172 has stated on my user talk page that he will act more cautiously in
the future under similar circumstances, hat he would not again protect
[[New Imperialism]] under the same conditions, and that he would try to be
communicative instead of antagonistic in cases similar to the
[[Catholicism]] one before protecting the page. That's good enough for me,
so I have restored his sysop status. If there are any objections, please
post.
Regards,
Erik
I'd like to respond to the guidelines that Mr. Wales laid out. I am certain that I acted according to those guidelines.
"Q1. Have I been involved in the edit war?
A1. Yes --> don't protect the page, and it's probably best to let the
other person win for today to end the edit war, and if the remaining
participants keep having an edit war, ask another uninvolved sysop
to protect the page."
*I had never edited the page prior to this edit war and I have never added content to the page. The article's history demonstrates that I only restored versions, which were to be protected, that did not contain the content responsible for the edit wars. Personally, I was the ideal person to stabilize the page, being of no faith and never having participated in topics pertaining to the sex-abuse scandal. I have not contributed a word to the article.
A2. No --> protect the page, proceed to Q2.
Q2. Is there some edit that needs to be urgently made to fix the
page, or is there some very cautious thing I could do that's likely
to help for now?
*Yes, there was an urgent need to edit the page. Due to Nostrum's repeated refusals to cooperate with the other contributors, I was forced to restore the latest version not to include the unacceptable content.
A2. Cautiously make the edit.
*And that's what I did until Eric overreacted, probably unaware at the time that I was not involved in the edit war, have never expressed any strong feelings about the subject, had been asked to protect the page, have read requests to protect the page, waited cautiously while the article was stable before protecting the page, warning all involved contributors that I'd be willing to protect the page, and finally unaware of the unacceptable quality of the text.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
I don't really want to write about this, but feel I ought to as it hasn't
been mentioned on the list yet: before 172 protected [[Catholicism]] he had
protected [[New Imperialism]], a page he is very definitely involved with,
and also protected [[Talk:New Imperialism]]. I unprotected both as soon as
I became aware of this and told 172 that protecting pages one is involved
in is a Bad Thing, and that protecting talk pages is almost never right (I
acknowledge I may not have been a model of politeness in how I put this,
but I don't think I was actually rude - still, I should have been more
restrained, I admit). As far as I know, he then left them unprotected.
The reason for 172 protecting [[New Imperialism]], as far as I can tell
(and I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong about any of this), was that
User:Pizza Puzzle had edited it. 172 suspects Pizza Puzzle is the banned
user formerly known as Lir, and protected both the article to stop him
editing it. The edits which Pizza Puzzle had made to the article were very
minor and not bad in any obvious way, certainly not the sort of thing that
would warrant protecting a page: adding a few links, moving a paragraph or
two, a little light rewriting. 172 expressed the opinion that Pizza
Puzzle's edits to the page would at first be legitimate, but would
gradually take over the page and turn it into an incoherent mess. My view
is that unless 172 has psychic abilities and can see in to the future, he
cannot know this will happen, and that preemptively protecting pages is in
any case a bad idea on the whole. His opinion on who Pizza Puzzle is seems
irrelevant to me (and Pizza Puzzle has in any case been quite a good
contributor of late, whoever he may be).
The reason for 172 protecting the talk page remains a mystery, at least to
me. I've asked him why he did it, but haven't received a reply.
Also (this a little off-topic, but possibly of interest) ,172 put a lot of
discussion on [[Talk:New Imperialism]] into an archive. The talk was all of
one day old, and concerned a matter still very much unresolved. The talk
page was not an unmanageable length and I saw no reason to archive it
(though plenty of reasons not to). I therefore moved the discussion back to
the main talk page. 172 archived it again. Somebody else unarchived it. 172
archived it again. And so on, resulting in possibly the most ridiculous
edit war I've yet witnessed.
On the whole I would favour being lenient on the question of whether to
revoke sysop rights, but in this case I don't disagree with 172's sysop
status being revoked (though I do think Erik should have brought the matter
to the list or to some other forum first). I just hope 172 will agree to be
more reluctant to use his sysop rights in future and his non-sysopness can
be temporary.
Sorry to go on at such length.
Lee (Camembert)
Wikikarma: lots of fiddles to [[Music]]
PS - I don't subscribe to the list any more (I read it on the web) - that's
why it's taken me a while to write about this.
Erik wrote
>You're right, of course, that
>Nostrum's additions were highly biased, factually inaccurate and grossly
>misplaced. I read them. But calling people semi-literate or vandals does
>not exactly help in turning them into valuable contributors.
This user had been complained to by a number of people who told him about
NPOV. He persisted constantly in adding in a POV diatribe over and over and
over again and implied that anyone who wouldn't let him put in his diatribe
was in denial or tolerant of paedophilia in the RC church.
