Just answer these questions:
a) Do green flamingoes sing Schubert when the sky is a bright canary yellow?
b) Could you lend me six, no eight, filter-tipped Chesterfields without any menthol?
c) Are there bombs in Gilead?
Just answer these questions:
a) Do green flamingoes sing Schubert when the sky is a bright canary yellow?
b) Could you lend me six, no eight, filter-tipped Chesterfields without any menthol?
c) Are there bombs in Gilead?
I've a better question. If you get it right, you can join.
Q: Is there a cabal?
++++++++++++++ Answers: If you answered no, you get to join the cabal. ++++++++++++++
John
John Collison wrote:
Just answer these questions:
a) Do green flamingoes sing Schubert when the sky is a bright canary yellow?
b) Could you lend me six, no eight, filter-tipped Chesterfields without any menthol?
c) Are there bombs in Gilead?
I've a better question. If you get it right, you can join.
Q: Is there a cabal?
Well, that depends on what your definition of "is" is.
++++++++++++++ Answers: If you answered no, you get to join the cabal. ++++++++++++++
Darn.
Gentlemen.
As the leader of the Cabal, I must ask you to all shut up because you are ruining it for the rest of us!
Ta bu shi da yu
Nicholas Knight wrote:
John Collison wrote:
Just answer these questions:
a) Do green flamingoes sing Schubert when the sky is a bright canary yellow?
b) Could you lend me six, no eight, filter-tipped Chesterfields without any menthol?
c) Are there bombs in Gilead?
I've a better question. If you get it right, you can join.
Q: Is there a cabal?
Well, that depends on what your definition of "is" is.
++++++++++++++ Answers: If you answered no, you get to join the cabal. ++++++++++++++
Darn.
TOP SECRET MEMO TO JIMBO:
I have reliable information that an over-zealous Australian is about to launch a coup to gain control of the wikimedia cabal (and hence all international commerce, and politics). I am told that he goes by the code name of Ta bu shi da yu (which may well contain demonic anagrams, several super-computers from wikimedia's secret service are currently working on the problem). I attach a letter i recently intercepted where he goes so far as to claim that control is all ready his; this suggests that he believes a sizable number of editors will join him in his rebellion.
[[User:The bellman]] (leader of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit)
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:35:48 +1100, csherlock@ljh.com.au csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Gentlemen.
As the leader of the Cabal, I must ask you to all shut up because you are ruining it for the rest of us!
Ta bu shi da yu
As stated on my user page, I'm not much of a one for writing new articles, but I like to hunt down and correct errors. And to update articles where new facts come to light.
Over recent days Cabinet documents relating to the 1974 Whitlam government in Australia have been released under the 30-year rule, and as much of the material is relevant to and sheds new light on Gough Whitlam's actions at the time, I turned to the Gough Whitlam article.
Amongst other things, I noted that the article itself was heavily biased towards a partisan point of view. One of the many areas that needed correcting was the mention of the Patrick Field affair, where the Labor Party's nominee for a casual Seante vacancy caused by a death in office was rejected by the Country Party Queensland State Premier in favour of a Labor member who was strongly critical of Whitlam, an event which had far-reaching consequences in Australian political history.
As I have numerous relevant texts ready to hand, I checked a few facts and rewrote the paragraph, removing obviously partisan statements for which I could find no source, and adding factual material. I made a note on the discussion page explaining my actions and citing my main source.
Soon afterwards, user AdamCarr reverted my edit to the previous partisan version. He responded on the discussion page with a list of points which I rebutted, citing exact sources and noting that many of his claims were incorrect. He admitted that he could not currently check his statements. I asked that he refrain from reverting my edits until he could either provide sources or give others a chance to comment.
Shortly after this, PMelvilleAustin again reverted my changes and protected the article, stating on the discussion page that AdamCarr and I should come to an agreement. As AdamCarr himself points out he is on holiday overseas and unable to cite his sources. Other editors are presumably available to discuss and edit the article until a consensus is reached, but as the article is now protected, they are unable to participate in the normal Wiki fashion.
PMelvilleAustin seems to be using his admin powers to prevent edits to an article in which he is personally involved, and which should be available for modification in the light of the recent release of pertinent cabinet documents.
I would just wait for him to return from vacation. While seniority does not exist on Wikipedia officially, in practice it does and certain editors such as Adam Carr have a degree of favor. Other mechanisms for solving the problem such as negotiating with him or mediating will also require his presence.
The page protecting seems wrong but petty.
Fred
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com Reply-To: Skyring skyring@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 22:26:01 +1100 To: Robin Shannon robin.shannon@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Query admin powers
As stated on my user page, I'm not much of a one for writing new articles, but I like to hunt down and correct errors. And to update articles where new facts come to light.
