Shortly after I sent a mail to Jimbo asking him to examine whether RK
should be banned for his obnoxious behavior, RK started vandalizing
several user and talk pages because he felt *his* talk page was being
vandalized. The vandalism: People placed comments on it. I have
temporarily banned him (and no, I won't read through his lengthy diatribes
which will inevitably follow). I strongly suggest turning this temporary
ban into a permanent one, at least for a month or so.
Regards,
Erik
Hello,
Sorry for bothering you with something I'll probably get bashed about
for bringing up, but where can I find a bot for /editing/ Wikipedia
articles? Some user has started creating articles with the wrong format
on the Romanian Wikipedia, I don't have the proper permissions to
perform SQL queries on it, and due to the lack of regexp replace
functions in MySQL, even that would be pretty much useless in the end.
What I really need is a PHP bot I can program to get the current content
of some articles, perform some preg_replace's in them and post them
back. Can anyone suggest a basis for such a bot?
Thanks,
Gutza
Admittedly, I would have jumped on the bandwagon for his banning when I had
my first RK experience.
RK has called me a few choice things in the past, but I been discovering
that RK is an essential part of the Wiki community since his edit wars
consistently yield the kind of synthesis that we want: quality, neutrality,
and a unique perspective that highlights what Wiki can offer that other
sourcebooks cannot.
We should disregard the mountain of grievances we have against him, and
accept him as an eloquent, forceful representative of a significant share of
hard-liners on the pro-Israel side, although I would certainly favor banning
if there were no counterweight. Since these are mass-based struggles, there
might be a substantive benefit to allowing partisans to engage in struggle
and yield syntheses, in that we might be better able to deal with the role
of public opinion, and political mobilization.
Actually, Ive been noticing that Wikipedias have been doing a better job
of conveying how the two sides see this conflict than the academic
literature and media articles (Reuters, NY Times, BBC, AP usually) that I
usually read.
All academic journals, sourcebooks, and media outlets have their strengths
and weaknesses when weighed against each other. And Wiki offers a unique
perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute made possible by the dynamics
of RK and his enemies. Nothing else available online is going to be
synthesis of material written by- and also edited by - such a diverse group
of perspectives (the online medium makes it possible there might be
violence if this group were in the same room!). The articles convey all
facets of reality, being products themselves of an actually
Israeli-Palestinian proxy battle.
As a disclaimer, as the son of Holocaust survivors Ill state my solidarity
with RKs passions for a strong, secure state of Israel. However, my views
on his conception of Arab culture are closer to the late Edward Said than
Daniel Pipes. As a historian, I find myself cringing, and often gasping with
disbelief, when reading RKs tracts on the Palestinians, Arabs, or Islam.
Perhaps I can relate to RKs mentality better than most, but Ive wedded a
strong rebuke of RKs paranoia, obnoxiousness, and bully tactics to a
defense of the end result.
_________________________________________________________________
Instant message in style with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE!
http://msnmessenger-download.com
I thank Ray Saintonge for reading - and rereading - my lengthy comments, despite the lack of copyediting for typos, and the formatting problems that I can't seem to figure out (I've only been having trouble with the margins on the Wiki mailing list). Although he understood all my points, the assumptions of his counter-arguments are unrealistic.
His comments, however, highlight my need to further explain why there's no way that removing RK would do anything to bring the Israel-related articles under the influence of the idealized set of contributors whom Stan had described.
First, consider the central cause of all flame wars. It's important to note that by and large, the more controversial an article gets on Wikipedia, the more partisan the core group of contributors becomes (e.g., the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal, abortion, and Communism - just to name some recent and never ending flame wars). This is an iron-clad relationship that few who contribute even scantly to Wiki articles on history and politics can deny. I acknowledge that other flame wars are far less prolonged and vicious. While patterns of more manageable disputes over parallel the ones over Israeli-Palestinian neutrality, the others are less prone to zero-sum games (see the Wiki article on game theory if this term�s unfamiliar � btw, sorry for habitual jargon of the social sciences). They usually far less emotionally charged, and/or the structure of the antagonists is not polarized.
