I have been banned from the wikipedia. I have not been provided with a forum for discussing the issue, nor have I been given a reason why my ban is justified. My posts are being rejected from the english mailing list, the arbitration committee has neither ruled on this -- nor communicated with me. Why have I been banned, and how can I appeal?
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
It is very unfortunate when a talented contributor leaves the project in
disgust, and other people consider doing the same. In this case, 172 was bullied
off by people who have yet to respond to the content of his arguments beyond
some rhetorical ranting about things which are barely relevant to the content at
hand. It was done with personal attacks, using terms such as Stalinist,
revisionist, totalitarian, etc. It was also done (sorry, Ed, but I have to point
this out) by having the title "Can we ban 172 now" appear countless times as an
email header. He reads the list. He has feelings. That very title, to someone
who has contributed such high quality work to Wikipedia, is insulting and
crass.
If the problem with 172 was that he was rude, I can point to many more
examples of rudeness by the people who are most vociferous in condemning him. It is
unfortunate that there is no equal number of emails condemning their behavior.
If the problem was content, then answer his arguments on a point by point
basis. If it is his political positioning, then point to where rather than
engaging in the same political positioning. Very often, the attacks we make on the
foibles of others are a projection of our own foibles.
If the problems are reverts, then respond to VV's reverts with equal
vehemence, instead of implying that VV's reverts were justified because he is on the
same political bandwagon as you.
If the problem is none of these, then 172 deserves an apology.
To everyone, I suggest that maybe the time has come to start considering
quality over quantity and content over form. If we don't, it seems to me that we
will end up with neither.
Danny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/2004-06-05
I'm sure someone will get their pics online and external linked
in due course.
There's a list of people there and it isn't complete. Could
attendees please fill it out.
Same for the content of the talk. Disaster recovery and languages
was the issues I remember ...
- d.
I have been banned unfairly three times. I was first banned because I allegedly violated a "3 revert rule" of which I was never warned about; regardless of whether I did break it, I was banned by a sysop (Guarnaco) involved in an edit war on the page -- this is a gross violation of sysop rules!
I then went to the IRC channel to appeal my case, where I was harrassed by users such as Snowspinner and Fennec -- whose sole intent was to "rub salt in my wounds" if you will. I started telling them, "Please do not talk to me. You are rude and inconsiderate" each time did so. Then I was banned, solely for asking them not to talk to me! If anyone should have been banned, it should be them for being so rude to another contributor!
After I was unbanned by a more reasonably sysop, I was then immediately re-banned by RickK -- even though I had not edited any articles!!!!!!!! This second ban appears to be permanent, YET I HAVE NOT VIOLATED ANY RULES!
It is completely fallacious, RickKs claim that I am another user -- that I am a "sockpuppet". And even if I were, is it a crime? Am I double-voting? Am I agreeing with my other accounts, and creating false consensus? The answer to those questions are NO, this is NOT A SOCKPUPPET ACCOUNT.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
I like what Nathaniel said about working together:
"writes good articles but is unable to work productively with
other wiki editors"
...and also what Fennec said about excuses:
"Doing good things is *NOT* an excuse for doing bad things."
...but most of all I agree with Caroline:
"that people are fighting what they see as a moral
crusade - that Wikipedia exists to put the world to rights,
to speak the objective truth about X issue etc etc."
This desire to use Wikipedia to right the world's wrongs, by
getting Wikipedia to endorse the TRUTH, is probably what's behind
the worst of the edit wars. I've tried to set a good example by
ducking out of these once I realize I'm in them. (It often takes a
third party like Caroline, Angela, or Mav, to name just a few -- to
help awaken me to the realization that I have departed from
neutrality into advocacy.
What an irony that even someone devoted to avoiding bias can least
detect bias in their own writing. I mean, I wish I could see it
before I click "submit". But, frankly, I can't. I rely on the help
of other Wikipedians to set me straight. It's crucial, because I
have a blind spot when it comes to my own writing.
Perhaps the best any of us can do is to be humble enough to listen
to our colleagues and respect their efforts to steer us back in the
right direction when we stray from the NPOV path.
Have a good weekend, everybody!
