this was a deletion review, with a view to restoration, of a userbox that said the owner was a satanist. I have canceled it on the grounds that such a template could only bring the project into disrepute.
I'm confident that this is best for Wikipedia. I don't think the goal of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging, though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse. Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be made for this particular template
Tony Sidaway wrote:
this was a deletion review, with a view to restoration, of a userbox that said the owner was a satanist. I have canceled it on the grounds that such a template could only bring the project into disrepute.
I'm confident that this is best for Wikipedia. I don't think the goal of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging, though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse. Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be made for this particular template _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
OH NOES! The sacred userbox! To the gallows!
Actually, I no longer have strong views either way on the userbox issue. I can see such a statement as being potentially useful, but I really wish that Wikipedia could come up with a concrete policy on these cute little boxes that would satisfy both sides of the issue.
Personally, I think all userboxes but the generics should go, and that people would just use {{userbox|WhateverStatementIwantHere}}. It would seem to solve the problems regarding the promotion of userboxes in template space, would leave (relatively) simple code on userpages, could still be indexed on the subpages of the userbox "Wikiproject", and wouldn't have the bothersome qualities associated with transclusion of most userboxen. Of course, people would have to agree to get rid of those bloody useless categories that go with them, too...
Then again, some people just like using Wikipedia as a battleground. (I'm guilty, myself, of falling into this mindset)
Jeffrey Latham wrote: <snip>
Then again, some people just like using Wikipedia as a battleground. (I'm guilty, myself, of falling into this mindset)
Yes, as Mark Williamson wrote on Wikipedia-l:
We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice??!?!?!?! It should say that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT
Why didn't anyone tell me??? I have been putting that on my professional résumé ever since my one year anniversary as a Wikipedian!
Regards,
Exactly how does allowing a userbox for people to show they're a satanist puts Wikipedia in disrepute? We've got userboxes for multiple beliefs and life styles and satanism is just another to add to the bunch. You act as if satanism is bad. Perhaps you should read the article on the subject. Just the lead alone is quite informative.
Besides, it's not exactly a secret we don't select editors on their beliefs. Deleting one userbox because people mis-associate it with something they consider evil will only promote ignorance.
Either cut all religious userboxes or keep them all, don't start getting selective. The box is just as useful as a "I am a Christian"-box. Disrepute due to beliefs is only an issue if said editors consistently misbehave.
People worry too much over userboxes. Either take the above suggestion and make general boxes, or simply make one now and stop the proliferation.
Mgm
On 5/31/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
this was a deletion review, with a view to restoration, of a userbox that said the owner was a satanist. I have canceled it on the grounds that such a template could only bring the project into disrepute.
I'm confident that this is best for Wikipedia. I don't think the goal of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging, though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse. Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be made for this particular template _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/31/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Either cut all religious userboxes or keep them all, don't start getting selective. The box is just as useful as a "I am a Christian"-box. Disrepute due to beliefs is only an issue if said editors consistently misbehave.
Agreed. One delusion is no more or less reputable than the other. "I believe in X" userboxes should be deleted or subst:ed generally, or replaced with "I am interested in X" boxes. Surely, "I am interested in Satanism" would not be a problem for anyone.
Tony probably knows this and is hoping for exactly such an outcome. :-)
Erik
On 6/1/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Either cut all religious userboxes or keep them all, don't start getting selective. The box is just as useful as a "I am a Christian"-box. Disrepute due to beliefs is only an issue if said editors consistently misbehave.
Agreed. One delusion is no more or less reputable than the other. "I believe in X" userboxes should be deleted or subst:ed generally, or replaced with "I am interested in X" boxes. Surely, "I am interested in Satanism" would not be a problem for anyone.
Tony probably knows this and is hoping for exactly such an outcome. :-)
Erik
Using Tony's argument about disrepute (possibly based around the Christian American society view), if a general reader stumbled over "I am interested in Satanism" on a user page they would be just as disgusted. Wikipedia accepts editors without regard to their outside lives.
Peter Ansell
On 5/31/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Using Tony's argument about disrepute (possibly based around the Christian American society view), if a general reader stumbled over "I am interested in Satanism" on a user page they would be just as disgusted.
There's a difference, at least to the world outside Wikipedia, between an individual Wikipedian making that personal statement on a part of the site, and Wikipedia as an institution giving him a neat little badge for the purpose of making the proclamation.
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference, at least to the world outside Wikipedia, between an individual Wikipedian making that personal statement on a part of the site, and Wikipedia as an institution giving him a neat little badge for the purpose of making the proclamation.
Wikipedia as an institution is not doing that (Don't know of any foundation created userboxes off hand). And:
Evidences?
On 5/31/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference, at least to the world outside Wikipedia, between an individual Wikipedian making that personal statement on a part of the site, and Wikipedia as an institution giving him a neat little badge for the purpose of making the proclamation.
Wikipedia as an institution is not doing that (Don't know of any foundation created userboxes off hand). And:
Evidences?
I think he was simply referring to allowing these to reside in the Template namespace, rather than simply having the editor write their beliefs or preferences on their user page. I think he's saying there is a difference between the two. Basically right? --LV
On 6/1/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
I think he was simply referring to allowing these to reside in the Template namespace, rather than simply having the editor write their beliefs or preferences on their user page. I think he's saying there is a difference between the two. Basically right? --LV
Evidence that the world outside Wikipedia understands namespaces.
On 6/1/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
I think he was simply referring to allowing these to reside in the Template namespace, rather than simply having the editor write their beliefs or preferences on their user page. I think he's saying there is a difference between the two. Basically right?
Yes. See for instance here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion&o...
A project page in the Wikipedia namespace provided a satanist template (now deleted and under review) residing in the template namespace.
To the outside world (and to me) it thus appears that the Wikipedia project is providing all users with a facility to label themselves according to beliefs, and by implication, encouragement to do so. This is especially problematic with disreputable religions and pseudoreligions (I apologise if this offends American sensibilities attuned to First Amendment absolutism) such as Satanism, Scientology and the like.
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. See for instance here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion&o...
A project page in the Wikipedia namespace provided a satanist template (now deleted and under review) residing in the template namespace.
To the outside world (and to me) it thus appears that the Wikipedia project is providing all users with a facility to label themselves according to beliefs, and by implication, encouragement to do so.
No it doesn't. The outside would doesn't see that page. The outside world sticks to articles.
A far better canandidate for that claim would be say:
http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Or
http://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destp%C3%AAk
This is especially problematic with disreputable religions and pseudoreligions (I apologise if this offends American sensibilities attuned to First Amendment absolutism) such as Satanism, Scientology and the like.
What exactly is disreputable about say LaVeyan Satanism?
On 5/31/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
To the outside world (and to me) it thus appears that the Wikipedia project is providing all users with a facility to label themselves according to beliefs, and by implication, encouragement to do so. This is especially problematic with disreputable religions and pseudoreligions (I apologise if this offends American sensibilities attuned to First Amendment absolutism) such as Satanism, Scientology and the like.
Please provide a citation for Satanism being disreputable.
Disliked, sure. Disreputable implies that they're actively harmful to people. Even in the relative core of satanism in the US, San Francisco, where LaVey founded it and all, their neighbors mostly don't notice them. They're among the least offensive San Francisco freaks.
Also, exactly how do you justify Zoroastrianism being disreputable?
-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com / george.herbert@gmail.com
On 6/1/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Please provide a citation for Satanism being disreputable.
No.
On 01/06/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference, at least to the world outside Wikipedia, between an individual Wikipedian making that personal statement on a part of the site, and Wikipedia as an institution giving him a neat little badge for the purpose of making the proclamation.
Wikipedia as an institution is not doing that (Don't know of any foundation created userboxes off hand). And:
The world outside Wikipedia, with which I have a great deal of contact through the joy that is OTRS, generally fails to understand that the Foundation does not write the entire damn encylopedia itself.
When the issue is perception from the outside world, quibbling about whether something was created by a user or created by Danny is... irrelevant.
Somewhere downthread, I notice the comparison to hospital staff wearing tags describing their political affiliation. Yes, there is an ethical difference between one of the nurses handing out boxes of little badges they made at home to their colleages, versus an administrator handing out packets of them to staff.
But patients will write angry letters to the newspapers when they see them, regardless.
I'm not sold that userboxes "bring the project into disrepute" - I wish we didn't have the damn things and that this never got started - but pretending that they're magically exempt from doing so becuase all our readers know that something prefixed with "User:" isn't part of the encyclopedia is just plain silly.
Because, trust me, they don't know it.
Andrew Gray wrote:
Somewhere downthread, I notice the comparison to hospital staff wearing tags describing their political affiliation. Yes, there is an ethical difference between one of the nurses handing out boxes of little badges they made at home to their colleagues, versus an administrator handing out packets of them to staff.
If the Hospital is able to reply "one of the staff knocked them up on their own initiative and at their own expense" this has a very different context to "those were prepared here in the Hospital using official resources, at official expense".
For one thing, the former would make it a simple matter of discipline at most, if the disciplinary code even covered such a situation, whereas the latter might well be a sackable offence.
HTH HAND
Andrew Gray wrote:
The world outside Wikipedia, with which I have a great deal of contact through the joy that is OTRS, generally fails to understand that the Foundation does not write the entire damn encylopedia itself.
Progress is being made, then. They used to assume I wrote the whole thing myself. Now, they have begun to grasp that this might be the work of, hmm, 3 or 4 people at least? ;-)
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 5/31/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Using Tony's argument about disrepute (possibly based around the Christian American society view), if a general reader stumbled over "I am interested in Satanism" on a user page they would be just as disgusted.
There's a difference, at least to the world outside Wikipedia, between an individual Wikipedian making that personal statement on a part of the site, and Wikipedia as an institution giving him a neat little badge for the purpose of making the proclamation.
... which is the exact problem of allowing templates to be used for such boilerplate expression of personal opinions.
On 6/1/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
There's a difference, at least to the world outside Wikipedia, between an individual Wikipedian making that personal statement on a part of the site, and Wikipedia as an institution giving him a neat little badge for the purpose of making the proclamation.
... which is the exact problem of allowing templates to be used for such boilerplate expression of personal opinions.
Absolutely. The nature of the opinion being expressed here (Satanism) merely makes the difference more apparent. A hospital that permits it staff to wear political insignia is one thing; a hospital that provides political insignia to its staff is quite another.
MacGyverMagic wrote:
Either cut all religious userboxes or keep them all, don't start getting selective. The box is just as useful as a "I am a Christian"-box. Disrepute due to beliefs is only an issue if said editors consistently misbehave.
People worry too much over userboxes.
On the one hand, I agree, the ongoing train wreck that is the userbox "war" is silly and unnecessary. On the one hand, I agree, all "I am a whatever-tian" boxes should either stand together or fall together. Personally, I don't care if you proclaim yourself to be a Christian or a Satanist or a Democrat or a Republican or a vegetarian or a Martian or a pedophile or a Nazi; the only thing that matters to me is whether you can edit encyclopedia articles intelligently, cooperatively, and productively.
