Hi. I've been with the English Wikipedia for quite some time, I'm even
an admin, but I still don't know what to do when I'm personally
attacked (sometimes heavily). I usually go forward and simply
[[Wikipedia:remove personal attacks]], but where should I exactly go
for these, after I am attacked even after mentioning the related
Wikipedia policy? The arbitration committee? Or to another admin for a
block?
For some example, see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JBOC#External_links>.
roozbeh
Today's featured article is a delightful read, but strikes me as
terribly one-sided. The adjectives applied to Yeltsin in this
conflict are consistently negative, and the advjectives applied to his
opponents are consistently positive. The reality is much more
complex.
It is unusual for a featured article to be so problematic.
--Jimbo
Jimbo said
> I don't know if "single article" is the right solution, but there is
> no question that the way he advocates presenting the topic is very
> good NPOV writing. The reader deserves to be informed that "some
> groups advocate..." because that's solid encyclopedic information.
> But the structure of articles must not give rise to a perception that
> we condone pedophilia.
>
> An additional subtle point that could be misconstrued is that we also
> must not _condemn_ pedophilia. We are an encyclopedia, not a body of
> polemics. We report, the reader decides. We can (and must) report on
> the consensus of medical scientists, etc. I trust that we can do this
> in a way that allows the reader to draw the right conclusion
> effortlessly.
I agree totally. There are many disagreeable and distasteful things which occupy space
in an encyclopedia. [[Murder]], [[suicide]], [[holocaust]], and [[rape]] are but a few
unsettling topics which have separate sub-articles. Because people may not agree with a
viewpoint or may find it uncomfortable to consider or discuss is not adequate reason to
limit discussion or analysis of it.
This topic is worthy of especial attention because it brings out the Spanish
Inquisition in all of us. Any topic which is so emotionally, socially, and politically
volatile deserves more than a vulgarity, a sour face, and a dismissal.
My only concern with Jimbo's comment is that he suggests there is a way to do this
which "allows the reader to draw the right conclusion efortlessly." What precisely =is=
the right conclusion, Jimbo, and if it is drawn effortlessly, is that a good thing?
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:03:15 -0700, "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales"
<jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Kim_Jong-il&action=history
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Fidel_Castro&action=history
>
> I really have no comment about this, other than "good grief".
>
> --Jimbo
>
If [[User:172]] and [[User:Trey_Stone]] want to keep fighting each
other, they should do it outside of Wikipedia. All they're doing is
polluting the history page.
I definitely agree with [[User:Cyprus2k1]] about the consensus on the talk page.
--[[User:Wikiacc]]
fredbaud at ctelco.net wrote:
You have made it abundantly clear that other editors are definitely not
welcome. Thus the sorry state of our articles in this area. I know your
interpretation of the "Russian constitutional crisis of 1993" is not to be
trusted. Yet I wonder what did happen... Not much chance I'll be able to
find out by consulting Wikipedia any time soon.
The page histories and talk pages say otherwise. (1) On Russian
constitutional crisis of 1993, I did not revert recent copyediting
(User:Sj's in particular); and I support those changes. (2) On History of
post-Soviet Russia, the only other user who has made a substantial
contribution is User:Paranoid; I welcomed his/her changes a few weeks ago as
well. (3) Before your latest personal attack, I put History of post-Soviet
Russia on peer review. (4) Another user posted an excerpt of the FAC process
on the talk page of Russian constitutional crisis of 1993. This page will
also demonstrate that your claims are clearly wrong and mean-spirited. For
example, after User:A. Shetsen laid out several sets of concerns on FAC, he
had apparently felt satisfied enough with my responses on FAC and my changes
to the article that he withdrew his objections to the featuring of the
article. A couple of users made briefer comments. I then addressed their
concerns; they were satisfied as well and their objections were subsequently
withdrawn as well.
I can't think of too many other examples off the top of my head, but keep in
mind that this wasn't a heavily edited area to begin with before I started
recent work on post-Soviet Russia. The record will show that I have made a
number of good-faith efforts to bring other users into the fold on an area
of articles that haven't been getting as much attention as they should be
getting.
Finally, I challenge Fred Bauder to find ONE clear factual inaccuracy in
Russian constitutional crisis of 1993. Back up your personal attacks with
evidence for one.
-172
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Pierre Hentges wrote:
>SV is right that the current policy on page protection
>isn't great. Pages are often protected for a long time
>without any progress on the actual conflict. For example
>[[anti-American sentiment]] has been protected for nearly
>two weeks without VV and GBWR making the slightest effort
>to resolve their dispute, despite me trying to help. It's
>very frustrating for everybody else. The current policy
>just isn't conducive to conlict resolution.
Con for your otherwise good proposal:
* More bureaucracy. See [[m:instruction creep]] - the people causing
the problem won't read the instructions either, or we wouldn't have
had the problem in the first place.
One thing I've been wishing for lately is some way for third parties
to drag edit warriors to mediation. The recent combatants at [[Jew]]
and [[Anti-Semitism]] have mostly agreed to mediation (though they're
still extremely pissed off at each other), which is a big win. But it
took a *lot* of dragging. And we appear to have a shortage of
mediators ... (This is me not volunteering!)
- d.
SV is right that the current policy on page protection
isn't great. Pages are often protected for a long time
without any progress on the actual conflict. For example
[[anti-American sentiment]] has been protected for nearly
two weeks without VV and GBWR making the slightest effort
to resolve their dispute, despite me trying to help. It's
very frustrating for everybody else. The current policy
just isn't conducive to conlict resolution.