Ed Poor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article is a proposed
article that newcomers should read before they submit their first
article. '''Please do''' edit it and discuss it in its Talk page (NOT
here). The intent is that a link to this article will replace the link
to "What Wikipedia is not" in the portion of the new article text which
currently reads:
"Please do not create an encyclopedia article about yourself, or an
article whose main purpose is to promote a product or business. See
_What Wikipedia is not_ for more guidance. Articles in serious
violation of Wikipedia's policies may be removed without notice.
The goal is to deflect newcomers from _innocently_ creating the
commonest kinds of articles that end up on VfD. I will only link to it
if there is consensus that it is actually better for than specific
purpose than [[What Wikipedia is not]].
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net alternate:
dpbsmith(a)alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
shebs at apple.com wrote:
"I've spent hour after frustrating hour on talk pages with 172 actually;
when one resolves not to get into edit wars with somebody who has a
habit of reverting (VV is just one of many who 172 has reverted), talk
pages are one's only option. You should review them for yourself before
you start talking about foibles and projection."
Since a lot of users buy into your distortions of the truth (users with whom
I'd like to work cooperatively), I've enclosed in this e-mail excepts from
our two longest running interactions of the year. Despite your claims, I'm
sure that fair-minded users will see once and for all that I have struggled
to be as fair and helpful to you as possible. I think that they'll find that
in the end I should've really been the one guilty of all the things of which
you accuse me.
Due to size constraints, I'll have to spit this message into two parts. The
first is a discussion from [[Talk:History of the United States
(1980-1988)]]. The other major discussion we've had this year is taken from
[[Talk:Cold War/temp]]. I will add that to separate e-mail.
-172
-------
Taken from
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:History_of_the_United_State…
==18 Feb 2004 [2]==
As long as somebody is sufficiently unsatisfied to put the notice up, it is
simply dishonest to remove it without their agreement; you have to get
positive agreement, not just declare that you think the arguments are
without merit.
:I simply stated that there were no arguments made against the current
version of the article. Now that you have cited some in this posting, a
justification for the neutrality dispute has been made. [[User:172|172]]
09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have asked repeatedly for you to add references to the scholarly works
upon which the various claims are based, still haven't seen anything.
:And I stated repeatedly that the endnotes would be inserted along with a
new section outlining the historiography. However, I now finally have some
concrete inquiries from you. I'll start you off with the following; ask if
you want more. I also took the time to find you some free access articles
online if you want quick (and free) overviews. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21
Feb 2004 (UTC)
The Sunbelt stuff is full of sweeping illogicalities; if the West is
conservative, then how is it that California is not? I live in Nevada, and
it's actually become '''more''' liberal in the past couple decades, because
of people moving in from elsewhere - it's certainly not a solid base for the
Repuglicans.
:''Reread'' the section on the Sunbelt and the New Right. These exceptions
are addressed. In other words, the increasingly Democratic voting patterns
in California in more recent years are briefly mentioned later in the
section. For a discussion of changing voting patterns in the Sunbelt in more
recent years, see Paul Starr, "An Emerging Democratic Majority" in Stanley
Greenberg and Theda Skocpol, eds., ''The New Majority'' (Yale University
Press, 1997) for . Starr's article was adapted and reprinted in
[http://www.prospect.org/print/V8/35/starr-p.html ''The American Prospect''
no. 35 (November-December 1997)]. On gentrification, the Sunbelt, and
cities, see Daphn Spain (1992) "A Gentrification Research Agenda for the
1990s." ''Journal of Urban Affairs'' 14:125-134 for a good general overview.
For the other side of the coin, see Douglas Glasgow's ''The Black
Underclass'' (1980), which studies the plight of African Americans in the
inner cities. For a more recent journal article see W.J. Wilson's "Studying
Inner-City Social Dislocations: The Challenge of Public Agenda Research."
