There is no hurry.
There has been an edit war going on DNA since late december. It was first protected on the 16th of january. Nearly 2 months ago.
It still is protected, and there is absolutely no reason to think it is gonna be unprotected anytime soon.
Today, I protected Nucleic acid per Lir request (the fight is the same, and by the same people than on DNA). Lir requested protection 2 weeks ago, and I promised to do so, if no solution were to be found. So that she wouldnot let herself go in an reversion war again.
I hope this will not spread to all articles related to molecular biochemistry; it would be unfortunate that all those are protected one after the other.
Now, it seems that there is little chance that discussion is gonna happen, until the case between 168 and Mav is solved.
So, though there is no hurry in comparison to vandal fighting, I would like to ask Jimbo, * either to dip his hand in holy water, and shake it over pending requests for Jimbo to refer pending request for arbitration, so that the arbitration committee know that this request is relevant and should be considered * or that Jimbo take care of Mav and 168 little disagreements as he was doing previously * or that Jimbo talks to 168 and Lir * or that someone (anyone !) tries to find an idea so that 168 and Lir can live together on the same project.
It is not as important that vandals, but there has been at least 2 contributors unhappy here for about 2 months. Meanwhile, they do not participate happily and efficiently, but rather spoil the mood, and discourage others. *This* is important. Imho
ant
Here are the two versions of expressing a matter that they mainly fight over. I find one a bit more felitous, but there is not a dime's worth of difference. What's going on?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nucleic_acid&diff=2544710&... 506775
(You might have to glue that URL together to make it work)
See the discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nucleic_acid
Fred
From: Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com Reply-To: anthere8@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:51:24 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Nucleic acid and DNA
There is no hurry.
There has been an edit war going on DNA since late december. It was first protected on the 16th of january. Nearly 2 months ago.
It still is protected, and there is absolutely no reason to think it is gonna be unprotected anytime soon.
Today, I protected Nucleic acid per Lir request (the fight is the same, and by the same people than on DNA). Lir requested protection 2 weeks ago, and I promised to do so, if no solution were to be found. So that she wouldnot let herself go in an reversion war again.
I hope this will not spread to all articles related to molecular biochemistry; it would be unfortunate that all those are protected one after the other.
Now, it seems that there is little chance that discussion is gonna happen, until the case between 168 and Mav is solved.
So, though there is no hurry in comparison to vandal fighting, I would like to ask Jimbo,
- either to dip his hand in holy water, and shake it over pending
requests for Jimbo to refer pending request for arbitration, so that the arbitration committee know that this request is relevant and should be considered
- or that Jimbo take care of Mav and 168 little disagreements as he was
doing previously
- or that Jimbo talks to 168 and Lir
- or that someone (anyone !) tries to find an idea so that 168 and Lir
can live together on the same project.
It is not as important that vandals, but there has been at least 2 contributors unhappy here for about 2 months. Meanwhile, they do not participate happily and efficiently, but rather spoil the mood, and discourage others. *This* is important. Imho
ant
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You may find what is going on on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ADNA
Fred Bauder a écrit:
Here are the two versions of expressing a matter that they mainly fight over. I find one a bit more felitous, but there is not a dime's worth of difference. What's going on?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nucleic_acid&diff=2544710&... 506775
(You might have to glue that URL together to make it work)
See the discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nucleic_acid
Fred
Yes, I see a lot of arbitrary nonsense. Either version is quite acceptable.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com Reply-To: anthere8@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 18:41:28 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Nucleic acid and DNA
You may find what is going on on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ADNA
Fred Bauder a écrit:
Here are the two versions of expressing a matter that they mainly fight over. I find one a bit more felitous, but there is not a dime's worth of difference. What's going on?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nucleic_acid&diff=2544710&... 506775
(You might have to glue that URL together to make it work)
See the discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nucleic_acid
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Yes, I see a lot of arbitrary nonsense. Either version is quite acceptable.
I'm with Fred here. I just don't get what the point of this is. I've tried reviewing the history pages (several times over the past few months), looking for a "knock down" argument that one version is, uhm, I don't know, factually incorrect, or scientifically incoherent, or politically charged, or anything.