But. On the other hand:
If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive to make a point. And it's exactly this sort of wilfulness, disruption, and point-making that gives rise to big problems with those seemingly silly, unimportant userboxes.
On 5/31/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
But. On the other hand:
If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive to make a point. And it's exactly this sort of wilfulness, disruption, and point-making that gives rise to big problems with those seemingly silly, unimportant userboxes.
There's a difference between "they're the same" and "we should treat them the same".
This kerfuffle is not about anything related to comparative religious studies or social aspects of Christianity and Satanism. It's about consensus-less WP policy being applied starting with the tiny relatively defenseless minority.
If the action would likely result in Tony's being desysopped if applied to say the Christian userbox, then perhaps he shouldn't do it to the Satanist or Zorostrian or other fringe religions, either. Either the policy is ok, in which case a blanket application can be imposed, or it isn't, in which case "getting away with it" by starting with the tiny despised minority religions is blatantly offensive to me.
I kicked up the ANI not because I object to T2; I object to a point of view, selective application of T2. If it were applied globally to the religious userboxes, I wouldn't have objected at all.
-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com / george.herbert@gmail.com
On May 31, 2006, at 6:13 PM, George Herbert wrote:
If it were applied globally to the religious userboxes, I wouldn't have objected at all.
May I quote you on that? Specifically, may I have your explicit permission and request (on this mailing list) for anyone with the sysop bit on the English edition of Wikipedia to speedy delete all the userboxes listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Userboxes/ Religion&oldid=56262627 under the criteria CSD T2. If you truly agree with this, it would certainly help.
Thanks!
Jesse Weinstein
On 6/1/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On May 31, 2006, at 6:13 PM, George Herbert wrote:
If it were applied globally to the religious userboxes, I wouldn't have objected at all.
May I quote you on that? Specifically, may I have your explicit permission and request (on this mailing list) for anyone with the sysop bit on the English edition of Wikipedia to speedy delete all the userboxes listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Userboxes/ Religion&oldid=56262627 under the criteria CSD T2. If you truly agree with this, it would certainly help.
Those who complain that the T1 speedy deletion criterion is being applied unevenly are barking up the wrong tree. They'll all go in good time, but it would be wrong to delete them all at once, without allowing time for discussion over the application of policy, which is still ongoing. The results of this slow, measured pace have been a growing confidence and a steadier support for a broad application. Although applications for deletion review are made more often for templates than for any other type of deletion, there are relatively few successful undeletions. Wikipedia policy is being restored to template space.
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On May 31, 2006, at 6:13 PM, George Herbert wrote:
If it were applied globally to the religious userboxes, I wouldn't have objected at all.
May I quote you on that? Specifically, may I have your explicit permission and request (on this mailing list) for anyone with the sysop bit on the English edition of Wikipedia to speedy delete all the userboxes listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Userboxes/ Religion&oldid=56262627 under the criteria CSD T2. If you truly agree with this, it would certainly help.
Those who complain that the T1 speedy deletion criterion is being applied unevenly are barking up the wrong tree. They'll all go in good time, but it would be wrong to delete them all at once, without allowing time for discussion over the application of policy, which is still ongoing. The results of this slow, measured pace have been a growing confidence and a steadier support for a broad application. Although applications for deletion review are made more often for templates than for any other type of deletion, there are relatively few successful undeletions. Wikipedia policy is being restored to template space.
The problem with making this claim now is that you have rather explicitly said that you went after Satanism because it was disreputable and would bring Wikipedia into disrepute by having the userbox. Whether this is part of a larger campaign intended to get them all eventually or not, you've rather conclusively identified that you are using your personal judgement and religous biases in selecting who goes when and how.
That's blatantly POV and disruptive.
Again: Deleting them all is fine by me. Tony deciding to delete the little fringe ones that he personally hates first, not fine.
Agreeing with the end goal does not require agreeing with the methods or ethics of someone's attempt to reach it. The presense of userboxes is not as disruptive as tha approach you have chosen to take in trying to delete them all, in my opinion. You think it's the way to gain consensus slowly on the big issue. I agree that slowly gaining consensus is good, but this method is disruptive and abusive.
(this posting and my previous one on this thread may be freely used under CC attribution share-alike 2.5)
-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com / gherbert@gmail.com
On 6/1/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with making this claim now is that you have rather explicitly said that you went after Satanism because it was disreputable and would bring Wikipedia into disrepute by having the userbox.
This is not a problem. That is precisely what I did.
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote: The problem with making this claim now is that you have rather
explicitly
said that you went after Satanism because it was disreputable and would bring Wikipedia into disrepute by having the userbox.
This is not a problem. That is precisely what I did.
Tony... When engaged in a general campaign regarding a class of things, the LAST thing you do is to initiate it starting with a particular item which you personally despise, while admitting publically that you despise it.
As a rule, nobody ever believes that you didn't simply have an ulterior motive to the campaign as a whole afterwards, and it brings the whole campaign against the class into disrepute.
It is not enough that you have no conflicts of interest. You have to avoid appearances of conflict of interest.
This is politics 101. The way you have done this has brought the whole effort to delete all the religious userboxes (which I agree with in principle) into disrepute.
Like it or not, the current WP structure is in large part a political game, a large part of which is an engaged group of editors with less experience (both in WP and in online activities). Complaining that it has come to that is one thing. Acting in a manner which is antagonistic towards it is folly. Worse than folly, it is counterproductive and disruptive.
-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com / george.herbert@gmail.com CC A-SA 2.5
On 6/1/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote: The problem with making this claim now is that you have rather
explicitly
said that you went after Satanism because it was disreputable and would bring Wikipedia into disrepute by having the userbox.
This is not a problem. That is precisely what I did.
Tony... When engaged in a general campaign regarding a class of things, the LAST thing you do is to initiate it starting with a particular item which you personally despise, while admitting publically that you despise it.
Well I don't see why not--if I were to particularly despised it.
And that would be presuming that I were "campaigning".
This isn't what Wikipedia is about at all. All of the religious userboxes are obviously unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted. Some for multiple reasons--in the case of the Satanist box it's not only unsuitable, it's got the added problem that it would bring Wikipedia into disrepute.
And as I explained in the original email:
"I don't think the goal of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging, though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse. Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be made for this particular template"
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Tony... When engaged in a general campaign regarding a class of things,
the
LAST thing you do is to initiate it starting with a particular item
which
you personally despise, while admitting publically that you despise it.
Well I don't see why not--if I were to particularly despised it.
WP is NOT your dictatorship, unless your real name is Wales.
Your authority here is no more than any other administrators, modulo the clerk duties.
You don't have to play nice with others. But ultimately, that's going to determine the effectiveness of doing what you want done. If you keep doing things in a politically abusive manner, consensus will continue to turn against you quite often, and it will end up blocking your goals.
You need to open your eyes and see how needlessly disruptive you are.
-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com / george.herbert@gmail.com
On 6/1/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Tony... When engaged in a general campaign regarding a class of things,
the
LAST thing you do is to initiate it starting with a particular item
which
you personally despise, while admitting publically that you despise it.
Well I don't see why not--if I were to particularly despised it.
WP is NOT your dictatorship, unless your real name is Wales.
That is a non-sequitur. Please address the arguments.
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
WP is NOT your dictatorship, unless your real name is Wales.
That is a non-sequitur. Please address the arguments.
I did. You are substituting your judgement for process and consensus and assuming executive powers and authority you don't have.
Jimbo has the authority to do that. You don't.
Every time you push out and antagonize people needlessly, you disrupt the actual end goal of getting things done. You do that again and again and again. It's counterproductive and disruptive.
-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com / george.herbert@gmail.com
On 6/1/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
WP is NOT your dictatorship, unless your real name is Wales.
That is a non-sequitur. Please address the arguments.
I did. You are substituting your judgement for process and consensus and assuming executive powers and authority you don't have.
Nonsense.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/1/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
WP is NOT your dictatorship, unless your real name is Wales.
That is a non-sequitur. Please address the arguments.
You're both arguing at cross-purposes. You keep explaining why what you did was necessary and important, while he keeps asking why you are doing it so high-handedly. In fairness, you haven't addressed his arguments, either.
On 6/1/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/1/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
WP is NOT your dictatorship, unless your real name is Wales.
That is a non-sequitur. Please address the arguments.
You're both arguing at cross-purposes. You keep explaining why what you did was necessary and important, while he keeps asking why you are doing it so high-handedly. In fairness, you haven't addressed his arguments, either.
Thank you.
Please note that I am not disagreeing with why what Tony did is necessary or important. I support the religion userboxes going away, as a unified class, together. I object to deleting them one at a time and in an order determined by how much Tony dislikes them.
-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com / george.herbert@gmail.com
On 6/1/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
That is a non-sequitur. Please address the arguments.
You're both arguing at cross-purposes. You keep explaining why what you did was necessary and important, while he keeps asking why you are doing it so high-handedly.
Speaking of which, this lovely comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATony_Sidaway&diff=...
": Moreover you've seen that at least a dozen other editors see nothing wrong with this kind of refactoring and think it improves the environment.
From my conversations with others not involved in this infantile RfC, I'm
convinced that the claims of disruption are completely unmerited. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 22:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)"
Infantile?
Tony, there are many, many other extremely active editors and admins who never have a hint of an RFC filed against them, or other administrative actions. You are literally going around daring people to do it to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ton...
This is not the way to make positive contributions to WP. Going around pissing people off is not making effective positive contributions. Just because your WP friends aren't pissed off by all this doesn't mean that other people aren't, and the record number of user complaints and RFCs against you should be proof of this.
-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com / george.herbert@gmail.com
On 6/1/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
That is a non-sequitur. Please address the arguments.
You're both arguing at cross-purposes. You keep explaining why what you did was necessary and important, while he keeps asking why you are doing it so high-handedly.
Speaking of which, this lovely comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATony_Sidaway&diff=...
I'm quite proud of it, too. What I don't see is any excuse for your attempt to turn it into the bases of a personal attack on me.
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I'm quite proud of it, too. What I don't see is any excuse for your attempt to turn it into the bases of a personal attack on me.
You don't see what's wrong with calling the RFC infantile?
-- -george william herbert gherbert@retro.com / george.herbert@gmail.com
On 6/2/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I'm quite proud of it, too. What I don't see is any excuse for your attempt to turn it into the bases of a personal attack on me.
You don't see what's wrong with calling the RFC infantile?
Absolutely not. It's a silly, petty, mindless, disgrace to Wikipedia.
george william herbert wrote:
You don't see what's wrong with calling the RFC infantile?
In point of fact, just about everything concerning that particular RfC is, if not "infantile", certainly dreadfully silly.
1. It's silly to spend a bunch of time trying to distinguish yourself with an elaborate signature, when you could spend time distinguishing yourself by making high-quality edits.