''American Sociological Review'' 56:1-14. Going back a generation, the
political implications of the rise of the Sunbelt were heralded by
Kirkpatrick Sale ''Power Shift'' (1975). More recently, you have Lisa McGirr
''Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right'' (2001) I found
you a site with reviews and excepts from at the Princeton University Press
website if you want to take a look:
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7031.html. For more on the rise of
conservative sentiments in the late '70s early '80s, see ''The Politics of
Social Policy in the United States'', eds Margaret Weir, Ann Shola Orloff
and Theda Skocpol. For your convenience once again, here are
[http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/4196.html more reviews]. Abramson,
Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde. Change and Continuity in the
1980 Elections. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1983 comes to mind for
the elections of 1980 as a major political realignment. [[User:172|172]]
09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Supply-side economics is still being described as if "everybody knows" it's
bad, but I'll bet it has lots of respected defenders today who would take
exception to the description here; so it needs to be described neutrally,
not negatively.
:This shot seems to be coming from nowhere. Where is the article attacking
supply-side economics? The debate is over whether to blame either tax cuts
or runaway government spending for the deficit. However, this is merely a
side note in an article that provides a very general overview.
[[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) Thomas Byrne Edsall's ''The
Political Economy of Inequality'' and Sidney Weintraub and Marvin Goodstein,
eds., ''Reaganomics in the Stagflation Economy'' (1983), discuss the Reagan
administration's economic policies. George Gildner's ''Wealth and Poverty''
(1981), deals with the economic ideology of the Reagan revolution. See also
Robert Heilbroner et al. ''The Debt and the Deficit'' (1989). On the
presidency, Ronnie Dugger, ''On Reagan'' (1983), is a hostile account.
Ackerman, Frank. Reaganomics: ''Rhetoric vs. Reality''. (1982) is another
hostile account. Roland Evans and Robert Novak ''The Reagan Revolution''
(1981) is an admiring chronicle. Laurence I. Barrett, ''Gambling with
History'' (1984) is another good source on Reagan in the White House.
[[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And of course there's the extreme irony of casual references to "rightwing
military dictatorships in Latin America" by the same person who steadfastly
resists characterizing certain socialist leaders ([[Josef Stalin]]) as
dictators. I'm not quoting everything that I think is slanted, just an
assortment, because once again I've wasted my WP editing time trying to
convey the scope of the problem.
:First, the next time I hear this bullshit about me being a Stalinist, I am
taking it up to the mailing list. BTW, this paragraph was removed. To go on,
LaFeber's ''Inevitable Revolutions'' (1983) is still the seminal work on the
US in Central America. I found you a site citing reviews
[http://www.usd.edu/~amorriso/lafeber.htm here]. The articles cited don't
come with free access. Raymond Bonner's ''Weakness and Deceit: US Policy and
El Salvador'' is also a leading work on this subject, though starting off
with LaFeber would probably be best. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004
(UTC)
::You said "Stalinist", not me, and the sentence "The Reagan administration
supplied funds and weapons to rightwing military dictatorships in Latin
America." is still there as I write, so that's a pretty definite use of the
D-word, plus the sentence after that says "Somoza family dictatorship". I
have no problem with the D-word, but it's certainly biased to accept it for
the rightwingers and not the leftwingers. Maybe just a word, but given your
energy to remove it from certain articles, I assume that you agree it's an
important word. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 14:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I know that this article is not representative of professionally-written US
history, because it's not at all like the books I've read - in fact most of
this I remember reading in nakedly-biased and poorly-researched articles in
leftie newspapers of the period.
:Well, what do you expect for a general overview on the past twenty years of
recent US history? And what books were those, BTW? For a general outline,
however, it isn't at all unorthodox. Do a search for course syllabi on yahoo
and google, for example, and you'll see similar outline sketches. If this is
too much to ask from you, I'll send you some more links. [[User:172|172]]
09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
::I'm going to have a pretty high expectation from someone who claims to be
a professional, reverts changes by others for being "emotional", and has a
habit of telling people not to give the "Fox News version". I haven't read
any book purporting to be a "general history of the US since 1980", I was
comparing to US history in general. I don't think course syllabi from the
net are authoritative; there are a lot of, shall we say, "less-abled"
professors. WP can only be as good as its sources, so we need to rely on the
leading authorities, not the assistant prof from Podunk U. [[User:Stan
Shebs|Stan]] 14:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That's why it's important to know what books are to used as authorities -
I'll buy/checkout copies and compare content. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]]
06:25, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
:Thanks for the refs - LaFeber was already on my list, am visiting the
library this weekend. I note that your Reagan-era books are from
'''during''' his presidency, which isn't really adequate for perspective -
has nobody written anything in the 15 years since? [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]]
14:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
---------
---------
==18 Feb 2004 [2]==
As long as somebody is sufficiently unsatisfied to put the notice up, it is
simply dishonest to remove it without their agreement; you have to get
positive agreement, not just declare that you think the arguments are
without merit.
