Well, yes, you add little to legitimate dialog, but part of what you see
is the contrast between the very liberal rules which govern this mailing list and the level of tolerance on the talk page of the article about a subject who is actively being harassed. If you have something to say about such harassment, you are expected to be knowledgable about it. Cla68 adopted a pose of naive ignorance. You like that pose too, and it is an effective debating technique, in fact, Socrates often used in the dialogues published by Plato. However, when you get down to cases, and there you are, in the midst of an active dispute, acting dumb, well...
None of that is "disrupting Wikipedia", though. Cla98 may have been being annoying, but that's not the same as being disruptive.
****** These complaints are classic straw man rhetoric: take a small portion of the actual situation, pretend that's the sole cause of a result, and bemoan in various fora that the some action was unjustified. I see through the game. There are times to put one's foot down and that time was today. Wikipedia has been entirely too lenient about this type of disruption, with the result that when one brief and overdue block occurs a cluster of people are shocked by it.
The talk page of a Wikipedia article is not a venue for rehashing poorly sourced rumors against a living person. It's as simple as that. If I have any regrets about that block, it's that it wasn't longer, sooner, and applied to more people.
How hard can it be to find reliable sources for an article? When you locate them, discuss them maturely. Wikipedia isn't your water cooler. Neither is this list.
-Durova
Durova wrote:
These complaints are classic straw man rhetoric: take a small portion of the actual situation, pretend that's the sole cause of a result, and bemoan in various fora that the some action was unjustified. I see through the game. There are times to put one's foot down and that time was today. Wikipedia has been entirely too lenient about this type of disruption, with the result that when one brief and overdue block occurs a cluster of people are shocked by it.
This is exactly right. The key is to look at the pattern of negative disruption over a long period of time, rather than looking at any one incident in isolation.
There are several users who need to find a new hobby by this metric. I am hoping that a few of them will chose it of their own volition. It is time to bring back the notion of WikiLove, and the idea of congeniality and the recollection that we are a charitable project to do good... and stop the use of Wikipedia by people who are interested in little more than muckraking and harassing.
How hard can it be to find reliable sources for an article? When you locate them, discuss them maturely. Wikipedia isn't your water cooler. Neither is this list.
Exactly.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Durova wrote:
These complaints are classic straw man rhetoric: take a small portion of the actual situation, pretend that's the sole cause of a result, and bemoan in various fora that the some action was unjustified. I see through the game. There are times to put one's foot down and that time was today. Wikipedia has been entirely too lenient about this type of disruption, with the result that when one brief and overdue block occurs a cluster of people are shocked by it.
This is exactly right. The key is to look at the pattern of negative disruption over a long period of time, rather than looking at any one incident in isolation.
In this particular case, though, the block appeared to be issued (according to the blocking admin's own summary) in direct response to someone replying in disagreement to a post of yours. I don't find it hard to believe that many of us would be concerned at a block that appears like "disagreeing with Jimmy Wales on a talk page is a blockable offense". If indeed the block was for something else, it would've been helpful to say so in the block summary, and preferably pick a more opportune moment for it.
-Mark
Durovawrote:
There are times to put one's foot down and that time was today. Wikipedia has been entirely too lenient about this type of disruption, with the result that when one brief and overdue block occurs a cluster of people are shocked by it.
I understand. But it behooves you to be careful, to choose the best moment to put your foot down.
If Cla68 is as disruptive as claimed -- and I have no reason to doubt it -- you need only a little patience to wait for a truly disruptive action to apply the waited-for block in response to. But this wasn't it:
Most of us usually try to give some reasoning for any action, proposed action, or threatened action that we discuss on an article's talk page. Would you mind doing the same?
You and the rest of the insiders may know that Cla68 had it coming and was long overdue for a block, but when outsiders take this question and your response in isolation -- as of course they are going to do -- it just makes you look bad; it unnecessarily provides fresh fodder for those who want to claim that Wikipedia has become petty and spiteful.
Cla68 may have deserved blocking, but not for that question, which was innocent enough on the surface, and which could certainly be ignored even if you know it was posted with ulterior motives.