I acknowledge that polarized factions is not unique to the Israel-related articles. There is polarizing left-versus-right political squabbling all the time on many articles, but the stakes are not as great personally to users. Disputes are channeled toward something narrowed (such as a particular policy), rather than an 'us versus them' struggle. For example, consider the recent disputes over privatization, which I�ve been mediating. Lir and Daniel Quinlan hold irreconcilable views on the subject: one brings in an anti-government dogma, the other an anti-capitalist one. But there was no personal animosity expressed on the talk page (they didn�t even cross paths � just channeling their mixed feeling though me on the talk page).
Jews worldwide, however, are haunted by the past and ever-vigilant when criticism of Israel might be imbued with anti-Semitism. Conversely, Palestinians have suffered declining living standards in the context of Israeli heavy-handedness, displacement, and marginalization in their homeland and in any setting of any refugee camp. These two collective identities are not �irrational� or �insane� when individual channel those frustrations toward hating the enemy; and we should expert their champions outside the Middle East to quarrel in every forum in which they are both present at the same time.
On other controversial articles, emotionalism can run high too, but the structure of the disputes is rarely so polarizing. For example, there is often conflict over a minority view that challenges an analysis, the balance, and/or the tone of a Wiki article. However, you don�t inherently attract two equally-large homogenous groups pitted against each other.
Among the conflict-prone articles on Wikipedia, perhaps only abortion attracts the same level of polarization and bitterness as the Israel-related articles. But this is largely a single article, along with a handful of others that go along with it, not close to receiving the level of attention garnered by the hundreds of articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian disputes.
Within the freedom of Wikipedia (which opens the doors to partisans), the fanacticism and polarization of the two sides on the Palestinian question, the partisans can gravitate toward the zero-sum conflict demanded by their fanatical � and often quite understandable considering where they are both coming from - worldviews. Thus, we'd have almost daily Mid East flame wars regardless of whether or not RK's around.
Yes, theoretically RK would be less "effective in presenting [his] view[s] than a large number of moderates." But the �moderates� are always going to be marginalized - with or without RK: the large share of extremists on both sides will always make more noise than the "silent majority" (not that I like to borrow Richard Nixon's '68 campaign slogans). A new RK can arrive any day. Even worse, since the majority of the core contributors are also partisans, RK's absence would just shatter the workable balance of power between the opposing forces. Yes, we would like to have a scholarly, congenial lot rather than what we have, but we�re to going to get it. And yes, Stan and Ray are correct that the flame wars have driven off a number of users; but this was the only likely outcome anyway.
In that regard, I do admit that Ray has good reasons to express concerns over my "[endorsement] of bully tactics and intimidation." I firmly agree as much as anyone with Ray that "failing to confront these people does not make the world better or safer." RK must always be prodded to ensure that he�s reasonably acing in line, but not so constrained that RK can�t be RK. That's been the status quo for over a year, and it's been working.
However, we should consider lax enforcement policy in light of this context - with the caveat that RK is reprimanded promptly each time (and with so many enemies, he�s under enough scrutiny). The Israeli-Palestinian articles should be regarded as an exception, calling for a measured enforcement of Wiki policy (and every institution doesn�t enforce all laws and guidelines to the letter � just consider all the arcane, non-enforced laws on the books right now everywhere). There should be a tacit, unstated understanding that the habits and customs among their core group of Israel-related contributors are going to be more a function of the emotionalism and fervency of the real-world Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not the conventions of Wikipedia as a whole. However, I�m not saying that RK deserves preferential treatment. Just don�t ban him, and let�s to more to acknowledge that he�s a indispensable pillar of the Wiki community.
I'd also point out in closing that the ideals of the Wikipedia project would favor my laissez-faire, less elitist, and more freedom-oriented approach to this matter. Little heavy handed intervention from the top (by developers such as Erik), combined with the free-for-all squabbling from below, has been working. Impartial experts need not dominate the Israeli-Palestinian articles (which would be Stan�s elitist ideal) because the struggle and fervency among all the partisans winds up forging good, neutral articles after a lot of noise has been made. The problem with little expertise and a lot of opinion is rectified, not caused, by stalemated edit wars among the partisans - right now we have a lot of horrible articles that could use some antagonism to whip them into shape. RK and his edit wars are part of the solution, not the problem.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
I thank Ray Saintonge for reading - and rereading - my lengthy comments,
despite the lack of copyediting for typos, and the formatting problems that
I can't seem to figure out (I've only been having trouble with the margins
on the Wiki mailing list). Although he understood all my points, the
assumptions of his counter-arguments are unrealistic.