:I simply stated that there were no arguments made against the current
version of the article. Now that you have cited some in this posting, a
justification for the neutrality dispute has been made. [[User:172|172]]
09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have asked repeatedly for you to add references to the scholarly works
upon which the various claims are based, still haven't seen anything.
:And I stated repeatedly that the endnotes would be inserted along with a
new section outlining the historiography. However, I now finally have some
concrete inquiries from you. I'll start you off with the following; ask if
you want more. I also took the time to find you some free access articles
online if you want quick (and free) overviews. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21
Feb 2004 (UTC)
The Sunbelt stuff is full of sweeping illogicalities; if the West is
conservative, then how is it that California is not? I live in Nevada, and
it's actually become '''more''' liberal in the past couple decades, because
of people moving in from elsewhere - it's certainly not a solid base for the
Repuglicans.
:''Reread'' the section on the Sunbelt and the New Right. These exceptions
are addressed. In other words, the increasingly Democratic voting patterns
in California in more recent years are briefly mentioned later in the
section. For a discussion of changing voting patterns in the Sunbelt in more
recent years, see Paul Starr, "An Emerging Democratic Majority" in Stanley
Greenberg and Theda Skocpol, eds., ''The New Majority'' (Yale University
Press, 1997) for . Starr's article was adapted and reprinted in
[http://www.prospect.org/print/V8/35/starr-p.html ''The American Prospect''
no. 35 (November-December 1997)]. On gentrification, the Sunbelt, and
cities, see Daphn Spain (1992) "A Gentrification Research Agenda for the
1990s." ''Journal of Urban Affairs'' 14:125-134 for a good general overview.
For the other side of the coin, see Douglas Glasgow's ''The Black
Underclass'' (1980), which studies the plight of African Americans in the
inner cities. For a more recent journal article see W.J. Wilson's "Studying
Inner-City Social Dislocations: The Challenge of Public Agenda Research."
''American Sociological Review'' 56:1-14. Going back a generation, the
political implications of the rise of the Sunbelt were heralded by
Kirkpatrick Sale ''Power Shift'' (1975). More recently, you have Lisa McGirr
''Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right'' (2001) I found
you a site with reviews and excepts from at the Princeton University Press
website if you want to take a look:
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7031.html. For more on the rise of
conservative sentiments in the late '70s early '80s, see ''The Politics of
Social Policy in the United States'', eds Margaret Weir, Ann Shola Orloff
and Theda Skocpol. For your convenience once again, here are
[http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/4196.html more reviews]. Abramson,
Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde. Change and Continuity in the
1980 Elections. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1983 comes to mind for
the elections of 1980 as a major political realignment. [[User:172|172]]
09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
::Heh, there's no lack of stupid stuff - but which of these are
authoritative? As someone who was personally in the Democratic caucus last
week that was so large that it had to move out onto the football field (got
to shake Kerry's hand, my wife practically mauled him :-) ), I'll say that
people who characterize Nevada as a conservative state don't know what
they're talking about. Dem/Rep split in Nevada is very nearly 50/50, and if
Bush hadn't come and told baldfaced lies about Yucca Mountain, Nevada would
have gone Demo and Gore would be in the White House today. [[User:Stan
Shebs|Stan]] 06:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
:::They're all "authoritative." They may be writing from one of competing
schools of thought or approaches, but if you can recognize this, it's no
problem. I can give you more, but this should be enough to give you steer
you in the direction of finding other works on the subject matter. BTW,
Who's describing Nevada as solidly conservative? No one's denying that there
aren't exceptions in "the Sunbelt." Nevada has Las Vegas and the gaming
industry. Often forgotten, Democrats can be competitive in Montana as well,
given the legacy of a strong union activity in the Western mining region of
the state. [[User:172|172]] 07:18, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Supply-side economics is still being described as if "everybody knows" it's
bad, but I'll bet it has lots of respected defenders today who would take
exception to the description here; so it needs to be described neutrally,
not negatively.
