Hello all,
There was an edit war at [[Jewish ethnocentrism]]. I reverted to what looked like pre-edit war status, but may not have been. It looked like yesterday's edits to me, but I forgot the server is in UTC and I am not. Anyway, it may need to be worked with from an earlier state, I don't know. I don't think I've ever edited the page, and I don't have any intentions of editing it.
Two points: 1) the diff is unweildy on that page because of a long google link. Apologies, but I'm not going back in to do anything with it, because it might look like I'm abusing the super duper sysop death ray, and I try to treat the super duper sysop death ray with care.
2) The link to "unprotect this page" is inconspicuous, and other than that, sysops have no notice they're on a protected page. I don't know if a sysop has ever unwittingly edited a protected page, but it's not hard for me to imagine it happening. Maybe there could be a note at the top for sysops: "This page is protected. If it's been protected because of a controversy, editing it will look unfair to people who are not sysops, and for good reason. Perhaps you should unprotect the page first."
best,
kq
wikikarma -- I guess I'll cash in [[Time Indefinite]] from yesterday?
I just banned Clutch. He's been warned before, and I've just had enough.
--Jimbo
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:27:54PM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I just banned Clutch. He's been warned before, and I've just had enough.
You should be clear what you warned me about. No more working behind closed doors. Tell people EXACTLY why you banned me.
You spoke of mysterious people "complaining" to you in private, people you wouldn't reveal. You said there were more and more of these people. If these persons complaints were legitimate, there is no reason they could not have discussed them in an open forum.
Star Chambers were abolished 300 years ago. You have every right to ban me from your project Jimbo, but a passing nod to democratic openness and transparency would be appreciated.
Jonathan
Jonathan Walther wrote:
You should be clear what you warned me about. No more working behind closed doors. Tell people EXACTLY why you banned me.
For a failure to work co-operatively in editing articles. For insisting on a link to your website, rather than another site with the same source material. For causing repeated complaints about these and related behaviors.
You spoke of mysterious people "complaining" to you in private, people you wouldn't reveal.
There's nothing mysterious or secret about it. Look on the pages that you edit. Look on the mailing list.
Star Chambers were abolished 300 years ago. You have every right to ban me from your project Jimbo, but a passing nod to democratic openness and transparency would be appreciated.
Well, anyone who wants to weigh in to explain it to you is welcome to do so.
--Jimbo
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:39:27PM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jonathan Walther wrote:
You should be clear what you warned me about. No more working behind closed doors. Tell people EXACTLY why you banned me.
For a failure to work co-operatively in editing articles.
I have been bending over backwards to work cooperatively. I have had to deal with people reverting chains of edits for no other reason than that I contributed to them. I have continuously incorporated material other people have introduced while making my edits.
Compare that to the activities of the few individuals reverting my work; they made no attempt to incorporate my edits, and put quite blatant POV in their edits. For instance, the reversions to the Judeocentrism article were phrased to cast doubt on whether such a thing even exists!
For insisting on a link to your website, rather than another site with the same source material.
Noone gave a good reason why my link should have been removed. Why put the onus on me only, and pretend the other participants smelled like roses?
For causing repeated complaints about these and related behaviors.
I'm sure they complained bitterly when Copernicus came up with his model of the solar system too... It is a mistake to equate volume of complaints with facts.
You spoke of mysterious people "complaining" to you in private, people you wouldn't reveal.
There's nothing mysterious or secret about it. Look on the pages that you edit. Look on the mailing list.
Actually, that's not true. On the telephone you specifically spoke of "private" complaints which I was not privy to. You speak of their "rising volume", at a time when I was relatively inactive and there were few complaints about me on the Wikipedia.
Jonathan
I just banned Clutch. He's been warned before, and I've just had enough.
Thank you, Jimbo. It is about time. For the reasons, see e.g. my message http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-January/000894.html
Clutch has - vandalized user pages - misrepresented himself ("I agree with Clutch" as Jonathan Walther, who is Clutch) - engaged in countless edit wars - removed perfectly valid content from articles - added unfounded POV assertions to articles (e.g. the social work article: "They generally force their 'help' on people who don't want it and ignore human rights ..trained to place feelings and gut instincts supreme above reason .." etc.) - lied about and slandered other users who pointed out his behavior.
The only reason he hasn't been banned before is his "I have done nothing wrong, look at what all the other evil people have been doing" strategy.
I am looking forward to working constructively with people who share many valid views, pro-Palestinian, pro-Israel, even views I consider anti- Semitic or otherwise unacceptable, but who are able to express these views without engaging in childish behavior and violating established policies. Clutch is not one of these people.
Regards,
Erik
On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 00:31, koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
- The link to "unprotect this page" is inconspicuous, and other than
that, sysops have no notice they're on a protected page. I don't know if a sysop has ever unwittingly edited a protected page, but it's not hard for me to imagine it happening. Maybe there could be a note at the top for sysops: "This page is protected. If it's been protected because of a controversy, editing it will look unfair to people who are not sysops, and for good reason. Perhaps you should unprotect the page first."
I just want to note that "protecting" a page to deal with edit conflicts is a mediocre solution at best.
This could have been handled so much better.
At 00:55 22/02/2003 -0500, Cunctator wrote: (about the Clutch thing)
This could have been handled so much better.
Cunc, you often stick your head up after a conflict such as this and chirp "I could've done better". It isn't useful, and I for one find it quite annoying. If you could've done better, *why* *didn't* *you* *do* *better*?
lp (camembert) WikiKarma: [[Gilbert and George]]
On 2/22/03 8:45 AM, "Lee Pilich" pilich@btopenworld.com wrote:
At 00:55 22/02/2003 -0500, Cunctator wrote: (about the Clutch thing)
This could have been handled so much better.
Cunc, you often stick your head up after a conflict such as this and chirp "I could've done better". It isn't useful, and I for one find it quite annoying. If you could've done better, *why* *didn't* *you* *do* *better*?
Because I wasn't asked.
Chirp chirp.
At 21:31 21/02/2003 -0800, KQ wrote:
- The link to "unprotect this page" is inconspicuous, and other than
that, sysops have no notice they're on a protected page. I don't know if a sysop has ever unwittingly edited a protected page, but it's not hard for me to imagine it happening. Maybe there could be a note at the top for sysops: "This page is protected. If it's been protected because of a controversy, editing it will look unfair to people who are not sysops, and for good reason. Perhaps you should unprotect the page first."
I've wondered about something like this as well. Also, is there a list of protected pages somewhere, or else some DB query we can run to generate such a list? I sometimes wonder if pages have been protected about and then forgotten, left protected forever more.
lp (camembert) WikiKarma: [[Malcolm Morley]]
PS Apologies for my last post - it was just as useless as the post it was a reply to. I shouldn't have sent it.