>He used the headline "Homosexual abuse in catholicism", which is certainly
>misleading but not necessarily meant as an equation of pedophilia with
>homosexuality. It is an unfortunate fact that the large majority of
>pedophiles are interested in boys -- that's why these groups (well, not
>the Catholics, really) call themselves "Boylover associations", have sites
>like boylinks.net and so on. There are also "girllovers", but these are a
>minority. I can cite studies on this if you are interested.
>
Wrong.
1. He used the word 'homosexual' over a piece he wrote on paedophiles. He
never once mentioned homosexuals. But he categorised those doing the abuse
in catholicism as being homosexuals. In the population most paedophiles are
usually heterosexual, the parents or relatives of the child being abused.
2. Paedophiles are interested in children. Some are gender-specific. Many
many are not. The vast majority of priest paedophile cases I have studied
relate to individual paedophiles abusing /both/ sexes, who are simply turned
on by raping children, and they will rape whichever is the type they can get
their hands on at any one time, boys or girls. I mentioned the case of Fr.
Brendan Smyth in the article. He raped boys and girls in equal measure. So
did Fr. Jim Grennan (who raped children /on/ the altar). Another priest I
know of raped children (male and female) in a children's hospital.
>>Nostrum's justifications included ''added overbearing proof to people who
>>would like
> > to live in big holes under bridges, Say hi to sammy for me'' ''If you
>think
> > there is POV in homosexual abuse in Catholocism then take it out, don't
> > delete it, remember, fix, not censor, otherwise I will list you as a
>censor
> > and you don't want to be on my bad side''
>
>I saw these edit comments and this is what I am referring to when I use
>the word "ugly". If the whole matter had been addressed calmly on the talk
>page of the article and the user talk page, we might not have seen
>Nostrum's "bad side" so quickly.
So it is everyone /else's/ fault this user made comments such as saying that
maybe catholics want their children raped, is it? /He/ is responsible for
his own actions. No-one else is.
>172 was aware of the guidelines but chose to
>violate them because he felt he was sufficiently backed up.
That is a gross and insulting delberate mis-representation. He saw the case
as borderline as he was not someone who added one word to the article, he is
not religious and has written nothing to wiki on child abuse. He suggested a
course of action, understood it had support and /in good faith/ acted.
And of course
>he was right, to a degree -- with you by his side, what could go wrong?
I'll treat that comment with the contempt it deserves.
>172 enforced his position by protecting the page, knowing
>that he would receive support for doing so from some participants. But it
>doesn't matter if you do or don't support 172's decision -- what matters
>is that sysops are not supposed to do these things, because this leads us
>down a slippery slope where we end up with a cabal that makes decisions
>for the unenlightened masses. I would think that people from a leftist
>political perspective would be more sensitive to such issues of developing
>power structures.
Considering your own behaviour of changing dates to suit things the way you
wanted, and then trying to interpret a vote on the matter in a way that
suited you, I don't think you are in a position to criticise 172 for abuse
of power.
>
>But I would not have revoked 172's sysop privileges if he had just agreed
>to ask someone else who did not participate in the debate to protect the
>page, as our guidelines recommend.
He couldn't get someone to do it straight away and understood he had
agreement to act.
>He flat out refused doing so and
>reprotected the page after I had unprotected it,
If you had reprotected the page he wouldn't have had to. But you
irresponsbly left the page unprotected opening up the prospect of a nenewed
edit war. He re-protected it to stop that happening, while a solution was
worked out or someone else came along to do the protecting instead.
You seem to think that protecting pages is a bad idea. That is your POV. You
decided to enforce that POV on a page where a different solution was
supported, tried and worked.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>Abe-
> > *I had never edited the page prior to this edit war and I have never
>added
> > content to the page. The article's history demonstrates that I only
>restored
> > versions, which were to be protected, that did not contain the content
> > responsible for the edit wars. Personally, I was the ideal person to
> > stabilize the page, being of no faith and never having participated in
> > topics pertaining to the sex-abuse scandal.
Erik replied
>The problem is that you expressed a very strong POV before your actions.
>You called the page contents gibberish, garbage, grotesque, rubbish,
>trash. That may all be true, but it places you in a position where you can
>no longer be an independent arbitrator. And that's what sysops who protect
>pages in edit wars should be. I have not asked you for an apology -- I
>have just asked you to accept and follow these rules: to only protect
>pages in matters where you have not taken sides. Instead you ignored my
>request and re-protected the page after I unprotected it. This, again,
>goes against a spirit of mutual cooperation among sysops and against the
>spirit of our policies as well.
>
>I think you know that you overstepped the limits a little. I am willing to
>do my part and say that the protected page guidelines could be clearer on
>the point of when it is OK to protect and when it isn't. Can we then both
>agree to follow the guidelines in the spirit outlined above?
Erik, /you/ way overstepped the mark. 172 acted to stop an edit war through
protecting a page, a page he had not contributed one word to but which one
user was attempting to put an incoherent POV anti-catholic ramble. It may
well have been inadvisable to for /him/ to do that, but he was dealing with
an impossible situation, where there were calls for someone /urgently/ to
act and where the user reponsible for the POV stuff had declared that he
would continue to reinsert the nonsense with the warning not to cross him.
