Good evening, folks!
I wouldn't normally post this sort of thing here, except for an MfD that
took place recently on "RfC:User Conduct"...because many of the people who
commented there regularly post here. That, and I think people need a break
from draaaaaama.
Many seem to think the current RfC for User Conduct isn't really
helping...that it's just a stepping stone to arbitration you 'have' to go
through, not unlike the security lines in airports. I would agree, and I
would say it's because the current RfC is all about talking past each other.
The people opening an RfC make their statements...some people go "ditto."
Someone posts a responses, more people go "ditto." Then the outside views
begin, where people make impassioned speechs.....and more people go "ditto."
When things do get to ArbCom, there's begins a lot of furious activity on
the Workshop page where people armchair quarterback their way through a
case. Arbitrators can draw from this, or ignore it, but oddly...on
ocassion...sometimes things get worked out before the case is closed. I've
even noticed a few cases closed without formal resolution, because "the
parties seem to have worked it out themselves."
The Workshop page serves two purposes: it lets people vent, like the current
RfC; and second, it's very format forces people to work with each other than
past each other. On an RfC, people make their speechs which are "judged" by
the number of "dittos" they get, but on a Workshop page everyone just put's
their concepts out there. They don't belong to anyone, and no one scores
points for having a better concept than another, they just go out there, and
then people discuss the concepts...not the contributor.
So, I created a new [[Template:RfC2]] to see if I could adapt the RfC to
something more like a workshop. I reformatted the certified and response
areas to be more balanced, and feature a Q/A section so people could address
either side equally. I renamed Outside views to Additional views, although
in the long run I'd like to excise that section entirely. The biggest
change is a new section called "Proposed Solutions" that uses little
templates like a Workshop page, where people can make suggestions and than
discuss them. I'd hope that would serve as a bigger focus to the page.
I'd considered adapting something even more like the
"Principles/Facts/Remedies" style of an arbcom case, but that middle one:
"Facts" seems the most hazardous one to have in an unmoderated forum like
RfC. It still might not be a bad idea, and even if you think my idea is
doomed look at it this way: at least RfC could be a more useful springboard
to an ArbCom case.
Tell me what you think at the template talk, or over on [[Wikipedia
talk:Requests for comment]]. Thanks.
InkSplotch
--
"Stercus, stercus, stercus, moritus sum!"
Might I respond?
The fact that you were 'right' about my misdeeds in no way alters the nature
of your unethical behaviour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
Nor does it excuse the Arb.s currently voting from failing to disclose any
prejudicial discussion (is it really due process to expect Arb.s who have
already 'sanity checked' your decision in advance of your block, to then
'review' that block, and further 'vote' in the arb case? - that's a real
triple whammy.)
Previous responses have been moderated on some grounds - please allow this
to post.
Many thanks,
PM.
http://just-some-privatemusings.blogspot.com/
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:59:36 +1100, "private musings"
<thepmaccount(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>Personal information which I had submitted privately to Guy, with a
>request for that privacy to be respected, was shared by him.
With a very small number of people, for purposes of sanity checking.
They agreed with me. So does the Arbitration Committee, by the looks of
things.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>From "you know where"...
Due to the extremely high demands being placed on our servers,
possibly as a result of recent high levels of publicity generated by
recent events on Wikipedia, we have been forced to schedule a short
downtime period for database maintenance. Please do not be alarmed. We
hope to resume service very shortly.
Thank you for your patience and consideration!
- The Wikipedia Review
Someone asked me to send an issue to the list regarding bitey behavior...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pkrev>.
Now, mind you, it's evident the user was inserting advertisements into
an article, and persisted in reverting the people who reverted him.
However, it doesn't look like the issue was sufficiently addressed, nor
the situation sufficiently explained. Furthermore, " It has become
apparent that your account is being used only for vandalism
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism>, so it has been
*blocked indefinitely
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy>*. " was
completely inappropriate response at the end.
In hindsight (and having spoken to the user on the phone) he has a
limited command of English. A short duration block while some
explaining on the talk page would have been the proper response. It
doesn't mean that the user is worth having on Wikipedia--but I do know
of several individuals who started out as spammers and turned into good
contributors.
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Phone: 727.231.0101
Fax: 727.258.0207
E-Mail: cbass(a)wikimedia.org
Hmmm, advertising in Wikipedia?
Just now, I came a across a 5-minute promotional video listed as "Fair Use"
embedded in an article. The article was Chicago Spire, a new building planned
for Chicago, and the video was by the architectural firm that is planning
the building (scheduled for completion in 2010). For the record, it has been
there since October 11. Oh, you might also note that the relevant article is
the number 2 Google hit for the building.
As for my insane suggestion, send the company a bill for one and a half
months of free Internet advertising. That should help with the fundraiser a bit.
Danny
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
On Nov 29, 2007 6:34 PM, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 12:26 PM, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Of course nobody will really know for sure unless they have a generally
> accurate idea as to what, if anything, was actually said.
>
> Actually, you do know for sure. Matt said it, Guy said it, Slim said
> it, and I'm sure they all "have a generally accurate idea as to what,
> if anything, was actually said."