:This shot seems to be coming from nowhere. Where is the article attacking
supply-side economics? The debate is over whether to blame either tax cuts
or runaway government spending for the deficit. However, this is merely a
side note in an article that provides a very general overview.
[[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) Thomas Byrne Edsall's ''The
Political Economy of Inequality'' and Sidney Weintraub and Marvin Goodstein,
eds., ''Reaganomics in the Stagflation Economy'' (1983), discuss the Reagan
administration's economic policies. George Gildner's ''Wealth and Poverty''
(1981), deals with the economic ideology of the Reagan revolution. See also
Robert Heilbroner et al. ''The Debt and the Deficit'' (1989). On the
presidency, Ronnie Dugger, ''On Reagan'' (1983), is a hostile account.
Ackerman, Frank. Reaganomics: ''Rhetoric vs. Reality''. (1982) is another
hostile account. Roland Evans and Robert Novak ''The Reagan Revolution''
(1981) is an admiring chronicle. Laurence I. Barrett, ''Gambling with
History'' (1984) is another good source on Reagan in the White House.
[[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And of course there's the extreme irony of casual references to "rightwing
military dictatorships in Latin America" by the same person who steadfastly
resists characterizing certain socialist leaders ([[Josef Stalin]]) as
dictators. I'm not quoting everything that I think is slanted, just an
assortment, because once again I've wasted my WP editing time trying to
convey the scope of the problem.
:First, the next time I hear this bullshit about me being a Stalinist, I am
taking it up to the mailing list. BTW, this paragraph was removed. To go on,
LaFeber's ''Inevitable Revolutions'' (1983) is still the seminal work on the
US in Central America. I found you a site citing reviews
[http://www.usd.edu/~amorriso/lafeber.htm here]. The articles cited don't
come with free access. Raymond Bonner's ''Weakness and Deceit: US Policy and
El Salvador'' is also a leading work on this subject, though starting off
with LaFeber would probably be best. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004
(UTC)
::You said "Stalinist", not me, and the sentence "The Reagan administration
supplied funds and weapons to rightwing military dictatorships in Latin
America." is still there as I write, so that's a pretty definite use of the
D-word, plus the sentence after that says "Somoza family dictatorship". I
have no problem with the D-word, but it's certainly biased to accept it for
the rightwingers and not the leftwingers. Maybe just a word, but given your
energy to remove it from certain articles, I assume that you agree it's an
important word. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 14:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
::::Just luck-of-the-draw about Stalin - Mugabe and Jong-il also came to
mind, I chose randomly. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 06:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
:::::I don't use the "D-word" ''arbitrarily''. But I am sorry about using
the using it ''inconsistently''. However, the biases affecting my usage of
"the D-word" go back to Max Weber, not Karl Marx. Let me elaborate. Going
back to Weber's concept of "sultanism," comparativists point out regimes
resting on patrimonial leadership, rather than rationalized modern
bureaucracies with generalized norms and procedures. Consider the Somozas,
the Trujillos, Saddam and his sons, Assad and his sons, Papa Doc and Baby
Doc, Batista, Ceausescu, the Kims, Macros, Idi Amin, Iran under the Shah,
and "Turkmenbashi." Since the defining feature of leadership here is low
institutionalization, this concept is not applied to all authoritarian
regimes. Among Communist regimes, I've only seen Romania and North Korea
classified as personalistic. BTW, for the benchmark work on this concept,
see Juan Linz and Alfred Stephan's ''Problems of Democratic Transition and
Consolidation'' (1996). Similarly, Michael Bratton and Nicolas van de Walle
use the concept of "neopatrimonialism" in their account, which is the most
comprehensive work on the subject for Afica. To illustrate my point with an
example, I would avoid the "D-word" vis-à-vis China today, while using it
more loosely vis-à-vis the Somoza dynasty. Although this isn't the
ideological bias that you made it out to be, your post clearly highlighted
the confusion generated by the term's usage. Thanks for alterting me to
this. I'll try to avoid it all together on Wiki. And sorry for the "massive
verbiage." [[User:172|172]] 07:13, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I know that this article is not representative of professionally-written US
history, because it's not at all like the books I've read - in fact most of
this I remember reading in nakedly-biased and poorly-researched articles in
leftie newspapers of the period.
