--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There is the fact that a specific vote on whether admins could block people for personal attacks failed to achieve consensus a few months ago (a real pity, in my opinion). As such, it's dicey ground.
(Do you know where I could find the page where this vote took place?)
I think something like a 24-hour block for clear outbursts of of personal abuse would be a very sensible policy for Wikipedia to adopt. When users become stressed out enough to lash out at others, it's probably as good for them as for the project to take a time-out.
-- Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Matt R wrote:
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There is the fact that a specific vote on whether admins could block people for personal attacks failed to achieve consensus a few months ago (a real pity, in my opinion). As such, it's dicey ground.
(Do you know where I could find the page where this vote took place?)
[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks (old)]] has the vote. The vote came out 36 for, 26 against, 5 neutral - simple majority, but not enough of one to indicate consensus. As far as I can tell, the objections are that it's too subjective.
The instructive recent case of Skyring versus Adam Carr (a coupla messages ago) shows one obvious hole: Skyring belittling or ignoring all attempts at reason until the editor attempting to reason with him blows his top at the intransigent POV-pusher.
(In recent cases like this, the ArbCom has tended to admonish to caution the editor in question not to respond in kind even to severe provocation, rather than giving blocks per se, and the provocative editor has typically been strongly sanctioned. Note however the AC uses precedent as a guide, not a bounding.)
- d.
David Gerard said:
[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks (old)]] has the vote. The vote came out 36 for, 26 against, 5 neutral - simple majority, but not enough of one to indicate consensus. As far as I can tell, the objections are that it's too subjective.
The instructive recent case of Skyring versus Adam Carr (a coupla messages ago) shows one obvious hole: Skyring belittling or ignoring all attempts at reason until the editor attempting to reason with him blows his top at the intransigent POV-pusher.
This is the killer for me. Some people have lower boiling points than others and can easily be provoked. Enforcing "No personal attacks" by blocking throws those, relatively vulnerable people into the firing line of the subtler trolls. I support "Remove personal attacks" as a reasonable way of dealing with personal attacks. Although it's equally subjective, it's open and accountable and throws the onus on the person perceiving a personal attack while making it hard for such attacks to derail discussion.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Some people have lower boiling points than others and can easily be provoked.
This is not to my knowledge a terminal condition or a good excuse. We can all learn to boil slowly and gently. The message of the policy is clear. "Take responsibility for your own temper."
Tom Haws
Tom Haws said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Some people have lower boiling points than others and can easily be provoked.
This is not to my knowledge a terminal condition or a good excuse. We can all learn to boil slowly and gently. The message of the policy is clear. "Take responsibility for your own temper."
Absolutely. I completely agree with this.
However I was pointing out that an undesired side-effect of enforcing "no personal attacks" with blocking could be, paradoxically, to give some people an incentive to provoke _more_ personal attacks.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I was pointing out that an undesired side-effect of enforcing "no personal attacks" with blocking could be, paradoxically, to give some people an incentive to provoke _more_ personal attacks.
100% correct, Tony. Enforcement is a poor bandaid for bad diplomacy (hmm, international implications here?)
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:22:08 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Tom Haws said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Some people have lower boiling points than others and can easily be provoked.
This is not to my knowledge a terminal condition or a good excuse. We can all learn to boil slowly and gently. The message of the policy is clear. "Take responsibility for your own temper."
Absolutely. I completely agree with this.
However I was pointing out that an undesired side-effect of enforcing "no personal attacks" with blocking could be, paradoxically, to give some people an incentive to provoke _more_ personal attacks.
You are completely correct, but may I state (again) that this was not my intention. Adam is a good and well-respected editor, and I did not think that he would be blocked. I merely want to be able to explore opposing views without being subjected to personal attacks which are upsetting and distracting. I guess I want him to be aware of the community view on such things, as my own requests for him to moderate his behaviour seem only to enrage him further.
I find that Adam was unblocked a few minutes later, and I support this, though I also note that blocks on Adam don't seem to last long in any case.
Skyring said:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:22:08 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Tom Haws said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Some people have lower boiling points than others and can easily be provoked.
