The "apartheid wars" continue with an AFD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_...
Of course, this isn't about apartheid all but actually yet another POV pushing battle over Israel with proponents of the article wanting to keep it because deleting it would mean Israel is isolated in the apartheid allegation wars whilst opponents of the article want it deleted for precisely that reason.
This is yet another example of how ArbComm's perpetual stalemate on issues of any consequence only makes wiki more of a battleground since they dropped the ball last year in the Allegations of Apartheid RFA.
The only way for the community to deal with this mess is if uninvolved editors and admins - those who have nothing to do with Israeli/Mideast/Palestinian articles - keep their eye on these articles and intervene.
David
David Katz wrote:
The "apartheid wars" continue with an AFD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_...
Of course, this isn't about apartheid all but actually yet another POV pushing battle over Israel with proponents of the article wanting to keep it because deleting it would mean Israel is isolated in the apartheid allegation wars whilst opponents of the article want it deleted for precisely that reason.
This is yet another example of how ArbComm's perpetual stalemate on issues of any consequence only makes wiki more of a battleground since they dropped the ball last year in the Allegations of Apartheid RFA.
The only way for the community to deal with this mess is if uninvolved editors and admins - those who have nothing to do with Israeli/Mideast/Palestinian articles - keep their eye on these articles and intervene.
That's all fine in theory, but those of us who are uninvolved with those articles are sane enough to keep away from them. Walking onto a battlefield carrying a white flag does not protect anyone from getting shot. Both sides are too intent upon winning to allow interference by a peacemaker.
Deletion is a strong tool that leads to an absolute win if it can be applied, but such a strong tool is thereby anti-neutral. Sometimes these situations just need for someone with enough credibility to say, "Guys, you have to find a way to live together."
Ec
Honestly, all of those articles should be under heavy lock and probation key with all the regular partisans, admins or not, kept not just on a short leash but under threat of imminent tasering by everyone else. I'm amazed they aren't.
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Katz wrote:
The "apartheid wars" continue with an AFD at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_...
Of course, this isn't about apartheid all but actually yet another POV pushing battle over Israel with proponents of the article wanting to keep
it
because deleting it would mean Israel is isolated in the apartheid allegation wars whilst opponents of the article want it deleted for precisely that reason.
This is yet another example of how ArbComm's perpetual stalemate on
issues
of any consequence only makes wiki more of a battleground since they
dropped
the ball last year in the Allegations of Apartheid RFA.
The only way for the community to deal with this mess is if uninvolved editors and admins - those who have nothing to do with Israeli/Mideast/Palestinian articles - keep their eye on these articles
and
intervene.
That's all fine in theory, but those of us who are uninvolved with those articles are sane enough to keep away from them. Walking onto a battlefield carrying a white flag does not protect anyone from getting shot. Both sides are too intent upon winning to allow interference by a peacemaker.
Deletion is a strong tool that leads to an absolute win if it can be applied, but such a strong tool is thereby anti-neutral. Sometimes these situations just need for someone with enough credibility to say, "Guys, you have to find a way to live together."
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/7/13 Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com:
Honestly, all of those articles should be under heavy lock and probation key with all the regular partisans, admins or not, kept not just on a short leash but under threat of imminent tasering by everyone else. I'm amazed they aren't.
There's a strong cultural bias against locking articles at all, so protection or semi-protection is only applied when absolutely necessary in general (there's lots of people who regularly go over the lists of locked articles to see if they can be unlocked yet).
For particular perennially problematic subject areas, this would mean semipermanent locking would only be applied by arbcom ruling, and even then they prefer to deal with it by dealing with problematic individuals. Even when, because an article is about a real-world conflict, there's an endless supply of problematic individuals. I expect this would be arbcom's extreme reluctance to get into content arbitration.
(There's various moves to form a content-mediation committee, which wouldn't have the force of arbitration but would help editors of good will sort this stuff out - not binding, but would certainly count as evidence of good will the way sincerely attempting mediation does.)
- d.
- d.
Well, it's closed now...
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:18 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/13 Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com:
Honestly, all of those articles should be under heavy lock and probation
key
with all the regular partisans, admins or not, kept not just on a short leash but under threat of imminent tasering by everyone else. I'm amazed they aren't.
There's a strong cultural bias against locking articles at all, so protection or semi-protection is only applied when absolutely necessary in general (there's lots of people who regularly go over the lists of locked articles to see if they can be unlocked yet).
For particular perennially problematic subject areas, this would mean semipermanent locking would only be applied by arbcom ruling, and even then they prefer to deal with it by dealing with problematic individuals. Even when, because an article is about a real-world conflict, there's an endless supply of problematic individuals. I expect this would be arbcom's extreme reluctance to get into content arbitration.
(There's various moves to form a content-mediation committee, which wouldn't have the force of arbitration but would help editors of good will sort this stuff out - not binding, but would certainly count as evidence of good will the way sincerely attempting mediation does.)
d.
d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:18 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There's a strong cultural bias against locking articles at all,
[snip]
For particular perennially problematic subject areas, this would mean semipermanent locking would only be applied by arbcom ruling, and even
[snip]
I believe ZOMG WTF WP:ARBCOMNOTFORCONTENTDISPUTES would be the expected response to that?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:18 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There's a strong cultural bias against locking articles at all,
[snip]
For particular perennially problematic subject areas, this would mean semipermanent locking would only be applied by arbcom ruling, and even
[snip]
I believe ZOMG WTF WP:ARBCOMNOTFORCONTENTDISPUTES would be the expected response to that?
As a counterexample here, [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]] which was (for all intents and purposes) permanently full protected nine months ago by me to end a contentious content war, and remains so today.
It seems to have worked well...
2008/7/15 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:18 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There's a strong cultural bias against locking articles at all, For particular perennially problematic subject areas, this would mean semipermanent locking would only be applied by arbcom ruling, and even
I believe ZOMG WTF WP:ARBCOMNOTFORCONTENTDISPUTES would be the expected response to that?
Usually. The rationale for ArbCom not doing content is that they aren't and can't be experts in everything. However, if locking is the only feasible way to mitigate terminal stupidity, they'll consider it, e.g. anything involving LaRouche followers. Mind you, I'm surprised at the permanent floating flamewars where locking hasn't been applied.
- d.