:Well, what do you expect for a general overview on the past twenty years of
recent US history? And what books were those, BTW? For a general outline,
however, it isn't at all unorthodox. Do a search for course syllabi on yahoo
and google, for example, and you'll see similar outline sketches. If this is
too much to ask from you, I'll send you some more links. [[User:172|172]]
09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
::I'm going to have a pretty high expectation from someone who claims to be
a professional, reverts changes by others for being "emotional", and has a
habit of telling people not to give the "Fox News version". I haven't read
any book purporting to be a "general history of the US since 1980", I was
comparing to US history in general.
:::I wasn't referring to solely covering 1980-present. Survey US history
texts, however, will give you a brief overview in a single chapter. The more
general the better. Keep in mind, e.g., that we're often trying to sum up in
a single sentence what's being presented in any several of some of the
sources that I provided. In effect, writing such a general overview is a
process of summarizing and outlining. [[User:172|172]] 07:13, 22 Feb 2004
(UTC)
I don't think course syllabi from the net are authoritative; there are a lot
of, shall we say, "less-abled" professors. WP can only be as good as its
sources, so we need to rely on the leading authorities, not the assistant
prof from Podunk U. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 14:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
:::You're still confusing my point. The point is to compare course syllabi.
Perhaps I should've been more clear. Downloading about a dozen would enable
you to compare the syllabi, giving you a good idea of what's widely
published. Moreover, I wasn't saying that my standards are low for this
article. The Stalin crack left me a bit irritated, so perhaps I was getting
a bit snappy at the expense of clarity. Anyway, let me clarify my point.
Given such restrictive space constraints, the article can merely provide an
outline sketch of the Reagan years. It cannot be on par with the academic
literature; the historiography merely helps you sort out what belongs in
such a brief outline sketch.
That's why it's important to know what books are to used as authorities -
I'll buy/checkout copies and compare content. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]]
06:25, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
:Thanks for the refs - LaFeber was already on my list, am visiting the
library this weekend. I note that your Reagan-era books are from
'''during''' his presidency, which isn't really adequate for perspective -
has nobody written anything in the 15 years since? [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]]
14:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
::Not all of them are from the eighties. Maybe I forgot to note which texts
had new editions. I'll add some more recent stuff, but I'm running short of
time now. [[User:172|172]] 02:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
----
[[User:172|172]], six weeks ago you agreed that it was POV to call rightwing
regimes "dictatorships" but not their leftwing counterparts, and yet after
all that time your only effort on this article has been to '''remove''' the
NPOV dispute notice. Since I'm not the sort to revert other people's changes
without prior discussion, I'll wait one day to see some changes in content
before re-adding the dispute notice. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 21:01, 6 Apr
2004 (UTC)
:Don't misrepresent me. I said that I tend to use the term more freely when
referring to personalistic regimes, irrespective of whether they're dubbed
"rightwing" or "leftwing" by some. If you have a problem with some of the
diction in the article, change it. That'll work out better than expecting me
to read your mind. [[User:172|172]] 10:25, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::I'm not going to bother touching the text unless you promise to improve on
my edit and not just revert the whole change without discussing it first.
I'm simply '''not''' going to get into an edit war on content here, which
means that if you revert me, my effort will have been completely wasted -
there are 200K+ articles that I could have been working on instead.
[[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 15:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::You're getting really jumpy. Please, just calm down. This isn't a big
deal. Make your changes, and I will compare the versions line by line.