Over recent days Cabinet documents relating to the 1974 Whitlam government in Australia have been released under the 30-year rule, and as much of the material is relevant to and sheds new light on Gough Whitlam's actions at the time, I turned to the Gough Whitlam article.
Amongst other things, I noted that the article itself was heavily biased towards a partisan point of view. One of the many areas that needed correcting was the mention of the Patrick Field affair, where the Labor Party's nominee for a casual Seante vacancy caused by a death in office was rejected by the Country Party Queensland State Premier in favour of a Labor member who was strongly critical of Whitlam, an event which had far-reaching consequences in Australian political history.
As I have numerous relevant texts ready to hand, I checked a few facts and rewrote the paragraph, removing obviously partisan statements for which I could find no source, and adding factual material. I made a note on the discussion page explaining my actions and citing my main source.
Soon afterwards, user AdamCarr reverted my edit to the previous partisan version. He responded on the discussion page with a list of points which I rebutted, citing exact sources and noting that many of his claims were incorrect. He admitted that he could not currently check his statements. I asked that he refrain from reverting my edits until he could either provide sources or give others a chance to comment.
Shortly after this, PMelvilleAustin again reverted my changes and protected the article, stating on the discussion page that AdamCarr and I should come to an agreement. As AdamCarr himself points out he is on holiday overseas and unable to cite his sources. Other editors are presumably available to discuss and edit the article until a consensus is reached, but as the article is now protected, they are unable to participate in the normal Wiki fashion.
PMelvilleAustin seems to be using his admin powers to prevent edits to an article in which he is personally involved, and which should be available for modification in the light of the recent release of pertinent cabinet documents.
-- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 05:43:26 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I would just wait for him to return from vacation. While seniority does not exist on Wikipedia officially, in practice it does and certain editors such as Adam Carr have a degree of favor. Other mechanisms for solving the problem such as negotiating with him or mediating will also require his presence.
Adam may be on holiday, but he has made several changes to the article and the discussion page, where he states that he "can't check his references" at the moment. One might ask why he feels he is able to revert my edits, which I have backed up by some authoritative and readily available texts on the matter, if he is without access to reference material.
In any case, he is flat out wrong on several points. No appeal to seniority or rankism can justify a stubborn insistence on untruths.
Gough Whitlam and the events of the 1975 dismissal are well enough known that I can be sure that there are other editors available who are supplied with the standard texts, such as Paul Kelly's definitive text "November 1975".
Bull on and make a nasty enemy if you wish. But, if you are patient and wait til he can look at his references, he will probably appologize, admit that he has no special perogatives and perhaps happily collaborate with you for years.
Fred
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com Reply-To: Skyring skyring@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 00:21:24 +1100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Query admin powers
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 05:43:26 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I would just wait for him to return from vacation. While seniority does not exist on Wikipedia officially, in practice it does and certain editors such as Adam Carr have a degree of favor. Other mechanisms for solving the problem such as negotiating with him or mediating will also require his presence.
Adam may be on holiday, but he has made several changes to the article and the discussion page, where he states that he "can't check his references" at the moment. One might ask why he feels he is able to revert my edits, which I have backed up by some authoritative and readily available texts on the matter, if he is without access to reference material.
In any case, he is flat out wrong on several points. No appeal to seniority or rankism can justify a stubborn insistence on untruths.
Gough Whitlam and the events of the 1975 dismissal are well enough known that I can be sure that there are other editors available who are supplied with the standard texts, such as Paul Kelly's definitive text "November 1975". -- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Skyring (skyring@gmail.com) [050104 00:21]:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 05:43:26 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I would just wait for him to return from vacation. While seniority does not exist on Wikipedia officially, in practice it does and certain editors such as Adam Carr have a degree of favor. Other mechanisms for solving the problem such as negotiating with him or mediating will also require his presence.
Adam may be on holiday, but he has made several changes to the article and the discussion page, where he states that he "can't check his references" at the moment. One might ask why he feels he is able to revert my edits, which I have backed up by some authoritative and readily available texts on the matter, if he is without access to reference material. In any case, he is flat out wrong on several points. No appeal to seniority or rankism can justify a stubborn insistence on untruths.
I would say this is absolutely not what page protection is for. I went to unprotect it myself but someone else got there first.
I'm sure when Adam gets back differences can be sorted out on the Talk page, though.
- d.
FWIW, I'm going to unprotect that page and let the author contribute to it. I only ask the contributor to cite their sources. They should also be aware that I'll be able to verify this information if I do a quick trip to the State Library of New South Wales.
Ta bu shi da yu
Skyring wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 05:43:26 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I would just wait for him to return from vacation. While seniority does not exist on Wikipedia officially, in practice it does and certain editors such as Adam Carr have a degree of favor. Other mechanisms for solving the problem such as negotiating with him or mediating will also require his presence.