He understood that he had Mav's support (something which Mav wrote appeared
to give the OK but it turns out that Mav's words gave a wrong impression and
that he was agreeing with something else, not Abe's offer to protect the
page). He then protected it, believing he was doing what was agreed to.
When are /you/ going to apologise for
1. treating a user who acted in good faith in an emergency circumstances as
if he was the guilty one when he believed he had the support of people like
Mav in his actions?
2. For continually ignoring his attempts to clarify the matter?
3. For /you/ then leaving a sensitive page on which there was an edit war,
wide open to more heavy POVing for someone who openly admits his
anti-catholic agenda, including making comments that maybe catholics want
their children abused?
If 172 deserves censure for in good faith for mishandling a crisis, so do
you. If he deserves to lose his sysop powers, for your mislandling of the
affair /you/ should lose your power to suspend sysops unilaterally. If
apologies are required they are required from you too. Your handling was
anything but adequate.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Michael Becker wrote:
>I would like to point out that Mav never asked for an apology!
>For some reason people think he is making attacks, he is just
>making statements, ...
I'm confused (shocking I know) - don't you mean "Erik"? I don't recall anybody
thinking I was attacking anyone else (at least for this issue).
--mav
JT wrote:
Way too many "/you/s"
In the name of all things wiki ; please don't inflame the situation by making
things personal.
I think all those involved should apologize for all actual or perceived
wrongs. But demanding an apology is a sure way of getting a slap in the face
in return instead of what you really want.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-July/005414.html
Erik Moller said: You add a little stuff and immediately people tell you that you're worthless, your edits are bullshit, crap, nonsense etc. Your heart starts racing:
these guys attacked you. Nobody should talk to you like that. So you write
a hasty response without even thinking about it. Then you come to your
senses and try to understand what these people are babbling about. Your
edits improve somewhat, but people are still in a frenzy. Now suddenly you can't write anything at all. But hey- some people still can. You're a second class user now. Aha: Wikipedia is not an open project as it claims.
Boy, that sure sounds familiar....
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
JT wrote:
>172 commented: 'I know that I've been warned against
>this, but I'd be tempted to protect this page from
>that garbage.' -172
>
>Mav's response was - 'I tend to agree.'
Whoa! I think there is a /huge/ misunderstanding here.
My response was to 172's comment that ended with
"Second, it's hideously written and full of
grammatical errors. These people, seeking to have this
low-brow polemic inserted in such a crucial article,
are making a mockery of Wikipedia, which is striving
to be a good, scholarly source of reference." NOTE: I
moreso agreed with the text before that somewhat harsh
sentence.
See:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Catholicism&oldid=1183464
Here is the diff for my edit:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Catholicism&diff=1183487&o…
When I submitted my comment I got an edit conflict so
I pasted my response right after 172's sig. JT's quote
of 172 was appended by 172 in the edit just before
mine; that is what caused the edit conflict. I didn't
check to see what caused the conflict - that's my
fault and I apologize. To be clear I did /not/, at
all, in any way "tend to agree" that the page should
have been protected. Again it is my fault for not
properly handling the edit conflict.
But the fact remains that it did look like I indicated
agreement with page protection. Apparently my opinion
on things carries some of weight with at least with
172 so I can see some logic in his assertion that he
had support. All this should be taken into
consideration.
Erik wrote:
>....
>People come to Wikipedia and are amazed by
>being able to add information. We encourage
>them to do so. Be bold!, we say. So they add
>what they believe is right, at the best of
>their ability. ...
>WikiLove is about giving people the benefit
>of the doubt, and not attributing to malice
>what can be explained with simple ignorance.
>...
Very wise words.
>When dealing with people, you should give
>them a way out. A way to agree with you
>without hurt feelings.
Bing, bing, bing! Give this man a prize!
>I'm not saying we should embrace people
>like DW even after they give us constant
>abuse. I'm saying we should be tolerant
>of newbies, tolerant of young Wikipedians
>who don't have the knowledge we expect of
>them. We should be teachers and models,
>not arrogant editors who chase away the
>meddling kids.
Yes, I think that is a very good attitude to have
toward newbies. I can't really say more since you
covered the topic so well.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Hello,
I know that the pros and cons of pronunciation guides have been discussed
before, but that was (AFAIR) before the Wiktionary project. I just had a
new discussion with Arpingstone (if you can call this a discussion) about
this topic:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arpingstone
It appears to me, that a guide how to pronounce a word would rather belong
to the Wiktionary project than to Wikipedia. In Wiktionary the
pronunciation appears to be a regular paragraph, while it is in Wikipedia
in one per thousand articles. What are your opinions about this?
In the above example Arpingstone added a sentence to the Bremen article:
"The 'Bre' of Bremen rhymes with 'clay'." I removed that sentence, mainly
because it is at most a rough approximation of the correct pronunciation.
Mirko (Cordyph)
--
Mirko Thiessen
http://www.mirko-thiessen.de