This is not to my knowledge a terminal condition or a good excuse. We can all learn to boil slowly and gently. The message of the policy is clear. "Take responsibility for your own temper."
Absolutely. I completely agree with this.
However I was pointing out that an undesired side-effect of enforcing "no personal attacks" with blocking could be, paradoxically, to give some people an incentive to provoke _more_ personal attacks.
You are completely correct, but may I state (again) that this was not my intention.
Absolutely. I want to dissociate myself from any implication that I could be commenting on a concrete instance. I'm just talking about the social dynamics that I think should be taken into consideration in any proposal to enforce "No personal attacks" by blocking.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:05:26 +1100, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote: Adam is a good and well-respected editor, and I did not
think that he would be blocked. I merely want to be able to explore opposing views without being subjected to personal attacks which are upsetting and distracting. I guess I want him to be aware of the community view on such things, as my own requests for him to moderate his behaviour seem only to enrage him further.
Peter, your comments cannot be allowed to stand. I can't get inside your head, but judging by your behavior, you goaded Adam into attacking you. He shouldn't have let you, it's true. Nevertheless, as he has to take responsibility for his actions, so should you for yours. You have gone round and round in circles with him and several others, using sophistry in place of argument; attempting to replace fact with your personal opinion; and replying to each question with a question of your own, rather than an answer. You have accused Adam of misrepresenting the constitution, when he was paraphrasing it very precisely. (Your subsequent claim that "shall be" and "is" have different meanings in this context is false, and you have offered no reason for your view.) You've been told repeatedly what the community consensus is on the issue, both here and on the talk page of the article. The page has had to be protected because of the dispute. Slrubenstein and Ta bu shi da yu have both written excellent e-mails to this list refuting or questioning your position, yet you haven't addressed their concerns, offered additional source material, or withdrawn your argument.
As for your claim that you didn't wish to see Adam blocked, you have, I believe, reported him twice on the admin noticeboard, and also, I believe, twice on this list. That's an odd way to behave if you harbor no desire to see him blocked.
Sarah
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:34:43 -0700, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:05:26 +1100, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote: Adam is a good and well-respected editor, and I did not
think that he would be blocked. I merely want to be able to explore opposing views without being subjected to personal attacks which are upsetting and distracting. I guess I want him to be aware of the community view on such things, as my own requests for him to moderate his behaviour seem only to enrage him further.
Peter, your comments cannot be allowed to stand. I can't get inside your head, but judging by your behavior, you goaded Adam into attacking you. He shouldn't have let you, it's true.
Judging by Adam's history on Wikipedia, he lets himself be goaded by quite a few of people. You are hardly suggesting that this is an isolated instance, are you?
Nevertheless, as he has to take responsibility for his actions, so should you for yours. You have gone round and round in circles with him and several others, using sophistry in place of argument; attempting to replace fact with your personal opinion; and replying to each question with a question of your own, rather than an answer.
This is simply not true. I grew tired of responding to Adam's questions when he so often evaded my own. Fair's fair.
My opinions are backed up with checkable quotes. I note on checking the discussion page that you have provided just one quote - the text of a link I myself provided. You accurately pointed out that it dated from a time when John Howard was not Prime Minister, so I provided one from when he was.
Adam's sources are generally an appeal to popular opinion, some partisan site such as the ARM, or his own individual interpretation of the Constitution, unsupported by expert opinion.
You have accused Adam of misrepresenting the constitution, when he was paraphrasing it very precisely. (Your subsequent claim that "shall be" and "is" have different meanings in this context is false, and you have offered no reason for your view.)
Again, this is simply not true. Several times I have pointed out the similar wording in s101 where "shall be" cannot be equated to "is". By saying that the Constitution says that the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen Adam is downplaying the historical aspect of the text, and my point, expressed several times, is that we have moved on. The Governor-General is no longer quite the representative of the Queen and her government that he was at Federation. The role in this respect has diminished and his role as representative of the people rather than the government has increased.
You've been told repeatedly what the community consensus is on the issue, both here and on the talk page of the article. The page has had to be protected because of the dispute. Slrubenstein and Ta bu shi da yu have both written excellent e-mails to this list refuting or questioning your position, yet you haven't addressed their concerns, offered additional source material, or withdrawn your argument.