His comments, however, highlight my need to further explain why there's no
way that removing RK would do anything to bring the Israel-related articles
under the influence of the idealized set of contributors whom Stan had
described.
First, consider the central cause of all flame wars. It's important to note
that by and large, the more controversial an article gets on Wikipedia, the
more partisan the core group of contributors becomes (e.g., the Roman
Catholic sex abuse scandal, abortion, and Communism - just to name some
recent and never ending flame wars). This is an iron-clad relationship that
few who contribute even scantly to Wiki articles on history and politics can
deny. I acknowledge that other flame wars are far less prolonged and
vicious. While patterns of more manageable disputes over parallel the ones
over Israeli-Palestinian neutrality, the others are less prone to zero-sum
games (see the Wiki article on game theory if this terms unfamiliar btw,
sorry for habitual jargon of the social sciences). They usually far less
emotionally charged, and/or the structure of the antagonists is not
polarized.
I acknowledge that polarized factions is not unique to the Israel-related
articles. There is polarizing left-versus-right political squabbling all the
time on many articles, but the stakes are not as great personally to users.
Disputes are channeled toward something narrowed (such as a particular
policy), rather than an 'us versus them' struggle. For example, consider the
recent disputes over privatization, which Ive been mediating. Lir and
Daniel Quinlan hold irreconcilable views on the subject: one brings in an
anti-government dogma, the other an anti-capitalist one. But there was no
personal animosity expressed on the talk page (they didnt even cross paths
just channeling their mixed feeling though me on the talk page).
Jews worldwide, however, are haunted by the past and ever-vigilant when
criticism of Israel might be imbued with anti-Semitism. Conversely,
Palestinians have suffered declining living standards in the context of
Israeli heavy-handedness, displacement, and marginalization in their
homeland and in any setting of any refugee camp. These two collective
identities are not irrational or insane when individual channel those
frustrations toward hating the enemy; and we should expert their champions
outside the Middle East to quarrel in every forum in which they are both
present at the same time.
On other controversial articles, emotionalism can run high too, but the
structure of the disputes is rarely so polarizing. For example, there is
often conflict over a minority view that challenges an analysis, the
balance, and/or the tone of a Wiki article. However, you dont inherently
attract two equally-large homogenous groups pitted against each other.
Among the conflict-prone articles on Wikipedia, perhaps only abortion
attracts the same level of polarization and bitterness as the Israel-related
articles. But this is largely a single article, along with a handful of
others that go along with it, not close to receiving the level of attention
garnered by the hundreds of articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian
disputes.
Within the freedom of Wikipedia (which opens the doors to partisans), the
fanacticism and polarization of the two sides on the Palestinian question,
the partisans can gravitate toward the zero-sum conflict demanded by their
fanatical and often quite understandable considering where they are both
coming from - worldviews. Thus, we'd have almost daily Mid East flame wars
regardless of whether or not RK's around.
Yes, theoretically RK would be less "effective in presenting [his] view[s]
than a large number of moderates." But the moderates are always going to
be marginalized - with or without RK: the large share of extremists on both
sides will always make more noise than the "silent majority" (not that I
like to borrow Richard Nixon's '68 campaign slogans). A new RK can arrive
any day. Even worse, since the majority of the core contributors are also
partisans, RK's absence would just shatter the workable balance of power
between the opposing forces. Yes, we would like to have a scholarly,
congenial lot rather than what we have, but were to going to get it. And
yes, Stan and Ray are correct that the flame wars have driven off a number
of users; but this was the only likely outcome anyway.
In that regard, I do admit that Ray has good reasons to express concerns
over my "[endorsement] of bully tactics and intimidation." I firmly agree as
much as anyone with Ray that "failing to confront these people does not make
the world better or safer." RK must always be prodded to ensure that hes
reasonably acing in line, but not so constrained that RK cant be RK. That's
been the status quo for over a year, and it's been working.