Adam may be on holiday, but he has made several changes to the article and the discussion page, where he states that he "can't check his references" at the moment. One might ask why he feels he is able to revert my edits, which I have backed up by some authoritative and readily available texts on the matter, if he is without access to reference material.
In any case, he is flat out wrong on several points. No appeal to seniority or rankism can justify a stubborn insistence on untruths.
Gough Whitlam and the events of the 1975 dismissal are well enough known that I can be sure that there are other editors available who are supplied with the standard texts, such as Paul Kelly's definitive text "November 1975".
While seniority does not exist on Wikipedia officially, in practice it does and certain >editors such as Adam Carr have a degree of favor.
Right, the two wikipedias. One is official (only read and followed by suckers) and the other is run by favor. Quite an admission from an arbitrator. So your advice is to shrug your shoulders and walk away? Or get some "favor" so the protection can be lifted. Failing that, make some sockpuppets and have some fun, no-one will take action until the atmosphere has been thoroughly poisoned!
Its who you know, not what you know! What a way to run wikipedia!
Common sense and putting a stamp of approval on irregularities are two different things. You are not a sucker if you follow the rules and you a fool if you think you have some special license to break them. Nevertheless, the slack is cut a bit from time to time.
Fred
From: nas ral jewishneoconipod@gmail.com Reply-To: nas ral jewishneoconipod@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:01:24 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Query admin powers
While seniority does not exist on Wikipedia officially, in practice it does and certain >editors such as Adam Carr have a degree of favor.
Right, the two wikipedias. One is official (only read and followed by suckers) and the other is run by favor. Quite an admission from an arbitrator. So your advice is to shrug your shoulders and walk away? Or get some "favor" so the protection can be lifted. Failing that, make some sockpuppets and have some fun, no-one will take action until the atmosphere has been thoroughly poisoned!
Its who you know, not what you know! What a way to run wikipedia! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Authority rests with the wikipedia community, not with admins. Funny how editors without favor are never cut any slack? Wikipedia is not a club of friends, shaking hands and letting them get away with transgressions. It is the two wikipedias. Real fair. As long as these double standards are perpetuated, with what respect can admins be held?
I don't have to be fool to break rules, just an admin.
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:21:26 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Common sense and putting a stamp of approval on irregularities are two different things. You are not a sucker if you follow the rules and you a fool if you think you have some special license to break them. Nevertheless, the slack is cut a bit from time to time.
Fred
From: nas ral jewishneoconipod@gmail.com Reply-To: nas ral jewishneoconipod@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:01:24 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Query admin powers
While seniority does not exist on Wikipedia officially, in practice it does and certain >editors such as Adam Carr have a degree of favor.
Right, the two wikipedias. One is official (only read and followed by suckers) and the other is run by favor. Quite an admission from an arbitrator. So your advice is to shrug your shoulders and walk away? Or get some "favor" so the protection can be lifted. Failing that, make some sockpuppets and have some fun, no-one will take action until the atmosphere has been thoroughly poisoned!
Its who you know, not what you know! What a way to run wikipedia! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
All formal organizations and their rules are subject to informal deviation and transgressions especially by high status individuals. We have not outlawed the laws of sociology just by creating a cool website.
Fred
From: nas ral jewishneoconipod@gmail.com Reply-To: nas ral jewishneoconipod@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:29:48 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Query admin powers
Authority rests with the wikipedia community, not with admins. Funny how editors without favor are never cut any slack? Wikipedia is not a club of friends, shaking hands and letting them get away with transgressions. It is the two wikipedias. Real fair. As long as these double standards are perpetuated, with what respect can admins be held?
I don't have to be fool to break rules, just an admin.
So we should just shrug our shoulders when we witness "informal deviation and transgressions especially by high status individuals"?
Are you serious with this stuff? And so the humble editor is trampled on cuz he ainted got friends in high places? Unbelievable.
Policy should be applied, and seen to be applied, fairly and evenly, no matter what "informal status" a person might have. I thought an arbitrator would agree to that!
Fred wants the so-called "laws of sociology" to overrule wikipedia policy. Is this an offical ArbCom line?
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:47:34 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
All formal organizations and their rules are subject to informal deviation and transgressions especially by high status individuals. We have not outlawed the laws of sociology just by creating a cool website.
Fred
From: nas ral jewishneoconipod@gmail.com Reply-To: nas ral jewishneoconipod@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:29:48 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Query admin powers
Authority rests with the wikipedia community, not with admins. Funny how editors without favor are never cut any slack? Wikipedia is not a club of friends, shaking hands and letting them get away with transgressions. It is the two wikipedias. Real fair. As long as these double standards are perpetuated, with what respect can admins be held?