Perhaps they should direct argument on this subject to the discussion page. I am addressing your points here because you seem to insist on it.
As for your claim that you didn't wish to see Adam blocked, you have, I believe, reported him twice on the admin noticeboard, and also, I believe, twice on this list. That's an odd way to behave if you harbor no desire to see him blocked.
I reject your interpretation. I have repeatedly asked Adam to moderate his behaviour and this only served to provoke further abuse, as can readily be seen. By making the issue public my intention was to get others to ask him to calm down. I hope that this has had an effect. I also note that blocks on Adam don't seem to last long, as he can always find a willing admin.
Skyring wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
You have accused Adam of misrepresenting the constitution, when he was paraphrasing it very precisely. (Your subsequent claim that "shall be" and "is" have different meanings in this context is false, and you have offered no reason for your view.)
Again, this is simply not true. Several times I have pointed out the similar wording in s101 where "shall be" cannot be equated to "is". By saying that the Constitution says that the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen Adam is downplaying the historical aspect of the text, and my point, expressed several times, is that we have moved on. The Governor-General is no longer quite the representative of the Queen and her government that he was at Federation. The role in this respect has diminished and his role as representative of the people rather than the government has increased.
The principle that the law is always speaking would allow for some degree of interchangeability between the present and future tense.
Ec
Tom Haws wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Some people have lower boiling points than others and can easily be provoked.
This is not to my knowledge a terminal condition or a good excuse. We can all learn to boil slowly and gently. The message of the policy is clear. "Take responsibility for your own temper."
Tom Haws
100% agreed. I don't want someone who thinks I'm a troll making a discussion devolve into a personal attack when I argue a point forcefully. We get nowhere when this happens.
TBSDY
I think it's important to note that baiting users into making personal attacks is even worse than the personal attacks that ensue, however.
-Snowspinner
On Mar 9, 2005, at 7:47 PM, csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Tom Haws wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Some people have lower boiling points than others and can easily be provoked.
This is not to my knowledge a terminal condition or a good excuse. We can all learn to boil slowly and gently. The message of the policy is clear. "Take responsibility for your own temper." Tom Haws
100% agreed. I don't want someone who thinks I'm a troll making a discussion devolve into a personal attack when I argue a point forcefully. We get nowhere when this happens.
TBSDY
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sorry to play Devil's advocate here, but how can you tell that someone is doing this when they can appeal to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]?
TBSDY
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I think it's important to note that baiting users into making personal attacks is even worse than the personal attacks that ensue, however.
-Snowspinner
On Mar 9, 2005, at 7:47 PM, csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Tom Haws wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Some people have lower boiling points than others and can easily be provoked.
This is not to my knowledge a terminal condition or a good excuse. We can all learn to boil slowly and gently. The message of the policy is clear. "Take responsibility for your own temper." Tom Haws
100% agreed. I don't want someone who thinks I'm a troll making a discussion devolve into a personal attack when I argue a point forcefully. We get nowhere when this happens.
TBSDY
David Gerard wrote
The instructive recent case of Skyring versus Adam Carr (a coupla messages ago) shows one obvious hole [ ... ]
Indeed. Why dice with death and take the moral low ground in revert wars, when there is the more satisfying approach of the uber-troll: get yourself personally-attacked on the Talk page, and get your opponent (if briefly) thrown off the wiki?
Chales
David Gerard wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks (old)]] has the vote. The vote came out 36 for, 26 against, 5 neutral - simple majority, but not enough of one to indicate consensus. As far as I can tell, the objections are that it's too subjective.
The instructive recent case of Skyring versus Adam Carr (a coupla messages ago) shows one obvious hole: Skyring belittling or ignoring all attempts at reason until the editor attempting to reason with him blows his top at the intransigent POV-pusher.
I have seen editors respond to "I think you are wrong here" with allegations of a "virulent and aggressive personal attack". At it's most extreme, it's obviously ignored. But, in a couple of cases, I've seen sensible, good editors fall into this sort of misinterpretation. Considering how subjective a straightforward rule like the 3RR turned out to be, I'm a bit dubious about this one actually /reducing/ the amount of conflict around.
--sannse