[[User:172|172]] 23:09, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::::"Jumpy"? Not hardly - I'm leaning back in properly bad posture, full of
Cherry Garcia and a little drowsy... So, does the "compare the versions line
by line" amount to a promise that you will critique on the talk page first
rather than mass-revert? You may not think reverting is a big deal, but let
me clue you in - the people you revert really really hate it. [[User:Stan
Shebs|Stan]] 05:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::::If you insert something like "MUHA PINHEADS YOU ALL R WIERD U WIERDING
WIERD WIERDOS," a winner that I found off the deletion log, you'll get
reverted. Not having any idea about what you want to do, I cannot say how
I'll react to your changes. Really, I don't know what you want for me as of
this point. [[User:172|172]] 05:26, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ya know, I've cleared out far more vandalism than you have, turned more junk
stubs into useful articles, am #44 among the most active editors on WP as a
whole, developed some of the standards by which other people write their
articles, and despite all this activity, have been involved in maybe 2 or 3
edit wars at most; it says a lot about you, that you think there's even the
remotest chance that I would vandalize this article. What I want is simple;
a promise not to revert my entire edit without discussing it here first. Is
that really so hard an undertaking? [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 17:48, 8 Apr
2004 (UTC)
:All a correlation implies causation fallacy! You seem to be suggesting that
you're characteristically civil and reasonable, whereas I'm not, as
evidenced by your observations that (a) you're a more active user than I am
(b) but get into fewer edit wars. Ironically, such assertions ''really''
cause arguments to turn personal, accomplishing nothing while generating
personal feuds on a daily basis on WP. While I try to brush off these lines
of attack more often than not, this time I'll defend myself for the hell of
it.
:Yes, I get into more edit wars. But the reason I'm more likely to get into
edit wars has more to do with the particular articles on my watchlist, and
my corresponding practices as a user, than personality, hasty reverts, a
lack of civility, or wherever you're pointing fingers. Given my background,
I focus on the history and politics articles, which spark the lion's share
of edit wars. Although you work in these fields as well, consider your role
in, say, the [[Stamps and postal history of New South Wales]] article (great
job, BTW), and then juxtapose it with, say, the role of Slrubenstein, John
Kenney, and me on [[Fascism]] for the past couple of weeks. The article on
Fascism (a controversial and widely familiar topic), attracts trolls and
partisans, extreme POV rants, and scores of arbitrary, poorly written,
asinine edits for, say, several weeks running. But the page history of
Stamps and postal history of New South Wales is - how should I put it? -
very stable. And BTW, notice that I avoid edit wars when working on a
relatively obscure subject on WP, say, [[Li Ruihuan]], rather than, say,
[[Karl Marx]].
:Maintaining encyclopedic standards is an uphill battle when partisans enter
the fold in [[Fascism]], [[Catholicism]], [[East Germany]], [[Red Scare]],
etc. Since I grapple with this more often, I get into more edit wars.
Consequently, you're completing many articles in the time that I spend
struggling to ''remove'' a paragraph or two, a sentence or two, and even a
word or two from a single article. But this is worthwhile, as these are the
articles in my fields that generate the largest volume of hits.
:Also, I tend to spend a far smaller share of my time on WP proofreading
articles for grammar, clarity, and style. Unlike me, you've made thousands
of minor edits fixing grammatical and spelling errors. However, I'm simply
not the best when it comes to proofreading content ''online''. I need
stronger glasses, skim text too fast for my own good, and lack experience
using computers. So, we're both doing different things on WP, and hence
picking up different habits as users. [[User:172|172]] 09:08, 9 Apr 2004
(UTC)
:All true, although as someone versed in the ways of politics it seems like
it ought to be easy for you to negotiate with the people on the various
sides, and to find out more about people before dissing them (for instance,
in addition to insinuating vandalistic tendencies, you lumped Stan the big
Democratic donor and convention delegate in with the Fox News crowd -
oops!). Anyway, getting back to the point, I'm still waiting for a promise
not to mass-revert without prior discussion. Without it, I won't edit,
except to add the POV dispute notice back, which I'll do tomorrow if we've
made no progress. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 15:10, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::If you're enticing me to sign a contract before reading it (i.e. promise
to get your permission before I make another change), you must think that
I'm a real dupe! You've worked in some pretty damn competitive fields, so
I'm probably no match to you. But I'm not that bad! Anyway, if you're
worried about an ''arbitrary'' "mass-revert" (whatever that is), don't
worry. Unless it's an accident, I don't make changes arbitrarily.
::BTW, if you want to know why you've been having trouble dealing with me,
it's the result of attacking my credibility for months. Often, you do this
before I have a scant idea about how you specifically want to change an
article. This is read as a bullying tactic, i.e. an attempt to seize a
rhetorical high ground. One can either fight back or give into bullying.