2. Be that as it may, it's silly to get upset about someone's elaborate signature, let alone go to the extreme of editing it.
3. Be that as it may, it's silly to get too upset about someone's simplifying the elaborate signature that it was silly to have in the first place.
4. Be that as it may, it's silly to act all surprised (let alone defensive, let alone proud) when someone takes offense at the WP:POINT you made by simplifying their elaborate signature (particularly when you knew perfectly well they would).
As Berke Breathed once wrote, "Bailiff, kick these two nuts in the butt."
On 6/1/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
george william herbert wrote:
You don't see what's wrong with calling the RFC infantile?
In point of fact, just about everything concerning that particular RfC is, if not "infantile", certainly dreadfully silly.
Tony is going around pissing people off badly enough that they RfC him over it.
Whether they have, in the abstract, good or bad justifications for the complaint, other WP admins aren't pissing people off that badly, even when they do equivalent things.
-- -george william herbert gherbert@retro.com / george.herbert@gmail.com
On 6/2/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Tony is going around pissing people off badly enough that they RfC him over it.
George, if I breathe someone gets pissed off. This isn't normally regarded as a cause for concern.
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Tony is going around pissing people off badly enough that they RfC him
over
it.
George, if I breathe someone gets pissed off. This isn't normally regarded as a cause for concern.
No, actually, your day to day stuff only ruffles people's feathers.
Your attitude that it's ok to do that is annoying.
Your attitude that it's ok to move beyond that into actually pissing them off, and doing things like rejecting RfCs out of hand merely because they're silly, is a serious problem.
If people are actively pissed off at the way you're behaving it is a serious problem. You are the single most active visible WP admin a lot of the time, and you're going around causing disruption and conflict throughout the community, and acting proud of it. What, exactly, do you think that sends as a message to new editors?
It is not ok to go around pissing people off. It is important to figure out how to get things done without pissing them off.
On 6/2/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Your attitude that it's ok to move beyond that into actually pissing them off, and doing things like rejecting RfCs out of hand merely because they're silly, is a serious problem.
Obviously not. There comes a point at which one must simply recognise that a completely and utterly fatuous complaint is being made, and move on.
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Your attitude that it's ok to move beyond that into actually pissing
them
off, and doing things like rejecting RfCs out of hand merely because
they're
silly, is a serious problem.
Obviously not. There comes a point at which one must simply recognise that a completely and utterly fatuous complaint is being made, and move on.
One RFC? Sure. One particularly upset complaintant? Sure.
Your kickback from the community is far, far past that.
Again: Other editors and admins, even ones who do a lot of potentially very controversial stuff, don't get a fraction of the community hostility that you do.
It's not what you're doing. It's how you do it. Your attitude, displayed above and elsewhere, is a problem.
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:54:11 -0700, you wrote:
One RFC? Sure. One particularly upset complaintant? Sure. Your kickback from the community is far, far past that.
The community? Whoa! Tony pisses me off, too, but I can see when he has a point - which is pretty much always. Take a deep breath and ask what we are here for. Social networking? Glory? Ego? Or to build an encyclopaedia? In each of the numerous cases where Tony has wound me up, it has been because he unilaterally did something which was good for the encyclopaedia, and "fuck process". I think that may even be a direct quote from him.
A lot of the people who kick back against Tony via these RfCs are problem editors, just like a lot of the whining that goes on here and at Wikipedia Review is from frustrated POV warriors.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/4/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:54:11 -0700, you wrote:
One RFC? Sure. One particularly upset complaintant? Sure. Your kickback from the community is far, far past that.
The community? Whoa! Tony pisses me off, too, but I can see when he has a point - which is pretty much always. Take a deep breath and ask what we are here for. Social networking? Glory? Ego? Or to build an encyclopaedia? In each of the numerous cases where Tony has wound me up, it has been because he unilaterally did something which was good for the encyclopaedia, and "fuck process". I think that may even be a direct quote from him.
A lot of the people who kick back against Tony via these RfCs are problem editors, just like a lot of the whining that goes on here and at Wikipedia Review is from frustrated POV warriors.
Which of those categories do I fall into, praytell? 8-)
Even discounting a lot of the pile-on me-too complaints against Tony from problem editors, there remain significant numbers of people who aren't and object to some of the stuff he's done.
My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using that justification, of late. Playing well with others is more important now.
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using that justification, of late.
That obviously isn't even remotely true. Look at the latest RfC: people who object to *refactoring a talk page* because the aim is to remove useless and intrusive formatting. I'd say "fuck process" here because, really, process is simply being used as an obstacle to the simple act of improving the editing environment by removing useless crap.
On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a
problem
for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using
that
justification, of late.
That obviously isn't even remotely true. Look at the latest RfC: people who object to *refactoring a talk page* because the aim is to remove useless and intrusive formatting. I'd say "fuck process" here because, really, process is simply being used as an obstacle to the simple act of improving the editing environment by removing useless crap.
It is never good to piss people off.
That you feel that you have to do so is a stunning indictment of your current attitude problem.
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a
problem
for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using
that
justification, of late.
That obviously isn't even remotely true. Look at the latest RfC: people who object to *refactoring a talk page* because the aim is to remove useless and intrusive formatting. I'd say "fuck process" here because, really, process is simply being used as an obstacle to the simple act of improving the editing environment by removing useless crap.
It is never good to piss people off.
That you feel that you have to do so is a stunning indictment of your current attitude problem.
I don't have an attitude problem. I don't have to piss people off. However it seems to me that some people are queuing up to be pissed off over trivia. There is no substance to the complaint.
And that is quite a different situation.
On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I don't have an attitude problem. I don't have to piss people off. However it seems to me that some people are queuing up to be pissed off over trivia. There is no substance to the complaint.
And that is quite a different situation.
It's not trivia to them, Tony.
Whether in the greater scheme of things it's a trivial matter, whether what you're doing is the best course for WP in the long term... don't matter.
The way you're approaching the problem is pissing people off. Other admins aren't pissing people off over this probem. It's gotten bad enough that someone RfC'ed you over it.
Purity of heart and the best of intentions for the long term interests of WP don't justify abusing people. The ends don't justify the means. They particularly don't justify the means over such a trivial matter.
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
It's not trivia to them, Tony.
That is the problem in a nutshell. Their signatures on a discussion page are more important than the aims of improving the readability and ease of editing on the discussion page. Their lack of perspective is thus a problem for Wikipedia.
On Jun 4, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
It's not trivia to them, Tony.
That is the problem in a nutshell. Their signatures on a discussion page are more important than the aims of improving the readability and ease of editing on the discussion page. Their lack of perspective is thus a problem for Wikipedia.
Certainly. But you pissing them off *does not solve the problem.* That is the problem with your approach, in a nutshell. As you said, the lack of readability of the discussion page is not the problem - certain editors "lack of perspective" is the problem. You pissing off those editors is not going to change their "lack of perspective".
Jesse Weinstein
On 6/5/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Jun 4, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
That is the problem in a nutshell. Their signatures on a discussion page are more important than the aims of improving the readability and ease of editing on the discussion page. Their lack of perspective is thus a problem for Wikipedia.
Certainly. But you pissing them off *does not solve the problem.* That is the problem with your approach, in a nutshell. As you said, the lack of readability of the discussion page is not the problem - certain editors "lack of perspective" is the problem. You pissing off those editors is not going to change their "lack of perspective".
Well obviously I don't know I'm going to piss someone off until I do. However refactoring does solve a real problem. Of course they'll be pissed off; if they didn't think that their signatures were more important than the discussion, they wouldn't have unnecessarily cluttered the discussion page. While it doesn't solve their problem, it does solve *wikipedia's* problem. Wikipedians should take reasonable steps to avoid treading on toes, but should not go out of their way to bow to unreasonable demands.
On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Well obviously I don't know I'm going to piss someone off until I do.
Oh, please. This stretches credulity. Surely you've noticed the pattern by now.
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Well obviously I don't know I'm going to piss someone off until I do.
Oh, please. This stretches credulity. Surely you've noticed the pattern by now.
Absolutely not. I discern no predictable pattern to which things will piss people off.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Well obviously I don't know I'm going to piss someone off until I do.
Oh, please. This stretches credulity. Surely you've noticed the pattern by now.
Absolutely not. I discern no predictable pattern to which things will piss people off.
Well, for some people, it's "anything done by Tony Sidaway or his little CABAL pals" regardless of the actual effect on the project.
Given that they object to you removing things which seem to have no beneficial effect on the project, one is led to question why those things are so important to them and why your removal thereof is so annoying to them.
HTH HAND
On 6/5/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Well obviously I don't know I'm going to piss someone off until I do.
Oh, please. This stretches credulity. Surely you've noticed the
pattern
by now.
Absolutely not. I discern no predictable pattern to which things will piss people off.
Well, for some people, it's "anything done by Tony Sidaway or his little CABAL pals" regardless of the actual effect on the project.
Given that they object to you removing things which seem to have no beneficial effect on the project, one is led to question why those things are so important to them and why your removal thereof is so annoying to them.
I would like to note again for the record that neither the userboxes template cleanups (done in a nondiscriminatory manner) nor getting people to minimize signatures are concepts or projects I object to.
The simple summary I came up with a few minutes ago thinking about this weekend is that IMHO Tony is guilty of habitual excessive use of force. We don't want police to pepper spray and handcuff kids who jaywalk in traffic, though they may legitimately need to give the kids a warning or ticket.
Here's a tip: When two dozen people complain about your unilateral decisions to delete things or what have you, you should consider re-opening it up to discussion, rather than insisting on your correctness.
Blundering into a controversy is one thing. Exacerbating it by refusing the recognize that there are other, valid takes on it, is another thing. You could head these things off way before they became RFCs if you weren't so damned stubborn, arrogant, and uncompromising, in my frank opinion.
Howabout this as a general rule: if more than two reasonable admins with good track records find your unilateral action to be a bad idea, why not cede to the process? None of these things (userboxes, signatures) are so hazardous that they will endanger the encyclopedia if normal process is allowed to be run thorugh. Cutting people off in a show of questionable judgment only builds antagonism, not good will.
But I'm sure you already know my opinions on these things, and will disregard them as usual.
FF
On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Well obviously I don't know I'm going to piss someone off until I do.
Oh, please. This stretches credulity. Surely you've noticed the pattern by now.
Absolutely not. I discern no predictable pattern to which things will piss people off. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Howabout this as a general rule: if more than two reasonable admins with good track records find your unilateral action to be a bad idea, why not cede to the process?
Well what if two (or more) admins in good standing side with Tony (or anybody for that matter)? Then what, another massive wheel war? Just wondering. Thanks. --LV
It isn't a question of who is right. It's a question of whether normal processes can be used. If one admin says that something is so obvious that unilateral decisions can be made over it, and a number of other admins without direct connection to the issue at hand judge it to be NOT so obvious, then I think it stands to reason that the issue is "not obvious" and should not be decided unilaterally.