On Sat, 2007-10-20 at 22:18 -0400, Steve Summit wrote:
Durovawrote:
There are times to put one's foot down and that time was today. Wikipedia has been entirely too lenient about this type of disruption, with the result that when one brief and overdue block occurs a cluster of people are shocked by it.
I understand. But it behooves you to be careful, to choose the best moment to put your foot down.
If Cla68 is as disruptive as claimed -- and I have no reason to doubt it -- you need only a little patience to wait for a truly disruptive action to apply the waited-for block in response to. But this wasn't it:
So we have during discussion in one thread (AbCom I think) where people comment there wouldn't be nearly as many difficult cases reaching AbCom / user getting to the point of being so disruptive that the only remedy is long banning etc. because no one put the foot down early on. And then we have in another thread saying only put your foot down when the user end up doing something truly bad even in isolation not taking into account of prior behavior.
Now, which one is it going to be? Put your foot down early on, with increasing severity as suggested during the AbCom thread so users get the idea their pattern of behavior will not be tolerated, and hopefully for them to change their way. Or is it going to be wait for the big one, and respond in kind.
Take your pick, but one can't have it both ways.
KTC
These complaints are classic straw man rhetoric: take a small portion of the actual situation, pretend that's the sole cause of a result, and bemoan in various fora that the some action was unjustified. I see through the game. There are times to put one's foot down and that time was today. Wikipedia has been entirely too lenient about this type of disruption, with the result that when one brief and overdue block occurs a cluster of people are shocked by it.
In that case, the problem was not your block, but your block reason. If you are blocking because of an ongoing problem, say so, don't just cite the most recent problem. You said you were blocking for one act, and that act was insufficient to warrant a block. If there were previous acts which, when considered together, are sufficient to block, then you need to say so.
On 21/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
These complaints are classic straw man rhetoric: take a small portion of the actual situation, pretend that's the sole cause of a result, and bemoan in various fora that the some action was unjustified. I see through the game. There are times to put one's foot down and that time was today. Wikipedia has been entirely too lenient about this type of disruption, with the result that when one brief and overdue block occurs a cluster of people are shocked by it.
In that case, the problem was not your block, but your block reason. If you are blocking because of an ongoing problem, say so, don't just cite the most recent problem. You said you were blocking for one act, and that act was insufficient to warrant a block. If there were previous acts which, when considered together, are sufficient to block, then you need to say so.
It's difficult to summarise for a block summary. "One POINTiness too many" would be the most concise form. This is a nice summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Precis: Cla68 has been a dick about this for quite some time, knew *precisely* how much of a dick he was being, and thoroughly deserved the block, and probably a longer one. He's not here to write an encyclopedia.
- d.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
It's difficult to summarise for a block summary.
Just adding "on top of everything else" to the end would have helped. Anything to make it clear that it wasn't a block purely for asking a question.
I'm afraid that adding those words would only beg the questions. Most people don't know about these blocks until there is a big public fuss. It is often a simple matter of not editing in the same subjects. Responses like, "He has a history of such behaviour," may indeed be true, but in an environment where mistrust is widespread such an answer appears evasive. I never heard of Cla68 until the current dispute arose, and I don't want to spend a day of research figuring out what the dispute was all about. Such disputes are first presented to the list in reasonable terms, often by respected members of the community. Defensive responses are counterproductive; they only build sympathy for the person against whom action has been taken, and cement the view that he is the victim.
If the person is as bad as the blockers make him out to be, he will provide plenty of opportunities to build a solid case without the need to impose impulsive penalties.
Ec
On 10/21/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Precis: Cla68 has been a dick about this for quite some time, knew *precisely* how much of a dick he was being, and thoroughly deserved the block, and probably a longer one. He's not here to write an encyclopedia.
I,m going to speak in a general sense here and not about Cla68 because I'm not familiar with him or his edits but one thing I have noticed about many such cases in the past where some user is supposedly blocked for something little is that if you look at their edit histories they are full of low level dickery. Not one edit itself being blockable. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me that such a person will eventually be blocked for what seems like a trivial offense.
In short, they are blocked for "being a dick" even though that would not be appropriate for a block summary.