A few responses and replies;
Firstly I'd like to welcome clearly the word of the hour.....introduced by dg in this thread, but used with some frequency throughout the wiki on this issue.......... 'querulous' - it's a very nice word, and I have hope that we may inspire its resurgence in popular verbiage. It's a little bit like 'whining' but makes you sound smarter for using it.
per dg on this point;
Indeed. It's like JB196 complaining that a few of the accounts blocked as sockpuppets of his weren't in fact his. I wonder what an editor ethics committee would say to such a charge.
I note it took exactly three posts before I was compared to a banned user - perhaps that's insightful, or perhaps it's part of the problem.
Per sam;
What is this ethical committee supposed to do?
This is a valid point, and I don't have the answer beyond saying that any such body should aim to maintain ethical behaviour on the part of trusted community members - is this not a useful aim?
Per Fredl
Ethics is good.
I hope you may consider the possibility therefore of a remit to uphold them.
Running one quiet responsible account and another aggressive confrontive, and uncivil, account is just not viable. That's something you might do on a MUD.
I agree that that is unacceptable, and wholly disagree that that is the case. Please please please at least consider the possibility that I am a rational, calm person who has been involved with wikipedia for a long while, though not overly intensely, and is passionate enough about issues that I consider important to try and ensure that I have (at least) some contribution that can be heard. This is not a MUD, and I am not aggressive, confrontive or uncivil.
Per Relato;
hear hear.
best,
PM
On 14/11/2007, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
Running one quiet responsible account and another aggressive confrontive, and uncivil, account is just not viable. That's something you might do on a MUD.
I agree that that is unacceptable, and wholly disagree that that is the case.
Your editing history, on all your several accounts, strongly suggests otherwise. Indeed, you seem to treat accounts as characters on a MUD.
- d.
On Nov 14, 2007 5:05 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/11/2007, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
Running one quiet responsible account and another aggressive confrontive, and uncivil, account is just not viable. That's something you might do on a MUD.
I agree that that is unacceptable, and wholly disagree that that is the case.
Your editing history, on all your several accounts, strongly suggests otherwise. Indeed, you seem to treat accounts as characters on a MUD.
Indeed. A big part of the problem we have on Wikipedia is people treating it like a game. Our rules on anonymity encourage it, and and our rules on using multiple accounts seem to make it enjoyable.
Our policies are about editors, not about usernames. Revealing that someone is using multiple accounts, so long as that doesn't expose a real world identity, is just tough luck for the game player; it doesn't hurt Wikipedia one bit.
Wikipedia is not a role playing game. Why isn't that in WP:NOT?
On 14/11/2007, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not a role playing game. Why isn't that in WP:NOT?
"It just closely resembles one." User:Elonka has a talk she's done on the subject, showing the correlations ... leveling-up, the 6-18 month typical participation time ...
- d.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:05:11 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Your editing history, on all your several accounts, strongly suggests otherwise. Indeed, you seem to treat accounts as characters on a MUD.
MUD slinging? ;-)
Guy (JzG)
David Gerard wrote:
On 14/11/2007, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that that is unacceptable, and wholly disagree that that is the case.
Your editing history, on all your several accounts, strongly suggests otherwise. Indeed, you seem to treat accounts as characters on a MUD.
It seems like this is relatively easy to settle, or at least shed more light on.
This is hard for others to evaluate because there's non-public information that is interpreted differently by different people. PM, given that you're down to one account, would you be willing to make public your relationship to any other accounts, and to permit others to freely discuss any evidence they have that supports their notions?
Thanks,
William