''Because'' I take you seriously, I'm often left having to respond to your
attacks on my credibility rather than your concerns with content. I can
dismiss the antics of trolls, vandals, and the "Fox News crowd," but it's
harder to dismiss you. But I can work with you if I'm given specifics,
facts, and sources instead, I can follow the rational give-and-take.
[[User:172|172]] 10:56, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::I just asked for discussion, not permission - as you say, it would be
foolish to agree to something unseen in advance. I'd be more trusting except
that I have seen you mass-revert good faith changes by other people without
discussion. But I think you generally understand me, and that's good enough.
[[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 14:07, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::::Why do we keep going in circles with this? Just make your changes
already. I have no idea what you're up to. [[User:172|172]] 23:27, 10 Apr
2004 (UTC)
----
Bleah, first pass done, but what a pain - nothing like going through
line-by-line to see the flaws. There is still a lot of redundant material -
for instance 1980 election results are more accurately covered in [[U.S.
presidential election, 1980]], and this article links to that one. The basic
percentages and electoral numbers are more than enough. There is still some
leftover junk from the subdivision process - 1991 is not between 1980 and
1988, and this article needs just a sentence to presage 1991 and link to the
appropriate article. It's also sort of funny to have a history of the 1980s
that doesn't mention the introduction of the IBM PC... one of the reasons to
prune ruthlessly is so we can hear about the doings of more US citizens than
just the one with the initials RR. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 05:18, 11 Apr
2004 (UTC)
:Nice job. And that wasn't a big deal. In fact, you could've used the minor
change feature. You're changes gave the article a much needed round of
copyediting. [[User:172|172]] 23:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
_________________________________________________________________
Looking to buy a house? Get informed with the Home Buying Guide from MSN
House & Home. http://coldwellbanker.msn.com/
Re: "Well, I've spent a bunch of time in the library checking 172's content,
and found some serious problems. Unfortunately, my attempts to discuss
it were so frustrating that I turned away from those articles, and it
now falls to others to fix them."
Bullshit. I gave you a detailed list of suggested readings on [[History of
the United States (1980-present), including some journal articles and books
reviews that were relatively quick reads. You never really got back to me
since then.
_________________________________________________________________
Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win
a trip to NY
http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/
John Robinson wrote:
>> Are you volunteering to be a member of the AC?
>
> No, I am saying that the concept of an AC has been tried, and does not
> work.
> I don't consider this to be the fault of the AC or any of the members
> of it,
> rather a problem with overall structure, confusion with regard to the
> amount
> of authority it holds, etc.
I don't see that much confusion about the amount of authority the
arbitration committee holds, unless you mean that it should start
engaging in content arbitration as well. Arbitration has resulted in
bans ranging anywhere from one day to one year, and while some users
have attempted to evade those bans, I think the authority to impose bans
is by now generally accepted (albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm).
I believe the arbitration process does work, or at least can work. I am
concerned that things move too slowly, however. If I thought the problem
was because of the time needed to discuss and deliberate on a case, I
wouldn't complain. I realize that arbitration cases are not going to
produce instantaneous results.
But at least on the surface, it certainly appears that some of the
arbitrators are not even really participating in the process. When it
takes four arbitrators to accept a case, and six to issue a decision,
this is a serious problem. The lack of participation may sometimes be
due to circumstances beyond their control, and I'm not saying an
arbitrator is not allowed to go on vacation. But at some point, if the
absence indicates inability to serve, I think a replacement may be
necessary. I'm not volunteering to be on the committee either, but all
of the arbitrators except one *did* volunteer for the job, and if anyone
is unwilling to continue, they should resign, not just stop participating.
>> 3 non-AC member admins to do such a block
>
> This is a good idea, we've had five already in Trollkien's case, for
> example.
Actually, as to the specific case of JRR Trollkien, I would suggest that
we simply require him to explicitly confirm or deny whether he is the
banned user 24/142.177.../EntmootsOfTrolls, as is widely suspected. So
far, he won't give a straight answer. Given the evidence suggesting this
is the same person, I think if he's told that he *must* answer the
question, and refuses to, that should be enough proof that this is a
reincarnation. (On the other hand, if he admits it, he could be allowed
to edit only for the purposes of his arbitration case, if he cares to
appeal that ban to the arbitration committee.)
--Michael Snow