I think we should err on the side of non-unilateral action whenever it comes into serious question, and whenever it is not connected to some sort of legitimate real-world consequence (i.e. WP:OFFICE). I think it has been shown time and time again that acting unilaterally often prolongs debates rather than hastening them, and builds a tremendous amount of bad faith and antagonism.
FF
On 6/5/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Howabout this as a general rule: if more than two reasonable admins with good track records find your unilateral action to be a bad idea, why not cede to the process?
Well what if two (or more) admins in good standing side with Tony (or anybody for that matter)? Then what, another massive wheel war? Just wondering. Thanks. --LV _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should err on the side of non-unilateral action
What does that mean? How does this fit in with "Be bold"?
On 6/6/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should err on the side of non-unilateral action
What does that mean? How does this fit in with "Be bold"?
"Be bold" gives you a licence to attempt to do the right thing once. "Don't be a dick" says stop attempting when other people tell you to.
Steve
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
"Be bold" gives you a licence to attempt to do the right thing once. "Don't be a dick" says stop attempting when other people tell you to.
Absolutely. Now apply this to signatures.
However you seem here to be suggesting that I'm being told to any great degree that signatures are uniquely immune from refactoring. Tain't so. We'd probably need a strong consensus to make an exception to policy of that magnitude.
On 6/6/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. Now apply this to signatures.
However you seem here to be suggesting that I'm being told to any great degree that signatures are uniquely immune from refactoring. Tain't so. We'd probably need a strong consensus to make an exception to policy of that magnitude.
Ok, I didn't really catch the original wave of angst, but unlike other wikis, I haven't noticed a strong "you must refactor" vibe for talk pages at Wikipedia. Most people seem to prefer that their contributions be left alone, and on the rare occasions that one does refactor, there tend to be copious apologies and explanations of what one is doing.
Purely an observation. My first ever messages on my talk page were complaints from someone due to my deleting old discussions off article talk pages.
Steve
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should err on the side of non-unilateral action
What does that mean? How does this fit in with "Be bold"?
Pretty simply. [[WP:BOLD]] says that "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles." I'm not talking about updating articles, first, and second, I think your definition of "boldness" would just result in wheel-warring, which I think we all agree is a bad idea.
And even then, there are plenty of exceptions to unilateral action, since article content cannot just be decided by stubborn "bold" users.
FF
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a tip: When two dozen people complain about your unilateral decisions to delete things or what have you, you should consider re-opening it up to discussion, rather than insisting on your correctness.
Hmmm, you've got it wrong. One or two people made some ludicrous complaints. They made a RfC ("re-opening it up to discussion" ) and the result is that there is no significant challenge here to the normal process of refactoring.
Please read the history of this affair. You may find that it is considerably different from your preconceived ideas.
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a tip: When two dozen people complain about your unilateral decisions to delete things or what have you, you should consider re-opening it up to discussion, rather than insisting on your correctness.
Hmmm, you've got it wrong. One or two people made some ludicrous complaints. They made a RfC ("re-opening it up to discussion" ) and the result is that there is no significant challenge here to the normal process of refactoring.
Please read the history of this affair. You may find that it is considerably different from your preconceived ideas.
Here's the page I was referring to. People can judge for themselves who is being ludicrous. I think it's clear that there were a number of sober-minded people who thought the policy should be allowed to play out without Tony Sidaway's personal judgments coming in and overrunning it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
FF
George: you might as well give it up. Yes, Tony has an attitude problem (he proved as much when he declared "I don't have an attitude problem"), but: he is never ever in a million years going to admit it. I still haven't decided if it's because he's constitutionally incapable of realizing it, or because he loves playing coy and making points. Anyway, I agree, it's annoying as hell sometimes, but the consensus seems to be that his good points make up for his bad points, so we mostly put up with him.
Tony: I agree, cutsie sigs are as annoying as hell, too, but: are they *really* that big a problem in the grand scheme of things? Worth raising this much ruckus over? Surely someone who's been editing Wikipedia as long as you have is adept enough with a mouse cursor in an edit window to skip nimbly over and around them as necessary. Let the kiddies have their fun; they're not hurting anyone or impressing anyone who matters, anyway.
On 6/5/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Tony: I agree, cutsie sigs are as annoying as hell, too, but: are they *really* that big a problem in the grand scheme of things?
No, obviously not.
Worth raising this much ruckus over?
I have raised no ruckus. I simply edited some pages to remove some unnecessary formatting.
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Worth raising this much ruckus over?
I have raised no ruckus. I simply edited some pages to remove some unnecessary formatting.
"I didn't cause a traffic jam, I simply chose to park my semi-trailer in the most convenient place for me".
Dude, I'm on your side, but let's be honest - some of your actions cause community angst. Whether that angst is worth it or not is a separate debate, as is the question of whether the angst is in good faith or not, but let's not deny that that angst exists.
Steve
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Well obviously I don't know I'm going to piss someone off until I do.
So you admit you don't really understand wikipedians?
However refactoring does solve a real problem.
With the shear number of sigs out there no it does not.
Of course they'll be pissed off; if they didn't think that their signatures were more important than the discussion, they wouldn't have unnecessarily cluttered the discussion page.
More they don't think they are a problem. If you show that you respect them enough to talk to them about changeing thier sigs they are less likely to be anoyed.
While it doesn't solve their problem, it does solve *wikipedia's* problem. Wikipedians should take reasonable steps to avoid treading on toes, but should not go out of their way to bow to unreasonable demands.
Asking that you respect people enough to talk to them first is not a completely unreasonable demand.
On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote: It's not trivia to them, Tony.
That is the problem in a nutshell. Their signatures on a discussion page are more important than the aims of improving the readability and ease of editing on the discussion page. Their lack of perspective is thus a problem for Wikipedia.
Your solution is to simply piss them off, which eventually gets you RfC'ed and/or drives them away.
Other editors approach porblems of this ilk with discussions, friendly requests on talk pages, new policy proposals. And only resort to nuclear efforts for serious and sustained crisis situations.
It doesn't matter if the problem is their signatures. You need to treat them better. And that's your problem, not theirs.
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
That is the problem in a nutshell. Their signatures on a discussion page are more important than the aims of improving the readability and ease of editing on the discussion page. Their lack of perspective is thus a problem for Wikipedia.
Your solution is to simply piss them off, which eventually gets you RfC'ed and/or drives them away.
Well no, my solution is to perform reasonable edits on the discussion page that improve the signal-to-noise ratio. If this pisses people off, then I think you've acknowledged, the problem is a lack of perspective.
G'day Tony,
On 6/5/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It is never good to piss people off.
That you feel that you have to do so is a stunning indictment of your current attitude problem.
I don't have an attitude problem. I don't have to piss people off. However it seems to me that some people are queuing up to be pissed off over trivia. There is no substance to the complaint.
And that is quite a different situation.
You're both wrong. Sometimes pissing people off is inevitable; it's to be regretted, certainly, but just because Hothead Jock McHothead, the hottest head to grace the field of professional hotheads since 1872, has become upset doesn't mean we're going to say "damn, Hothead Jock got upset with me, what have I done wrong?" There are editors on Wikipedia who do not understand how things work, and get upset as a result; worse, there are editors on Wikipedia who get upset just for the fun of it, and that's hardly Tony's fault.
On the other hand, this "I don't have to piss people off" bizzo implies that *nobody* ever has a legitimate complaint against Tony Sidaway. While legit complaints aren't as common as certain userbox-loving newbies think, they *do* exist, and we can't dismiss them all. If a legitimate editor starts complaining about your attitude, you don't decide "they're complaining, they must not be legitimate" --- what you do is say "what have I done that has upset this person? How can I achieve my aim without pissing off such people?"
On 6/5/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
On the other hand, this "I don't have to piss people off" bizzo implies that *nobody* ever has a legitimate complaint against Tony Sidaway.
No, that's a non-sequiture. The sentence "I don't have to piss people off" is simply an acknowledgement that it is not necessary to piss people off.
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:45:14 -0700, you wrote:
It is never good to piss people off.
I disagree absolutely. It is very often good to piss them off, when the alternative is letting them deface the project. This list is full of people who are pissed off because they have been prevented from degrading the encyclopaedia.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:45:14 -0700, you wrote:
It is never good to piss people off.
I disagree absolutely. It is very often good to piss them off, when the alternative is letting them deface the project. This list is full of people who are pissed off because they have been prevented from degrading the encyclopaedia.
Reducto ad absurdum. Pissing off an obvious vandal (or subtle one) is par for the course. I don't care about their feelings.
I do care about normal positive editors who happen to run afoul of Tony's latest crusade du jour. One of the reasons to follow process is that people tend to go along with a consensus decision even if they personally disagree, but will often react strongly negatively to an arbitrary ruling by someone percieved to be a tin-pot dictator.
In this specific case, the only things which I have seen generally negatively reported about the collective small crowd highly offended by Tony's refactoring signatures is that they're newer contributors. Not vandals and not as a rule problem users.
Tony stepping on vandals a lot doesn't mean that everyone he steps on is a vandal. If you start seeing everyone you piss off as the same, you've lost.
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
That obviously isn't even remotely true. Look at the latest RfC: people who object to *refactoring a talk page* because the aim is to remove useless and intrusive formatting. I'd say "fuck process" here because, really, process is simply being used as an obstacle to the simple act of improving the editing environment by removing useless crap.
It is not an effective method of doing so. People have thosands of signatureas and anoying them makes it less liekly they are going to simplify their signitures in future.
In terms of effective methods I prefer the software side solution of switching off the ability to modify sigs.
Other than that asking people to modify thier sigs on their talk pages is more effective in the long term.
G'day George,
Even discounting a lot of the pile-on me-too complaints against Tony from problem editors, there remain significant numbers of people who aren't and object to some of the stuff he's done.
"Significant" is a bit strong. I'd go with "not insignificant". (Hey, it's a fine line ...)
My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using that justification, of late. Playing well with others is more important now.
"Fuck process" is an entirely appropriate attitude for any experienced Wikipedian to take. If you're doing the Right Thing, it doesn't matter if process backs you up or not --- if it does, well, whoopee, and if it doesn't, well we don't follow process when it leads to obvious absurdities (like not doing the Right Thing).
The thing is, you've got to be prepared to accept that what you're doing may not be the Right Thing and, if so, be willing to apologise. And Right/Wrong isn't binary: it's a spectrum from Wrong Thing to Right Thing and you can be 90% Right and still be causing legitimate editors to complain because you didn't get spot on. That's where "my ideals were right, but it lacked something in the execution" comes in.
And to make things more complicated, sometimes (but not as often as we're led to believe) the Right Thing can only be achieved by following process, lest we get 10% Wrong by pissing a legit editor off ...
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:12:18 -0700, you wrote:
My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using that justification, of late. Playing well with others is more important now.