What I see is that some people prefer one, and some prefer the other, and that neither side seems willing to just let it go.
My suspicion is that this page has turned into a proxy-fight about other, deeper, more personal beefs. There are points of pride involved?
Or maybe I'm just missing the point.
--Jimbo
At 07:37 AM 3/7/2004 -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Yes, I see a lot of arbitrary nonsense. Either version is quite acceptable.
I'm with Fred here. I just don't get what the point of this is. I've tried reviewing the history pages (several times over the past few months), looking for a "knock down" argument that one version is, uhm, I don't know, factually incorrect, or scientifically incoherent, or politically charged, or anything.
The issue of the actual wording of DNA's intro paragraph is, as you suggest, a fairly trivial one. The _real_ problem IMO is that 168... has been using his abilities as an admin to force the intro paragraph to be exactly the way he prefers it, regardless of how any discussion on talk: may be going. This is terrible behavior for an admin, especially over such an otherwise trivial matter.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
The issue of the actual wording of DNA's intro paragraph is, as you suggest, a fairly trivial one. The _real_ problem IMO is that 168... has been using his abilities as an admin to force the intro paragraph to be exactly the way he prefers it, regardless of how any discussion on talk: may be going. This is terrible behavior for an admin, especially over such an otherwise trivial matter.
Can you tell me what you mean by "using his abilities as an admin"?
Has he been banning people? Installing his version and then protecting the page (repeatedly, I mean, a one-time failing would be bad, but hardly worthy of this kind of brouhaha)? Threatening to ban people for changing it?
I'm in total agreement with you that the problem isn't the wording of the paragraph, but there's some sort of behavioral anomaly going on here, perhaps on both sides?
--Jimbo
At 10:45 AM 3/7/2004 -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
The issue of the actual wording of DNA's intro paragraph is, as you suggest, a fairly trivial one. The _real_ problem IMO is that 168... has been using his abilities as an admin to force the intro paragraph to be exactly the way he prefers it, regardless of how any discussion on talk: may be going. This is terrible behavior for an admin, especially over such an otherwise trivial matter.
Can you tell me what you mean by "using his abilities as an admin"?
Has he been banning people? Installing his version and then protecting the page (repeatedly, I mean, a one-time failing would be bad, but hardly worthy of this kind of brouhaha)? Threatening to ban people for changing it?
Protecting "his" version of the page, this most recent time and also back around February 13 the previous time this problem arose. Also, back in the February incident, he got into a delete/undelete war over the request-for-comment page where this was being discussed; this was the reason for his emergency de-sysopping at the time.
I'm in total agreement with you that the problem isn't the wording of the paragraph, but there's some sort of behavioral anomaly going on here, perhaps on both sides?
I've apparently become "involved" now so my perspective may be considered biased.
Bryan Derksen a écrit:
Protecting "his" version of the page, this most recent time and also back around February 13 the previous time this problem arose. Also, back in the February incident, he got into a delete/undelete war over the request-for-comment page where this was being discussed; this was the reason for his emergency de-sysopping at the time.
I'm in total agreement with you that the problem isn't the wording of the paragraph, but there's some sort of behavioral anomaly going on here, perhaps on both sides?
I've apparently become "involved" now so my perspective may be considered biased.
Yes.
Jimmy Wales a écrit:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Yes, I see a lot of arbitrary nonsense. Either version is quite acceptable.
I'm with Fred here. I just don't get what the point of this is. I've tried reviewing the history pages (several times over the past few months), looking for a "knock down" argument that one version is, uhm, I don't know, factually incorrect, or scientifically incoherent, or politically charged, or anything.
What I see is that some people prefer one, and some prefer the other, and that neither side seems willing to just let it go.
My suspicion is that this page has turned into a proxy-fight about other, deeper, more personal beefs. There are points of pride involved?
Or maybe I'm just missing the point.
--Jimbo
both versions are factually correct, coherent, and not politically charged. You are not missing the point.