However, we should consider lax enforcement policy in light of this context
- with the caveat that RK is reprimanded promptly each time (and with so
many enemies, hes under enough scrutiny). The Israeli-Palestinian articles
should be regarded as an exception, calling for a measured enforcement of
Wiki policy (and every institution doesnt enforce all laws and guidelines
to the letter just consider all the arcane, non-enforced laws on the books
right now everywhere). There should be a tacit, unstated understanding that
the habits and customs among their core group of Israel-related contributors
are going to be more a function of the emotionalism and fervency of the
real-world Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not the conventions of
Wikipedia as a whole. However, Im not saying that RK deserves preferential
treatment. Just dont ban him, and lets to more to acknowledge that hes a
indispensable pillar of the Wiki community.
I'd also point out in closing that the ideals of the Wikipedia project would
favor my laissez-faire, less elitist, and more freedom-oriented approach to
this matter. Little heavy handed intervention from the top (by developers
such as Erik), combined with the free-for-all squabbling from below, has
been working. Impartial experts need not dominate the Israeli-Palestinian
articles (which would be Stans elitist ideal) because the struggle and
fervency among all the partisans winds up forging good, neutral articles
after a lot of noise has been made. The problem with little expertise and a
lot of opinion is rectified, not caused, by stalemated edit wars among the
partisans - right now we have a lot of horrible articles that could use some
antagonism to whip them into shape. RK and his edit wars are part of the
solution, not the problem.
_________________________________________________________________
Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail
Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
Since I doubt I can add anything to this topic that someone
else probably hasn't said beter than me, I'd like to ask if
this is the consensus that is emerging from the discussion on
this mailing list:
1. RK had been rude & obnoxious.
2. The act of banning him, however, sets a disturbing president.
The banning tool could be abused quite easily, e.g. two Sysops
get into an edit war, which escalates to where one bans the
other.
3. To prevent abuses, we need to establish -- or acknowledge --
some kind of due process. (A few people have indicated that
this was followed in RK's case.)
To this, I'd like to add a following point:
4. This process should not rely on Jimbo. That's for the simple
reason eventually he won't be involved as closely with Wikipedia,
& may be replaced by someone who is not as ``hands-off" or
``wise" or ``lazy" as Jimbo has been, & starts to push her/his
own POV onto all of us.
Geoff
Erik,
While technically correct, I think your ban was unwise.
RK did indeed blank some personal pages, the C-J talk page, and wrongly
accused Martin of using an alias.
However, I don't think he should be singled out for punishment -
especially with so little discussion beforehand.
My impression is that several users ganged up on RK and goaded him into
a "bannable offense".
I feel bad, because I think that I sparked this bonfire by protecting
the C-J talk page. Now, that same fire has been used to burn RK alive.
I would like to:
*un-ban RK
*request that everyone avoid posting on [[talk:RK]]
Ed Poor
>LittleD said Wikipedia's goal is to make an
>encyclopedia, not a judicial system. Any big debates
>that are not solved by mediation could just go on
>village pump, an article talk page, or, if it's
really >hard to resolve, the mailing list. A private
messaging >system would be useful (but possibly
difficult to >impliment), but more than that would be
too much. The >user talk system seems to work well
currently; maybe I >missed something about an actual
problem with it that's >come up.
>LDan
Usually, a conflict gets out of the way of the pump
very quickly. It is inflating the page very quickly.
Going to the talk page is obviously the direction, but
once the conflict has cristallized, it tends the leave
the talk page anyway.
Now with experience, I recommand that you don't head
for the mailing list for an edit war issue, except to
just tell people what is occuring if nobody noticed.
Two reasons for this. The first is that you annoy some
people who don't care at all about your problem (and
it regularly happens with other topics as well, which
extend for days on the ml).
The second is for you. Once people are upset that you
impose your problem on them, not only do you have to
cope with the other user with whom you are in conflict
with, but you also have to cope with angry editors,
who feel you are abusing them. That may generate even
more mails, public or private, and does not really
help you to quiet down.
Private mediation is already occuring anyway, but
perhaps this way would insure that *everyone* could
benefit from it, and from a neutral pov as regards the
conflict. Which all do not benefit I am sure.
Now, I see not how it would apply to ips or to people
refusing to give an email adress.
Finally, mediation could have two different goals. One
would be to solve the issue surrounding the topic, and
this should be public ihmo. And one dealing with
personalities conflicts. This one should be private.