Up to a point, I'd say. As far as I can tell Tony's beef with "process wonks" is that the slavish following of rules has come to replace building a great encyclopaedia as the primary goal. He has no patience with people who look first at the rules and only second at whether a given thing is good for the encyclopaedia or not. The decision hierarchy at present for many people seems to be community, guideline, policy, encyclopaedia - it should be the other way round.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:12:18 -0700, you wrote:
My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using that justification, of late. Playing well with others is more important now.
Up to a point, I'd say. As far as I can tell Tony's beef with "process wonks" is that the slavish following of rules has come to replace building a great encyclopaedia as the primary goal. He has no patience with people who look first at the rules and only second at whether a given thing is good for the encyclopaedia or not. The decision hierarchy at present for many people seems to be community, guideline, policy, encyclopaedia - it should be the other way round.
Guy (JzG)
Bravo, Guy. That's exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia these days. People often seem to take issue with [[WP:IAR]] and [[WP:SNOW]] without reading them in the first place; WP:SNOW in particular has some good words for process. The point is to use your head when doing something, and if you get headbutted back, get consensus before trying that again. (Of course, if you already have consensus, you can just steamroll the association of well-meaning but clueless newbies and trolls that stand in your way.)
John
On 6/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:12:18 -0700, you wrote:
My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using
that
justification, of late. Playing well with others is more important now.
Up to a point, I'd say. As far as I can tell Tony's beef with "process wonks" is that the slavish following of rules has come to replace building a great encyclopaedia as the primary goal. He has no patience with people who look first at the rules and only second at whether a given thing is good for the encyclopaedia or not. The decision hierarchy at present for many people seems to be community, guideline, policy, encyclopaedia - it should be the other way round.
Ok. So apply your preferred order to the signatures refactoring.
Encyclopedia: not affected. People's signatures are talk space / user space / admin space functions. Policy: weak policy on signature contents. Some that Tony zapped exceeded policy recommendations; some were within. Guideline: which one do you want to apply? Assume good faith? Be bold? The vaguer parts of the signature Policy? Community: Community subset gets upset. Community subset RfC's him.
If this had been some sort of issue with users dropping crap in mainspace articles, we wouldn't be here. We're here because it was not an issue affecting the Encyclopedia aspect of Wikipedia, where Tony exceeded the written Policy, With fuzzy Guideline applicability, and upset the Community.
Even if Community is your last priority, it has to be some priority. The signatures issue largely doesn't apply to the other levels.
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 02:23:32 -0700, you wrote:
Ok. So apply your preferred order to the signatures refactoring.
No-brainer. A sig which fills four lines of an edit window and which renders discussions larger than the edit box capability of my wireless handheld, is disruptive. Refactoring talk pages for readability is perfectly fine.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:12:18 -0700, you wrote:
My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using that justification, of late. Playing well with others is more important now.
Up to a point, I'd say. As far as I can tell Tony's beef with "process wonks" is that the slavish following of rules has come to replace building a great encyclopaedia as the primary goal.
No. So far as I'm aware most of the actual decision-making is made in a manner that would drive a serious process enthusiast to distraction if he was aware of it. This is not a bad thing. I see little or no evidence to support the claim that Wikipedia is yet anything resembling a process-bound institution. Process-building is of course necessary so those who work on that aspect of the encyclopedia are doing as much to build the encyclopedia as those who, through normal everyday good decision-making, smash unnecessary and onerous process. We have an equilibrium and a fairly healthy one, and this is how it should be.
George Herbert wrote:
My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using that justification, of late. Playing well with others is more important now.
Except that some people appear to see "playing with others" as their main purpose in life: they regard Wikipedia as their playground before it is a serious encyclopedia, or indeed an encyclopedia of any stripe.
THAT is the problem, and since this kind of person loves to hide behind smothering and complicated process, "fuck process" is sometimes the only way to deal with them expeditiously.
When you have a maroon who wants to argue over whether their Miranda Warning is printed in an appropriate font, simply slinging them in the river is frankly less time-consuming and in the long run better for the project. If, when they haul themselves out dripping wet, they wish to continue the argument, slinging them back in until they get the message is the only kindness that should be extended to them. Some of them should be attached to heavy weights[1] to increase the periods between re-emergence.
HTH HAND
On 6/5/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a
problem
for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using that justification, of late. Playing well with others is more important now.
Except that some people appear to see "playing with others" as their main purpose in life: they regard Wikipedia as their playground before it is a serious encyclopedia, or indeed an encyclopedia of any stripe.
THAT is the problem, and since this kind of person loves to hide behind smothering and complicated process, "fuck process" is sometimes the only way to deal with them expeditiously.
When you have a maroon who wants to argue over whether their Miranda Warning is printed in an appropriate font, simply slinging them in the river is frankly less time-consuming and in the long run better for the project. If, when they haul themselves out dripping wet, they wish to continue the argument, slinging them back in until they get the message is the only kindness that should be extended to them. Some of them should be attached to heavy weights[1] to increase the periods between re-emergence.
HTH HAND
Applying vandal-control measures and attitudes to editors who have some minor irritant in their actions in non-article space seems like an antisocial tack fo the project to take.
The people Tony went signature-hacking on weren't vandals.
On 6/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
In each of the numerous cases where Tony has wound me up, it has been because he unilaterally did something which was good for the encyclopaedia, and "fuck process".
But enough of my good points.
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 12:47:45AM +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/2/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Your attitude that it's ok to move beyond that into actually pissing them off, and doing things like rejecting RfCs out of hand merely because they're silly, is a serious problem.
Obviously not. There comes a point at which one must simply recognise that a completely and utterly fatuous complaint is being made, and move on.
It almost seems as if you're proud to be irritating people. That you think that those people are beneath you, or unable to understand the rightness of your position ... and that the fact that they oppose you and criticize you, only further demonstrates your rightness.
But Wikipedia makes tough decisions by seeking consensus. If lots of people think you're doing the wrong thing, that means you are operating without the support of consensus. And that's a problem.
As an administrator, your authorization to use administrative tools such as deletion extends only insofar as you use them to implement and support consensus. You are not authorized to use them to pursue your own projects. You are trusted to *implement* consensus decisions, not to make up the rules for yourself. When there is a controversy rather than a consensus, you are not authorized to "settle" it by your own say-so. Wikipedia has dispute-resolution procedures for settling controversies. Administrative fiat is not one of them.
Now, I'm not saying that just because _anyone_ complains, that you have to stop. Obviously, if vandals complain about being blocked, that's not a bad thing. But when actual contributors raise objections and go to the effort of formalizing those objections, a respect for the community that is supposed to trust you, demands that you stop the objectionable conduct.
We've seen what happens when an administrator decides that he gets to make the rules. We've seen what happens when an administrator decides that the objections of those he doesn't respect don't count. That's how we lost Ed Poor.
On 6/2/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Tony is going around pissing people off badly enough that they RfC him
over
it.
George, if I breathe someone gets pissed off. This isn't normally regarded as a cause for concern.
No, actually, your day to day stuff only ruffles people's feathers.
Your attitude that it's ok to do that is annoying.
Your attitude that it's ok to move beyond that into actually pissing them off, and doing things like rejecting RfCs out of hand merely because they're silly, is a serious problem.
If people are actively pissed off at the way you're behaving it is a serious problem. You are the single most active visible WP admin a lot of the time, and you're going around causing disruption and conflict throughout the community, and acting proud of it. What, exactly, do you think that sends as a message to new editors?
It is not ok to go around pissing people off. It is important to figure out how to get things done without pissing them off.
Well said, And to think that people are worrying about "possible polemical" effects and ignoring the deeper problems with the wikipedia community structure.
Peter Ansell
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
it's got the added problem that it would bring Wikipedia into disrepute.
Allowing gays to edit does that in the eyes of some people. Dito non-muslims, non-christians, athiests, agnoistics, furries, people without Phds and people who don't use US/british spelling.
On Jun 1, 2006, at 11:37 AM, George Herbert wrote:
This is politics 101. The way you have done this has brought the whole effort to delete all the religious userboxes (which I agree with in principle) into disrepute.
Like it or not, the current WP structure is in large part a political game, a large part of which is an engaged group of editors with less experience (both in WP and in online activities). Complaining that it has come to that is one thing. Acting in a manner which is antagonistic towards it is folly. Worse than folly, it is counterproductive and disruptive.
Very well said. I strongly agree. Everyone, *please* - don't act in such a way as to harm the exact proposal you are trying to put in place.
Jesse Weinstein
On May 31, 2006, at 6:13 PM, George Herbert wrote:
I kicked up the ANI not because I object to T2; I object to a point of view, selective application of T2. If it were applied globally to the religious userboxes, I wouldn't have objected at all.
"Point of view" is not an adjective.
On 6/3/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On May 31, 2006, at 6:13 PM, George Herbert wrote:
I kicked up the ANI not because I object to T2; I object to a point of view, selective application of T2. If it were applied globally to the religious userboxes, I wouldn't have objected at all.
"Point of view" is not an adjective.
How do you explain the term "POV fork"?
Steve
On Jun 3, 2006, at 12:22 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I kicked up the ANI not because I object to T2; I object to a point of view, selective application of T2. If it were applied globally to the religious userboxes, I wouldn't have objected at all.
"Point of view" is not an adjective.
How do you explain the term "POV fork"?
A cultural inability to use the word "biased". Also, the ability of acronyms to disguise what they stand for, allowing for bizarre usage that wouldn't exist in the spelled-out version (e.g. "PIN number", "ATM machine").
Philip Welch wrote:
On Jun 3, 2006, at 12:22 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I kicked up the ANI not because I object to T2; I object to a point of view, selective application of T2. If it were applied globally to the religious userboxes, I wouldn't have objected at all.
"Point of view" is not an adjective.
How do you explain the term "POV fork"?
A cultural inability to use the word "biased". Also, the ability of acronyms to disguise what they stand for, allowing for bizarre usage that wouldn't exist in the spelled-out version (e.g. "PIN number", "ATM machine").
The latter two are cases of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome.
Steve Bennett-8 wrote:
On 6/3/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
"Point of view" is not an adjective.
How do you explain the term "POV fork"?
Same as "colour separation".
Separation by colour...fork by POV.
HTH HAND
On 6/1/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic wrote:
Either cut all religious userboxes or keep them all, don't start getting selective. The box is just as useful as a "I am a Christian"-box.
Disrepute
due to beliefs is only an issue if said editors consistently misbehave.
People worry too much over userboxes.
On the one hand, I agree, the ongoing train wreck that is the userbox "war" is silly and unnecessary. On the one hand, I agree, all "I am a whatever-tian" boxes should either stand together or fall together. Personally, I don't care if you proclaim yourself to be a Christian or a Satanist or a Democrat or a Republican or a vegetarian or a Martian or a pedophile or a Nazi; the only thing that matters to me is whether you can edit encyclopedia articles intelligently, cooperatively, and productively.