>
Isn't this what we're talking about?
http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Durova's_Sekret_Evidence
<http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Durova%27s_Sekret_Evidence>
Michel Vuijlsteke
List,
I wanted to say that I have been very disappointed. I realize this
post will probably elicit a lot of "Duhs" or "You expected
differently" type of responses, but I feel I must get my thoughts out
there. Recently, I took almost all of the Wikipedia: namespace off of
my watchlist. No more Administrator's noticeboard, no more requests
for arbitration, no more deletion discussions or policy battles, none
of that. I've been working on content and trying to just enjoy what
Wikipedia is about. I joined this list because I often heard
discussion referenced that I had not seen, and I decided to partake in
this, as I still care deeply for the Wikipedia community as a whole,
even though I am not editing project space. This list is supposed to
be the place of meta discussion for Enwiki, to settle disputes and to
discuss policy. Talk about the community and ways to improve it.
However, after posting a little (and reading a whole lot more), I
think it is painfully obvious:
This list does not serve the function it is intended to!
These threads are not about improving Wikipedia or how to handle
vandals. No (good) policy discussion is going on--sans BADSITES, which
everyone is really really sick of--and progress is not being made on
anything. Instead, this list is nothing more than a personal attack
forum and a avenue for trolls. Discussions are uncivil and countless
threads are debated and lead nowhere. The entire thing basically
reminds me of a gymnasium of elementary school kids, all trying to
yell and have it "their way" because only they know best. I've seen
quite a fair share of people on this list who are of the opinion that
they're right simply because of who they are. I'm here to tell you
that no one cares. The fact that you've been contributing since 1982
means nothing. To be perfectly honest, I have more faith in an anon
who makes a single typo fix than over half the people on this list. I
know my ranting will fall on deaf ears, and the bickering will
continue on and off-wiki just as it has and will continue to do so.
I will no longer be posting to this list. I will remain subscribed and
will read, hopefully one day seeing a community that appreciates the
good faith efforts of others, even if they disagree. Hopefully one day
this community will be able to accept criticism without immediately
dismissing it as trolling. Hopefully one day this community will be
civil and courteous when discussing, and won't talk with such an air
of elitism. Hopefully one day this community will go back to what it
was designed to do: producing a free content encyclopedia, instead of
merely acting to perpetuate its existence. I invite you all today to
join me in editing the encyclopedia. Pick an article, make it
something you're interested in. Improve the article. If it doesn't
exist, make it! Find sources! Clean up disambigs and excessive
external links. Format, copyedit, write. Do what we're all supposedly
here to do.
I'm going to edit now, will you join me?
-Chad H.
On 11/27/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> True - but not the one you were thinking of. There exists on
> Wikipedia a small group of people who will reflexively revert any
> removal of any link to external harassment, shouting "ZOMG!
> BADSITES!" and calling the world to come and look.
Part of the problem, Guy, is that when you say "link to external
harassment" you stretch things considerably. There is no meaningful
sense in which a citation sitting innocently in an article is
transformed into such a link just because someone puts up some content
elsewhere on the site to which someone on Wikipedia takes offense.
Other links are perhaps not so innocent, but the work needed to dig
them up really takes the sting out of them.
> For the victims of offsite harassment, this is a really bad
> atmosphere. They have only two choices at present: leave harassment
> in place, or have it shouted from the rooftops.
It's also an overstatement to claim that whatever mutterings go on at
WR are harassment, even if word of them leaks out to Wikipedia.
Indeed, BADSITES in practice has itself served as the vehicle for
harassment. That was certainly the way the TNH episode progressed: she
was badgered into erasing the comment to which Will Beback took
offense by holding links to her site hostage. The rub is that the
offensive comment was pretty difficult to find, even if you knew it
that it was there. The only way that I found out was because WBb waved
the BADSITES flag in erasing the links, and even then it took some
effort to find. Of course, if he hadn't said anything, the erasures
would have been quickly reverted; but since he did, everyone knew to
look.
In all of these episodes I have yet to see a single link that was
created for the purpose of harassment. I have seen a fair number of
user page links with no explanation of what is at the other end, and
plenty of otherwise innocent links which ran afoul of someone's animus
against some content on the site. I'm sure it happened in the past,
but now it's the erasures that are the harassment.
As for shouting from the rooftops: it matters which roof. WIkipedia is
a far more effective amplifier of abuse than a comment buried in a
blog or even a diatribe on WR.
May I suggest that we NOT use specific, unprecursed pronouns, because
they are ambiguous. General pronouns are appropriate for general,
nonspecific references, but when using "you" please precurse it with a
specific proper noun (antecedent). Thanks.
> Earlier: "... I'd favor an unban (using the Flameviper account) if
it'd keep you from whining (or whinging was it?) on the mailing lists
and IRC..."
Who is "you"? Does the writer of the above mean: "... I'd favor an
unban (using the Flameviper account) if it'd keep [Flameviper] from
whining (or whinging was it?) on the mailing lists and IRC..."
... or does the writer of the above mean: "... I'd favor an unban (using
the Flameviper account) if it'd keep [David Goodman or Peter B. Monahon,
authors of previous post which the writer was responding to] from
whining (or whinging was it?) on the mailing lists and IRC..."
... or: "... I'd favor an unban (using the Flameviper account) if it'd
keep [Flameviper or David Goodman or Peter B. Monahon] from whining (or
whinging was it?) on the mailing lists and IRC..."
... or: "... I'd favor an unban (using the Flameviper account) if it'd
keep you [all, that is, all discussions of banning on the mailing list]
from whining (or whinging was it?) on the mailing lists and IRC..."
... or ...
Argh! Just shoot me and get it over with!