed now. I wonder can I tell my boss if I am late at work in 8 hours time "sorry but LittleDan called himself Liberal and then Non-liberals are stupid and I was so busy debating the issue I kinda forgot to go to bed!!!" yawn. Ok. now that the excitement is over, I'm going to bed, most definitely not to dream of wikipedia! :-) FearÉIREANN 00:36, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * No ban on the Little Dan. It was, in a sense, trolling behavior.  But his intent was to, in his mind, improve wikipedia, not damage it. Intent means something as well. Ark30inf 00:30, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should tell his parents. As for banning LittleDan or taking away his sysop status is that really a serious proposal (sounds like that is what he wants)? It seems a bit of an overreaction, however, maybe I am missing something. Maybe he has been a little overzealous and trying hard to make a point. However, has this really been that disruptive? One might suggest this is just another (and perhaps even reasonable) interpretation of what a role account could be. If you are going to have Mediators, etc., why not have Liberals? Is it stupid for a Liberal to say "Non-liberals are stupid"? Probably. However, I have not been able to find a policy against being stupid on Wikipedia. If there is, then take away my sysop status and ban me as well. Is the statement offensive? It just seems silly; and conservatives would be very happy to have liberals making statements like that. Perhaps he should be thrown to the wolves at the Mediation Committee to see what they do in this situation. I say, L'Dan is a valuable contributor here, his work, generally speaking, is of good value and increases the usefulness of Wikipedia. &#8212; Alex756 00:37, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I think it's wrong to blame this on age, or to use age as an excuse. Little Dan is hardly the only person to use silly publicity stunts in an attempt to influence a debate. For example, compare this with User:Mbecker's actions in the Daniel C. Boyer debate -- creating pages about unimportant people, and adding other people by the name of "Daniel C. Boyer" to the article. And who was it that listed VFD on VFD? Little Dan has been a valued, mature contributor, and he should be treated as such. -- Tim Starling 01:27, Oct 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Children do not have the same level of responsibility as adults. That is a fact. When children do something wrong, their parents should be informed, we are not in loco parentis here. That was all I was suggesting. I still think it is a minor transgression at worst. Using the same standard for a mature adult contributor may not be appropriate for a mature contributor who has not reached majority. &#8212; Alex756 01:57, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder to some of the longtime veterans here that another sysop--and a highly regarded one at that--did something similar many months ago. This has nothing to do with age. LD did something that others might not have done, but he was trying to make a point. Cut him some slack and stop bringing up the age issue. The last person who did the exact same thing (I believe it was in response to TMC) is at least three times LD's age. Let's not be agist here. Danny 02:04, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

My goodness, such a fuss. You would think he knocked over the sculpture in the foyer and broke off part of the foot for all the bruhaha.

This (the bruhaha), frankly, is not necessary. LDan has made a minor, forgettable, faux paux in an effort to illustrate a point about which he felt strongly. So what. Let's move on, after deleting the account and the relevant user pages if that is necessary.

Oh, and by the way, I am most assuredly not a liberal. I'm not offended though. When I am the butt of a bad joke, I don't laugh. That's it.

Louis Kyu Won Ryu 02:25, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone's condemning Dan or asking that he be desysopped (anymore). This (and on wikien-l) is all just meta-debate. The issue itself was resolved a while ago. -- Tim Starling 02:34, Oct 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thank goodness. Though, I may have to get one of them blackberry devices in order to be able to participate in the conversation before it has ended at this pace.  Alas, no blackberry coverage out here anyway... Louis Kyu Won Ryu 02:42, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Liberal, I hope you mean socially liberal, not some "commie-pinko-take-away-your-rights-force-you-to-pay-for-everything-because-I-do-not-have-a-job-or-plan-on-getting-one-for-that-matter liberal".-- GorillazFan  Adam  23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)