But. On the other hand:
If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive to make a point. And it's exactly this sort of wilfulness, disruption, and point-making that gives rise to big problems with those seemingly silly, unimportant userboxes.
Yes, in this world filled with ignorance and intolerance, proclaiming you're a satanist is probably going to get you a different reaction, but my point is that if Wikipedia wants to get anywhere near neutral we should treat anyone who can edit properly equally.
Mgm
On Jun 1, 2006, at 12:14 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Yes, in this world filled with ignorance and intolerance, proclaiming you're a satanist is probably going to get you a different reaction, but my point is that if Wikipedia wants to get anywhere near neutral we should treat anyone who can edit properly equally.
Yes, of course; and if you see an example of us not doing this, please bring it up. *This* *was* *not* *one*. A userbox is not a user. One of the troublesome things about userboxes (or any template that expresses a personal attribute) is that people often mistake them for the people themselves, and consider an edit to the template to be an attack on them, personally. This is an utterly understandable, but sad and troublesome *mistake*.
Please - put personal expression where it belongs - directly on your userpage.
Jesse Weinstein
MacGyverMagic wrote:
On 6/1/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive to make a point.
Yes, in this world filled with ignorance and intolerance, proclaiming you're a satanist is probably going to get you a different reaction, but my point is that if Wikipedia wants to get anywhere near neutral we should treat anyone who can edit properly equally.
Indeed, and agreed, on both counts. But my point is that, ignorant and intolerant though the world certainly is, Wikipedia user pages are not the place to get this particular injustice redressed.
On 6/1/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic wrote:
Either cut all religious userboxes or keep them all, don't start getting selective. The box is just as useful as a "I am a Christian"-box. Disrepute due to beliefs is only an issue if said editors consistently misbehave.
People worry too much over userboxes.
On the one hand, I agree, the ongoing train wreck that is the userbox "war" is silly and unnecessary. On the one hand, I agree, all "I am a whatever-tian" boxes should either stand together or fall together. Personally, I don't care if you proclaim yourself to be a Christian or a Satanist or a Democrat or a Republican or a vegetarian or a Martian or a pedophile or a Nazi; the only thing that matters to me is whether you can edit encyclopedia articles intelligently, cooperatively, and productively.
But. On the other hand:
If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive to make a point. And it's exactly this sort of wilfulness, disruption, and point-making that gives rise to big problems with those seemingly silly, unimportant userboxes.
So we can promote things only if they are not divisive and inflammatory in American English Christian culture? Because saying that you are a christian will be extremely inflammatory in some parts. And non-religious people may not even take offense to the satanist statement.
Your point of view is no better than any other point of view. Stop revealing your biases in such a tangible way. Wikipedia should allow editors no matter what background they come from. You are tailoring wikipedia to your select group of editors, which will not ultimately fulfill the neutral point of view policy.
Also, calling someone disruptive because they dont hold your point of view is poor form.
Peter Ansell
On Jun 1, 2006, at 12:22 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
So we can promote things
Could you expand on this? AFAIK, the topic under discussion was a template, intended to be placed on user pages, containing the text: "This user is a Satanist" (IIRC). Is this intended to promote something? Is this intended to promote the improvement of some article in Wikipedia? Generally, most things in the non-article space parts of Wikipedia are designed to assist in writing the encyclopedia, or reflect on such writing. Unless I am mistaken, very few if any things on Wikipedia are designed to promote anything, except possibly Wikipedia itself. I look forward to you expanding on what you mean by this.
<major sniping>
Wikipedia should allow editors no matter what background they come from.
And (baring the Islamic issue discussed here ad nausaum), what evidence do you have that Wikipedia does not? Deleting a template is not blocking anyone from editing the encyclopedia, unless I am seriously out of touch here...
<further major sniping>
Jesse Weinstein
On 6/1/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 12:22 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
So we can promote things
Could you expand on this? AFAIK, the topic under discussion was a template, intended to be placed on user pages, containing the text: "This user is a Satanist" (IIRC). Is this intended to promote something? Is this intended to promote the improvement of some article in Wikipedia? Generally, most things in the non-article space parts of Wikipedia are designed to assist in writing the encyclopedia, or reflect on such writing. Unless I am mistaken, very few if any things on Wikipedia are designed to promote anything, except possibly Wikipedia itself. I look forward to you expanding on what you mean by this.
<major sniping>
Wikipedia should allow editors no matter what background they come from.
And (baring the Islamic issue discussed here ad nausaum), what evidence do you have that Wikipedia does not? Deleting a template is not blocking anyone from editing the encyclopedia, unless I am seriously out of touch here...
<further major sniping>
Jesse Weinstein
You make it seem like the issue about templates and articles are two totally different issues. I was pointing out that by putting forward the "lets not offend" anyone argument just because a template is bad while editors are encouraged to edit the article on the topic is not consistent. The inflammatory argument is simply put down as someones point of view. Calling my post major sniping seems very premature when you didn't understand that. I wasn't talking about articles, I was emphasising the irony between delete satanist templates and justifying the deletion using NPOV, when they are infact not neutral themselves.
Peter Ansell
Thanks for the response...
On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:56 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
On 6/1/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 12:22 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
So we can promote things
Could you expand on this? AFAIK, the topic under discussion was a template, intended to be placed on user pages, containing the text: "This user is a Satanist" (IIRC). Is this intended to promote something? Is this intended to promote the improvement of some article in Wikipedia? Generally, most things in the non-article space parts of Wikipedia are designed to assist in writing the encyclopedia, or reflect on such writing. Unless I am mistaken, very few if any things on Wikipedia are designed to promote anything, except possibly Wikipedia itself. I look forward to you expanding on what you mean by this.
<major sniping>
Wikipedia should allow editors no matter what background they come from.
And (baring the Islamic issue discussed here ad nausaum), what evidence do you have that Wikipedia does not? Deleting a template is not blocking anyone from editing the encyclopedia, unless I am seriously out of touch here...
You make it seem like the issue about templates and articles are two totally different issues.
Er, I asked for two things. 1) What did you mean by "promote"? 2) What evidence do you have that Wikipedia is not allowing people to edit because of their background? Unless I am misunderstanding, you didn't provide either of these in your response. I look forward to you doing so.
<part of original message removed>
Calling my post major sniping seems very premature when you didn't understand that.
As for the comment about "major sniping", that was a typo. ;-) I meant to say <large parts of the original message removed>. Sorry about that.
Continuing to wonder about "promote", Jesse Weinstein
On 6/1/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
Thanks for the response...
On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:56 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
On 6/1/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 12:22 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
So we can promote things
Could you expand on this? AFAIK, the topic under discussion was a template, intended to be placed on user pages, containing the text: "This user is a Satanist" (IIRC). Is this intended to promote something? Is this intended to promote the improvement of some article in Wikipedia? Generally, most things in the non-article space parts of Wikipedia are designed to assist in writing the encyclopedia, or reflect on such writing. Unless I am mistaken, very few if any things on Wikipedia are designed to promote anything, except possibly Wikipedia itself. I look forward to you expanding on what you mean by this.
<major sniping>
Wikipedia should allow editors no matter what background they come from.
And (baring the Islamic issue discussed here ad nausaum), what evidence do you have that Wikipedia does not? Deleting a template is not blocking anyone from editing the encyclopedia, unless I am seriously out of touch here...
You make it seem like the issue about templates and articles are two totally different issues.
Er, I asked for two things. 1) What did you mean by "promote"? 2) What evidence do you have that Wikipedia is not allowing people to edit because of their background? Unless I am misunderstanding, you didn't provide either of these in your response. I look forward to you doing so.
<part of original message removed>
Calling my post major sniping seems very premature when you didn't understand that.
As for the comment about "major sniping", that was a typo. ;-) I meant to say <large parts of the original message removed>. Sorry about that.
Continuing to wonder about "promote", Jesse Weinstein
The promote statement was a rhetorically worded question, which implied a position based on the previous post which implied that any other action was disruption of wikipedia (which is a serious and blockable offense no less). I was pointing out that their point of view which allowed This user is a christian and strictly disallowed this user is a satanist, to be against in wikipedia's neutral philosophy. The word promote may not have been the right word, however, the action which based the wikipedia definition of inflammatory and divisive in the american christian way of life has not been rebutted.
I didn't actually say that wikipedia was not allowing people to edit based on their background. I apologise if it came across that way. I was merely stating the position that it should and does indeed promote edits by any serious editor wanting in good faith to improve wikipedia. That goes against someone who claims that no serious editor (given their personal culture) would ever in good faith say that they were a satanist. They were bringing in far more of their personal bias to wikipedia than these templates ever have (as long as they are all available and not deleted by people with personal religious agendas)
Peter Ansell
On Jun 1, 2006, at 2:33 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
On 6/1/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:56 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
<various multi-level quotes removed>
You make it seem like the issue about templates and articles are two totally different issues.
Er, I asked for two things. 1) What did you mean by "promote"? 2) What evidence do you have that Wikipedia is not allowing people to edit because of their background? Unless I am misunderstanding, you didn't provide either of these in your response. I look forward to you doing so.
The promote statement was a rhetorically worded question, which implied a position based on the previous post which implied that any other action was disruption of wikipedia (which is a serious and blockable offense no less).
Thank you, that explains it. Promote was indeed the wrong word, but one that is an easy mistake to make when considering matters related to userboxes, as they have a great tendency to provoke such mistakes, blurring as they do the distinctions between userpages and public parts of the wiki, and between public expressions of personal attributes and promotion and advocacy of those attributes. This is yet another reason why userboxes are a troubling thing to both the community and the wiki.
<part of original message removed>
The word promote may not have been the right word, however, the action which based the wikipedia definition of inflammatory and divisive in the american christian way of life has not been rebutted.
I realize this. I have no comment either way on that subject at this time.
I didn't actually say that wikipedia was not allowing people to edit based on their background. I apologise if it came across that way.
Understood. But if Wikipedia is not preventing people from editing based on their background, but instead, not providing them with pre-made templates to express one aspect of that background - I don't really see the connection here. You imply that not providing a pre-made template to express every aspect of every contributor would be a violation of our principle of encouraging edits by any serious, good-faith contributor. I don't see where you justify this.
Thanks for the response! Jesse Weinstein
On 6/2/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 2:33 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
The promote statement was a rhetorically worded question, which implied a position based on the previous post which implied that any other action was disruption of wikipedia (which is a serious and blockable offense no less).
Thank you, that explains it. Promote was indeed the wrong word, but one that is an easy mistake to make when considering matters related to userboxes, as they have a great tendency to provoke such mistakes, blurring as they do the distinctions between userpages and public parts of the wiki, and between public expressions of personal attributes and promotion and advocacy of those attributes. This is yet another reason why userboxes are a troubling thing to both the community and the wiki.