SV's proposal is interesting but I think there are
drawbacks: quite substantial changes are required, admins
workload will go up ; there is no justification for the
assumption that admins can deal with edit conflicts better
than common Wikipedians
I'd like to make an alternative proposal for dealing with
page protection:
1) in case of an edit war the page in question is protected
as before. Then the following steps are taken:
2) the admin who protected the page makes a list (on the
talk page) of the editors involved in the edit conflict ;
3) the named editors each outline their view of the
disagreement (talk page) ;
4) the named editors (with the help of fellow Wikipedians
if this is helpful) try to hammer out a compromise ;
5) if no compromise can be found within a week, this is
taken as proof that they are unable to resolve their
conflict. Therefore the page is unprotected but the listed
editors are banned from editing the article in question for
a period of, say, a month. Editors that were not involved
in the edit conflict can edit the article and get a chance
to deal with the controversial points ;
6) Since this system could be abused by people who raise
spurious conflicts just to get other editors banned from an
article, there is need for a further step: if one of the
editors feels their opponent is acting in bad faith, they
can ask for a vote on this, and if there is a consensus
(say 3/4) then their ban is lifted.
pros:
=====
1) nobody wants to get banned from an article they are
interested in, therefore Wikipedians will try to avoid edit
wars ; willingness to compromise and to be civil will
increase ;
2) a more formal way of dealing with edit conflicts ;
3) no big changes required (software, new sysop roles
etc.) ;
4) Wikipedians who avoid edit wars don't get shut out of
protected articles for long periods ;
5) the workload of admins stays the same
cons:
=====
1) protection policy change
2) ??
I'll copy this to the PPP draft page.
pir
On Friday 23 July 2004 12:04,
wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "S. Vertigo" <sewev(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Protected page policy rethuk
> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID:
<20040723051411.84168.qmail(a)web90005.mail.scd.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> ...Wikipedia RC seems to be zipping by quite fast
> lately. (Its already impossible to just scan RC as a
> way to catch up; Im actually using my watchlist for
> the first time...) But it seems that with the
> controversial set, its time for a rethinking of the
> protected page policy, and Ive written some basic
> stuff here
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_page/Draft]]
>
> Basically, my idea calls for sort of dance steps to
> how to deal with contested articles. Essentially,
> allowing certain sysops to act according to formal
> roles with respect to each contested article, and to
> have those articles be protected in degrees, based on
> what the situation calls for. Protection is
> degree-less, but sysops can and should act responsibly
> to continue developing articles in accordance with the
> concerns of the partisans. Because any disputes about
> who can act in each role are an abstract issue from
> the article, they can be dealt with judiciously as a
> separate dispute by moderates not interested in
> getting mud thrown at them. With templates and
> categories, this can be more quickly done.
>
> Of course, this would mean that sysopdom does have
> some responsibility and privelige for which they would
> be more accountable, but this is weighed against the
> need to have controversial articles not be such black
> holes on Wikipedia.
--
+++ GMX DSL-Tarife 3 Monate gratis* +++ Nur bis 25.7.2004 +++
Bis 24.000 MB oder 300 Freistunden inkl. http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
This has been deleted from Wiki:
== Listen, everybody, you are like a pack of wolves on Lir !==
Can't you all behave yourselves ? You are in this smearing campaing and stuff! Leave Lir alone! Leave every real contributor alone! If you have time to lose, attack the Wikipolice doing nothing good but destroying Wikipedia! Leave Lir alone and get some decent work done instead ! - ~~~~
_____________________________________________________________
Visit the New Home of Trans-Iridial Studies:
http;//www.iris-ward.com
Personally I'm almost entirely unconvinced the recent editor was not
Vogel - not only did the favourite topics match, the characteristic
spelling errors did too. But let's see if sweet reason gets a
response. If neo-Nazis^Wwhite supremacists^Wseparatists are going to
edit, at least they can damn well do so properly.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:58:51 +0100
Subject: National Alliance article (was Communist Censorship)
To: Robert88 <rchamberlain(a)gmail.com>, wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:07:00 GMT, Robert88 <rchamberlain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Plain libel and communist censorship supported on Wikipedia?
> I recently edited an entry entitled "National Alliance". This is an entry regarding the American White Nationalist organization. While you state that we are White supremacists and a White supremacist organization, this is blatant and unacceptable libel. Your article also states that we are an "anti semetic" group. Again, another clear case of libel. We do not hate Jews, and we do not hate Arabs or other people that speak Semetic languages. We are avidly Anti-Zionist, Anti-Immigration and pro-White. We are not White supremacists because we do not feel the need to rule over other people of different races, we simply want seperation because we feel this is best for our people. I also added other business entities that were owned by the National Alliance which were removed. Please explain why I was banned from editing the article and why the libel is still published on Wikipedia.
> Thank you for your time.
Sorry, thought you were Paul Vogel, who is banned for a year for
grossly obnoxious behaviour. Did the block notice say which IP range
it was? Let me know and I can unblock it now.
If you dispute the content of the article, I strongly suggest you
reply with solid and checkable references. On a highly contentious
topic, solid and checkable references are about the best way to avoid
this sort of dispute over facts or wording. Third-party ones are best,
but ones from the organisation in question are of course relevant.
Don't worry too much about formatting if you're not sure, just make
sure they're in and someone will clean them up. Solid and checkable is
essential, because you can be sure people will check them and
challenge if they consider them dubious.
- d.