It could be better than these two goals are separated.
imho.
Otherwise, I find the idea interesting and worth exploring.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
>it's a way of stopping things from happening faster
>than the list members can react. It's also a usful
way >to cause someone to do what they should be doing
when >involved in a heavy dispute: take deep breath,
sleep >on it and come back the next day.
I dearly agree with you
>I suggest the following: one administrator or 3
sysops >who have not previously been involved in the
issue can >decide to put the temporary ban in place
and raise the >matter on the mailing list then or as
soon as the >request is made. Ban lifted in 12 hours
(or 24?) or if >3 people on the list say so, after
reviewing the >situation, not out of general dislike
for bans. Ban >not lifted if the list result is longer
term ban.
Administrator and sysops mean the same.
Perhaps you meant developer by admin ? If so, it is
not a good idea. Though we love and trust our
developers, several don't think they should have more
weight than others in this type of decision.
Especially since in reality only Erik risks to oppose
the group in doing so. Several people precisely
consider he has no right to do so.
3 sysops is a better choice. Note that in that case,
there certainly were at least 3 sysops supporting the
banning, though admitedly, no open discussion was made
on the topic of course.
24/48 hours is a good time to cool down. Though
perhaps not in this case.
>That gives the list the greatest possible notice and
>cuts the potential for inappropriate use of the
>capability, while still letting it be used to give
the >list time to start to react to a rapidly
developing >situation.
nod
>On a different subject, RK is an interesting and
tough >problem. Some of the hardest choices I've had
to make >have been when, in dictator position with a
philosophy >resembling that I've seen Jimbo express
here, I've had >to decide that the interest of the
community is best >served by asking or compelling a
contributor to depart >because their discouraging
effect on others does more >harm than the good of
their contributions. There's >some reason to believe
that this may apply for RK but >the case hasn't been
made yet, just claimed. This is >just about the
toughest decision Jimbo will have to >make, so if you
think RK needs to be banned for this >reason, please
gather the case together with a >collection of
specific examples for Jimbo and others >to review.
At some point, I wonder what is the real difference
between a case being made and a case claimed. I am
serious here.
As for gathering...I...doubt... many would deny here
that RK is often using inappropriate words, is naming
others vandals, calling for ban on them, and rather
generously accusing others of being antisemites and
nazi.
The argument might be between those with tough skins
who think it is not so important, and those who have a
hard time to cope with it and are driven away from
articles where RK edit.
Giving more credit for the thin skin position would be
offering more humanity and compassion, and probably
favor diversity in editors.
And giving more credit for the thick skin position
might be selecting stronger people perhaps more fit to
cope with wikipedia environmental conditions. Both
points of view are defendable I guess.
The other argument might be up to which point RK being
a good editor (or an important editor to assure
balance on very controversial topics as 172 argue) is
enough to balance him being a difficult editor.
Accepting him as such would (arguably) benefit some
articles, and officially set a leval of rudeness
tolerance depending on the perceived benefit one bring
to the project.
Not accepting would be (arguably) a loss to the
project, and would set clearer behavioral guidelines,
similar to anyone.
It is perhaps up to us (or to Jimbo ?) to decide if
the place is a jungle or a garden ?
As for the collection of cases, the most recent were
listed on meta, since (that is what I understood) it
was considered anti wikilove, to gather evidence about
a difficult user. I doubt not that if necessary we can
set a list of those who shared a conflict with RK.
However, I would prefer that we do not come to this.
Mud moving is not good. This is a difficult topic as
some argue we should avoid gathering evidence for the
sake of good relationships, and some argue that
evidence is necessary to ban someone.
>OK, enough boldness for my first post to this list.
>I'm the user:JamesDay Alex756 has mentioned a few
>times in recent discussons on legal issues. Not a
>lawyer, just a community manager with a keen interest
>in online community law. More background on my user
>page.
>
>James
the one with attached name ? :-)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
> >2. The act of banning him, however, sets a disturbing president.
> >
> >
> >
> With all due respect to your mature attitude in the message, I'm not a
> native English speaker either, and I sometimes produce the same kind of
> lovely results, but this is just too precious to go unnoticed.
>
LOL!!!
Graham (quercus robur)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 12/09/2003