The fact that user space exists at all to me is a distinction. The fact that outsiders may not make the distinction does not change the fact that it exists and had a specific purpose. If someone who did not realise that templates were "accommodated" for within a part of wikipedia which also accommodates other template objects used in the encyclopedia, discovered a user page with a belief statement, and a user page with a belief userbox, they are not likely to be any less inflamed by the statement than they may be by the userbox. Even stating interest in satanism is likely to provoke a person who would have been affected by the userbox.
The word promote may not have been the right word, however, the action which based the wikipedia definition of inflammatory and divisive in the american christian way of life has not been rebutted.
I realize this. I have no comment either way on that subject at this time.
It is a complex issue, I respect that. However, I will say something on it, more for to further articulate myself than anything else.
Having said what I did above, it is not simply a reason to delete the ones with beliefs just because an outsider may think a certain way. Maybe we should be questioning the whole idea of having any allowance of statement about anything on user pages. It is either that or risk a long unhealthy internal discussion on just what other things are possibly inflammatory and divisive. Simply changing userboxes to "interest" as opposed to belief userboxes will not change anything as the subject is what is provoking responses, not the word "believe".
I didn't actually say that wikipedia was not allowing people to edit based on their background. I apologise if it came across that way.
Understood. But if Wikipedia is not preventing people from editing based on their background, but instead, not providing them with pre-made templates to express one aspect of that background - I don't really see the connection here. You imply that not providing a pre-made template to express every aspect of every contributor would be a violation of our principle of encouraging edits by any serious, good-faith contributor. I don't see where you justify this.
As I said above, the providing of a template does not have any greater effect over text based statements of belief. It is still wikipedia allowing a statement of belief. I did not mean to say that wikipedia should necessarily provide a premade template for ever aspect, however, I did mean to say that deleting just because editors or viewers of a certain background will be inflamed by the statement does not have precedent on wikipedia. We allow the most inflammatory thing possible, ie, the danish cartoons depicting Allah and Mohammed. If the encylopedia can detail such an inflammatory thing why can't user pages have simple statements of belief in long established religions.
It reeks of American Christian bias to me. (And for those who discount the cartoons just because they have been discussed previously, Don't!, they are for the time being the single most inflammatory thing available)
Peter Ansell
Peter Ansell wrote: <snip>
As I said above, the providing of a template does not have any greater effect over text based statements of belief. It is still wikipedia allowing a statement of belief. I did not mean to say that wikipedia should necessarily provide a premade template for ever aspect, however, I did mean to say that deleting just because editors or viewers of a certain background will be inflamed by the statement does not have precedent on wikipedia. We allow the most inflammatory thing possible, ie, the danish cartoons depicting Allah and Mohammed. If the encylopedia can detail such an inflammatory thing why can't user pages have simple statements of belief in long established religions.
One of the biggest problems is that userboxes are written in the third person; some party external to the user (ie. Wikipedia/WMF) seems to be making the statement, "this user does XYZ (and we certify/endorse this)". Allowing what appear to be "official statements" with such strong POVs to appear on userpages looks like a violation of NPOV, which is a Bad Thing.
It reeks of American Christian bias to me.
You're wrong. Most (United States of) Americans on Wikipedia aren't Christians.
(And for those who discount the cartoons just because they have been discussed previously, Don't!, they are for the time being the single most inflammatory thing available)
How about [[Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg]] (not safe for work)?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alphax (Wikipedia email) stated for the record:
You're wrong. Most (United States of) Americans on Wikipedia aren't Christians.
{{citation required}}
- -- Sean Barrett | Attention! Your attention please! sean@epoptic.com | A newsflash has this moment arrived | from the Tikrit Front! Our forces in | Northern Iraq have won a glorious victory!
On 6/3/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
You're wrong. Most (United States of) Americans on Wikipedia aren't Christians.
The majority of Americans are fundamentalist christians. The greater majority are christians of any denomination. It would be interesting to know why christians are underrepresented at Wikipedia, if indeed that is the case.
Steve
On 03/06/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The majority of Americans are fundamentalist christians. The greater majority are christians of any denomination. It would be interesting to know why christians are underrepresented at Wikipedia, if indeed that is the case.
I don't find that interesting, either way. If it mattered, there would be a violation of NPOV somewhere, guaranteed. The Wikipedia is actually neither religious nor American.
Steve
On 6/4/06, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/06/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The majority of Americans are fundamentalist christians. The greater majority are christians of any denomination. It would be interesting to know why christians are underrepresented at Wikipedia, if indeed that is the case.
I don't find that interesting, either way. If it mattered, there would be a violation of NPOV somewhere, guaranteed. The Wikipedia is actually neither religious nor American.
I see it as mattering because there would not likely be a neutral "world view" with respect to the parts of the encyclopedia describing either part. That is precisely how I read the NPOV policy.
Peter Ansell
On 6/3/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The majority of Americans are fundamentalist christians.
Wondering if you have any stats for this. I'm skeptical. --LV
Voldemort wrote:
On 6/3/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The majority of Americans are fundamentalist christians.
Wondering if you have any stats for this. I'm skeptical.
Me, too. (In particular, just because the Republican party panders to fundamentalist Christians doesn't mean everyone who votes Republican is a fundamentalist Christian.)
Lord Voldemort wrote:
On 6/3/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The majority of Americans are fundamentalist christians.
Wondering if you have any stats for this. I'm skeptical.
I'm not too sure what this has to do with Wikipedia, but no, the majority of Americans are not fundamentlist Christians. While 77% of Americans do identify as Christian, most are not particularly ardent Christians. When asked whether they would consider themselves "religious", "somewhat religious", "somewhat secular", or "secular", only 37% of Americans said "religious". Had there been a further category of "extremely religious", presumably even fewer would've chosen it.
Source: 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, Columbia University [http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm]
-Mark
On 6/3/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I'm not too sure what this has to do with Wikipedia, but no, the majority of Americans are not fundamentlist Christians. While 77% of Americans do identify as Christian, most are not particularly ardent Christians. When asked whether they would consider themselves "religious", "somewhat religious", "somewhat secular", or "secular", only 37% of Americans said "religious". Had there been a further category of "extremely religious", presumably even fewer would've chosen it.
Source: 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, Columbia University [http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm]
Hmm, I seem to recall having read at least twice that more than 50% of the US population believes that the world was literally created in seven days, around 6000 years ago. But I don't have a source.
I'm happy to let that one go.
Steve
On 6/3/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, I seem to recall having read at least twice that more than 50% of the US population believes that the world was literally created in seven days, around 6000 years ago. But I don't have a source.
Like all such surveys, the responses are highly questionable. People answer differently depending on how the question is phrased, and people often answer what they believe the questioner wants to hear. Selection bias can also be a problem.
-Matt
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:34:48PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
The majority of Americans are fundamentalist christians. The greater majority are christians of any denomination.
Hmm. I'm curious what you mean by "fundamentalist Christians" in that claim. Do you mean people who answer "Yes" when asked, "Are you a fundamentalist Christian"? Do you mean people who claim to have certain beliefs which you label "fundamentalist Christian"? Do you mean anyone whose beliefs are more "fundamentalist Christian" than yours? Do you mean people who engage in religious practices which you regard as "fundamentalist Christian"? Or, perhaps, people who are formal members of organizations (such as churches) which label themselves such?
It would be interesting to know why christians are underrepresented at Wikipedia, if indeed that is the case.
The explanation could be as simple as this: Statistically, people who are more highly educated are less likely than the population average to describe themselves as Christians. Among Christians, they are more likely to be adherents to more liturgical or "high church" groups than to fundamentalist groups.
Many non-Christians in the U.S. (and other English-speaking countries) are immigrants from Asian nations where Christianity is not the dominant religion. In order to be a legal immigrant you more or less have to be seeking a job abroad; this usually requires a certain degree of higher education.
People who are more highly educated are more likely to have Internet access; to find the idea of encyclopedias interesting; to have the free time to participate in a volunteer project; to think positively of free-content enterprises; and to prefer Wikipedia's universalist notion of neutrality rather than preferring explicit recognition of a shared (nationalist or religious, e.g.) point of view.
Peter Ansell wrote:
So we can promote things only if they are not divisive and inflammatory in American English Christian culture? Because saying that you are a christian will be extremely inflammatory in some parts. And non-religious people may not even take offense to the satanist statement.
Actually, the christian userbox is up for deletion as well. This isn't about prejudice.
On 6/1/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
So we can promote things only if they are not divisive and inflammatory in American English Christian culture?
No, this is an encyclopedia. We do not promote ANYTHING.
However, if we're going to have to debate this issue thousands of times (roughly once per five userboxes removed, I suspect) then at least we can weed out the obviously absurd reviews. Such as those that should be rejected on other grounds, even if people are prepared to pack polls and vote against "What Wikipedia is NOT".
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
So we can promote things only if they are not divisive and inflammatory in American English Christian culture?
No, this is an encyclopedia. We do not promote ANYTHING.
However, if we're going to have to debate this issue thousands of times (roughly once per five userboxes removed, I suspect) then at least we can weed out the obviously absurd reviews. Such as those that should be rejected on other grounds, even if people are prepared to pack polls and vote against "What Wikipedia is NOT".
If we dont promote anything, then why are you putting down your bias towards what you feel is inflammatory and divisive, while ignoring others pleas that such things are not in any way included in that criteria.
What wikipedia "is" is more important than what it is not. It is a neutral point of view area. By putting down your obvious point of view against satanism, and just making the christian box go to be consistent, you are showing that you are not infact driven by "what wikipedia is" (ie. a place where you are neutral and therefore accepting of others biases in good faith that they will not take them to articles).
BTW, "packing the polls" may just be a reflection of how many people are actually trying to show how much support (and hence not divisiveness) the "keep" side has.
Peter Ansell
On 6/1/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
What wikipedia "is" is more important than what it is not. It is a neutral point of view area.
Quite. All of these religious templates will go.
BTW, "packing the polls" may just be a reflection of how many people are actually trying to show how much support (and hence not divisiveness) the "keep" side has.
It doesn't matter how many people vote to say that unencyclopedic materia should stay. It still has to go. That's what the policy is about.
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't matter how many people vote to say that unencyclopedic materia should stay. It still has to go. That's what the policy is about.
I don't don't think they are ending up in the article namespace to any degree. Thus it doesn't matter if they are unencyclopedic. AN/I is unencyclopedic.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/1/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
So we can promote things only if they are not divisive and inflammatory in American English Christian culture?
No, this is an encyclopedia. We do not promote ANYTHING.
However, if we're going to have to debate this issue thousands of times (roughly once per five userboxes removed, I suspect) then at least we can weed out the obviously absurd reviews. Such as those that should be rejected on other grounds, even if people are prepared to pack polls and vote against "What Wikipedia is NOT".
I certainly agree as far as the encyclopedia goes, but user pages aren't part of the encyclopedia proper. I say on my user page that I live in Atlanta, which isn't particularly encyclopedic, nor even very helpful for writing an encyclopedia, but I don't see any harm in it either.
I think you're using the wrong set of criteria here. The primary purpose is indeed to write an encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean that userpages must themselves meet the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I do agree that Wikipedia isn't a general social-networking site, so if they actively harm the task of writing an encyclopedia then they should go. That's a different criterion than saying they should go because they "promote" something.
I can't say I myself see much problem with people saying on their userpages what their religious beliefs are. Some (like "I'm a Satanist") will offend people, but then so do a lot of things ("I'm gay", for one), and I'm not sure proscribing them all helps the project of writing an encyclopedia more than it harms it.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
I can't say I myself see much problem with people saying on their userpages what their religious beliefs are. Some (like "I'm a Satanist") will offend people, but then so do a lot of things ("I'm gay", for one), and I'm not sure proscribing them all helps the project of writing an encyclopedia more than it harms it.
I should add, by way of making clear I'm actually on the other side of the "userbox wars", that I *do* think deleting all userboxes except possibly the babel ones might help the project of writing an encyclopedia more than it harms it. Not because some are "disreputable", but because people can just as well write things on their userpages without templates, and we can be free of this whole distracting mess.
-Mark
On Jun 1, 2006, at 2:38 PM, Delirium wrote:
I can't say I myself see much problem with people saying on their userpages what their religious beliefs are.
This is a semi-straw man argument. Userbox templates *ARE NOT ONLY ON USER PAGES*. If they were, the conflict (while possibly still present) would be vastly reduced. Userbox templates are a number of other places as well as being on userpages. Specifically, they are 1) In Template space. 2) In subpages of Wikipedia:Userboxes. I look forward to your thoughts on the degree of problems (or lack of such) of having people say what their religious beliefs are in the two places I mentioned. Thanks!
Jesse Weinstein
Jesse W wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 2:38 PM, Delirium wrote:
I can't say I myself see much problem with people saying on their userpages what their religious beliefs are.
This is a semi-straw man argument. Userbox templates *ARE NOT ONLY ON USER PAGES*. If they were, the conflict (while possibly still present) would be vastly reduced. Userbox templates are a number of other places as well as being on userpages. Specifically, they are 1) In Template space. 2) In subpages of Wikipedia:Userboxes. I look forward to your thoughts on the degree of problems (or lack of such) of having people say what their religious beliefs are in the two places I mentioned. Thanks!
I guess I don't see those as "being" anywhere. Template space and lists of templates are implementation details, not articles. As far as neutrality goes, I don't see a particularly large problem with a giant list of all possible opinions anyone could hold. In fact that seems like a pretty neutral way to do it!
That's not to say I think userboxes serve any useful purpose, but I don't think either #1 or #2 you list are good objections.
-Mark
Quick response you gave. Here's one back. ;-)
On Jun 1, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Delirium wrote:
Jesse W wrote:
This is a semi-straw man argument. Userbox templates *ARE NOT ONLY ON USER PAGES*. If they were, the conflict (while possibly still present) would be vastly reduced. Userbox templates are a number of other places as well as being on userpages. Specifically, they are 1) In Template space. 2) In subpages of Wikipedia:Userboxes. I look forward to your thoughts on the degree of problems (or lack of such) of having people say what their religious beliefs are in the two places I mentioned. Thanks!
I guess I don't see those as "being" anywhere. Template space and lists of templates are implementation details, not articles.
It's only important in that user pages have different customs than most everywhere else on Wikipedia, and extending these customs to shared little boxes creates various forms of endemic confusion and upset.
As far as neutrality goes, I don't see a particularly large problem with a giant list of all possible opinions anyone could hold. In fact that seems like a pretty neutral way to do it!
That is a good point, and I thank you for reminding me of it. Of course, one of the general guidelines of Wikipedia is not to fork subjects - to fight over one consensus narrative of a subject rather than hosting lots of forks with different perspectives - but maybe this guideline should not apply for shared bits of personal expression. (Of course, that in itself might argue against the use of Wikipedia for such things...)
Jesse Weinstein
On 6/2/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 2:38 PM, Delirium wrote:
I can't say I myself see much problem with people saying on their userpages what their religious beliefs are.
This is a semi-straw man argument. Userbox templates *ARE NOT ONLY ON USER PAGES*. If they were, the conflict (while possibly still present) would be vastly reduced. Userbox templates are a number of other places as well as being on userpages. Specifically, they are 1) In Template space. 2) In subpages of Wikipedia:Userboxes. I look forward to your thoughts on the degree of problems (or lack of such) of having people say what their religious beliefs are in the two places I mentioned. Thanks!
Template space and Wikipedia: space are not linked to any user, and therefore, they are in a different position. The actual placement of the HTML on a user page to display the box will have the same effect no matter where it comes from. If someone does not understand the difference between user space and article space when they put a userbox down then it is a failure of wikipedia to make the difference obvious. User space is not classed as encyclopedic content, so why should template space come under the encyclopedic content category, as there are numerous in house templates that are clearly not contributing to human knowledge. The running of the encyclopedia and the personal notations given by users to help others understand their biases better are two very valid uses of template space in my view.
If an only if an editor transfers their statements of bias in a bad faith way to articles they personally should be told off for it. If an editor takes offense to anothers statement of bias they should think about how that particular statement could possibly contribute to the improvement of the community effort to build up a neutral human knowledge resource, without discounting opinions by others about statements of bias being useful. It is the inflamed person who chose to be inflamed, not the user who made a good faith statement in the place they felt was best suited to the overall effort.
A question I want to know an answer for is just how inflammatory can something be and still stay. Allusions have been made to pseudo sciences in discussions so far as well as beliefs. How many sciences for instance are deemed not to be inflammatory and divisive enough to be allowed as statements of belief and or interest on user pages.
Peter Ansell
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 6/1/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
...On the one hand, I agree, all "I am a whatever-tian" boxes should either stand together or fall together. Personally, I don't care if you proclaim yourself to be a Christian or a Satanist or a Democrat or a Republican or a vegetarian or a Martian or a pedophile or a Nazi...
But. On the other hand:
If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive to make a point. And it's exactly this sort of wilfulness, disruption, and point-making that gives rise to big problems with those seemingly silly, unimportant userboxes.
So we can promote things only if they are not divisive and inflammatory in American English Christian culture?
Did you even read any of my "On the one hand" paragraph?
Because saying that you are a christian will be extremely inflammatory in some parts.
Indeed, and I apologize for my ill-advised use of the somewhat vague and admittedly parochial term "this society". (But on the other hand, this *is* the mailing list for the English Wikipedia.)
Your point of view is no better than any other point of view. Stop revealing your biases in such a tangible way.
Do please explain what my bias is here.
Also, calling someone disruptive because they dont hold your point of view is poor form.
Oh, please. I did not say it was disruptive because MacGyverMagic doesn't hold my point of view. I said it's disruptive because it's a simple *fact*. There are people who will become upset if you wave the statement "I am a satanist" in their face. (But yes, yes, it's equally true that there are people who will become upset if you wave the statement "I am a Christian" in their face.)
Steve Summit wrote:
If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive to make a point.
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between Christianity and Satanism (whether Theistic or LaVeyan) is that Christianity was made up longer ago...
Cheers,
N.
Nick Boalch wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive to make a point.
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between Christianity and Satanism (whether Theistic or LaVeyan) is that Christianity was made up longer ago...
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between you and a banned troll is that you're not banned yet...
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive to make a point.
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between Christianity and Satanism (whether Theistic or LaVeyan) is that Christianity was made up longer ago...
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between you and a banned troll is that you're not banned yet...
Does [[WP:NPA]] apply to the mailing list?
If you really need me to make the implicit conclusion to my statement explicit, here it is:
...so both userboxes, and indeed all expressing a religious bias, should be deleted.
Cheers,
N.
Nick Boalch wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive to make a point.
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between Christianity and Satanism (whether Theistic or LaVeyan) is that Christianity was made up longer ago...
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between you and a banned troll is that you're not banned yet...
Does [[WP:NPA]] apply to the mailing list?
No.
If you really need me to make the implicit conclusion to my statement explicit, here it is:
...so both userboxes, and indeed all expressing a religious bias, should be deleted.
I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Nick Boalch stated for the record:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive to make a point.
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between Christianity and Satanism (whether Theistic or LaVeyan) is that Christianity was made up longer ago...
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between you and a banned troll is that you're not banned yet...
Does [[WP:NPA]] apply to the mailing list?
If it did, your attack on religious believers would eliminate the difference between you and a banned troll.
- -- Sean Barrett | You'll never find a more wretched hive sean@epoptic.com | of scum and villainy. --Obi-Wan Kenobi
Sean Barrett wrote:
If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive to make a point.
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between Christianity and Satanism (whether Theistic or LaVeyan) is that Christianity was made up longer ago...
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between you and a banned troll is that you're not banned yet...
Does [[WP:NPA]] apply to the mailing list?
If it did, your attack on religious believers would eliminate the difference between you and a banned troll.
There's an awful lot of difference between attacking an individual and 'attacking' a belief system.
Cheers,
N.
Nick Boalch wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
> If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between > saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully > ignorant, or disruptive to make a point. Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between Christianity and Satanism (whether Theistic or LaVeyan) is that Christianity was made up longer ago...
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between you and a banned troll is that you're not banned yet...
Does [[WP:NPA]] apply to the mailing list?
If it did, your attack on religious believers would eliminate the difference between you and a banned troll.
There's an awful lot of difference between attacking an individual and 'attacking' a belief system.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
On 6/2/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
> If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between > saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully > ignorant, or disruptive to make a point.
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between Christianity and Satanism (whether Theistic or LaVeyan) is that Christianity was made up longer ago...
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between you and a banned troll is that you're not banned yet...
Does [[WP:NPA]] apply to the mailing list?
If it did, your attack on religious believers would eliminate the difference between you and a banned troll.
There's an awful lot of difference between attacking an individual and 'attacking' a belief system.
This thread was started with a statement that a particular belief system would bring wikipedia into disrepute. Attacking people because they are discussing this, and equating them with trolls, together with a threat to ban them if they feel like discussing anymore, doesn't exactly serve to keep a community together. Try to see this discussion in good faith.
Peter Ansell
On 6/2/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Nick Boalch wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive to make a point.
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between Christianity and Satanism (whether Theistic or LaVeyan) is that Christianity was made up longer ago...
Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between you and a banned troll is that you're not banned yet...
If you feel like making bold statements (ie, banning) based on someone saying that two religions do not provoke inflammatory responses in their view, then feel free and go ahead. It would be a dangerous precedent but isn't that what WP:BOLD is all about, being bold and putting your views down in a tangible way.
Peter Ansell
On 5/31/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
this was a deletion review, with a view to restoration, of a userbox that said the owner was a satanist. I have canceled it on the grounds that such a template could only bring the project into disrepute.
Doubtful. general readers don't see the userspace and ant wikipedian who cares what religion another wikipedian is is going to have problems functioning. The satanist world view may be given to seeing the world through rose tinted specs but there is no reason they can't edit wikipedia.