I don't have to be fool to break rules, just an admin.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No, you should not shrug your shoulders, but you should also not get into a tizzy over predictable phenomena. If you think there "ought to be a rule", please go and make one to the effect that rules are to uniformly applied, and so on although that is already part of the unwritten rules under which the Arbitration Committee proceeds. We'll enforce it best we can, but remember the old Russian proverb: "Laws are like spiderwebs, they catch flies, not bumblebees."
I fear I'm breaking a rule now, "Don't feed the trolls."
Fred
From: nas ral jewishneoconipod@gmail.com Reply-To: nas ral jewishneoconipod@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:07:02 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Query admin powers
So we should just shrug our shoulders when we witness "informal deviation and transgressions especially by high status individuals"?
Are you serious with this stuff? And so the humble editor is trampled on cuz he ainted got friends in high places? Unbelievable.
Policy should be applied, and seen to be applied, fairly and evenly, no matter what "informal status" a person might have. I thought an arbitrator would agree to that!
Fred wants the so-called "laws of sociology" to overrule wikipedia policy. Is this an offical ArbCom line?
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:47:34 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
All formal organizations and their rules are subject to informal deviation and transgressions especially by high status individuals. We have not outlawed the laws of sociology just by creating a cool website.
Fred
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 10:17:14 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
No, you should not shrug your shoulders, but you should also not get into a tizzy over predictable phenomena. If you think there "ought to be a rule", please go and make one to the effect that rules are to uniformly applied, and so on although that is already part of the unwritten rules under which the Arbitration Committee proceeds. We'll enforce it best we can, but remember the old Russian proverb: "Laws are like spiderwebs, they catch flies, not bumblebees."
I fear I'm breaking a rule now, "Don't feed the trolls."
No, don't stop. I'm glad to hear some frankness, and it's good to hear two points of view.
Fred, you appear to be condoning rankism - a concept described and talked about at some length by Robert W Fuller in his book "Somebodies & Nobodies" - as if it were something like racism or sexism that happens and we should learn to live with it. I can see the point you are making, but it's not something I'm comfortable with.
Nas, you are right to express amazement that this is being brought out in the open. I must confess that I was likewise astonished to see something like this stated so bluntly and, well, honestly.
I'm new here, and I'm kind of at a loss to know what else to say in a discussion that I seem to have inadvertently sparked. I must confess that I had hoped that Wikipedia would be something where if the absolute truth could not be laid down, then at least, like a reputable newspaper, all sides of the story could be given proper respect. But so much of the activity of the site seems to be taken up with trivia. A couple of weeks ago I looked at one of the pages that dealt with recent edits and I was perplexed to see that an all-in brawl was being waged over the clitoris article, of all things! I hadn't imagined that there could be much dispute over such a thing, but there it is. As I hastily scurried away from the battlefield it seemed to me that all of the contestants were male, which perhaps says a great deal about the level of debate. Perhaps, as Murphy Brown once suggested, the participants could drop their pants, measure themselves against a plastic ruler, and sort out arguments that way.
Which brings me back to rankism, I guess!
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 04:50:50 +1100, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of weeks ago I looked at one of the pages that dealt with recent edits and I was perplexed to see that an all-in brawl was being waged over the clitoris article, of all things! I hadn't imagined that there could be much dispute over such a thing, but there it is.
I believe the clitoris debate is a fundemental one about the basic principles of wikipedia - is censorship acceptable. Nevertheless, getting quite so steamed up about a picture seems a little time-wasting...
Nas, Fred et al.:
To my mind the disagreement at hand is mostly rooted in mutual misunderstanding rather than anything else.
* It occurs to me that Fred merely meant to say that this is an imperfect world: While preferential treatment for well-known figures or "old pals" may be unjust, it is also very human for people to on balance lean towards committing such errors -- that's just how humans tend to behave and Wikipedia isn't immune against it. That being a given, it might turn out to be wise and/or useful to not be overly insistent on one's rights, but instead to voluntarily sit down in a lower room than one's rank would actually warrant because good things will happen to people who thus understate their position (cf. Bible, NT, Luke 14:8). Also, while a claimant may have justice on their side, loud screaming and complaining may -- in this imperfect world -- neither help their cause (however just) nor necessarily make them lots of friends.
* On the other hand, if Nas feels that favoritism is unacceptable as a matter of principle and ought to be vigorously opposed on all fronts, then I am very sympathetic towards that view as well.
Meanwhile, the [[Gough Whitlam]] article has been unprotected and Peter has indicated his willingness to talk. I think the matter is closed on that front. As for resolving the remaining (IMHO) misunderstanding, maybe we can all agree on this:
1. Favoritism isn't nice, and if it takes place within Wikipedia that isn't nice either. 2. We should continue to uphold comeback mechanisms such as this mailing list, which will help to ensure favoritism won't get out of hand if it occurs. 3. If an affected person themselves (despite their right to insist on equal treatment) is happy to voluntarily take a backhanded approach and give an admin who may have overstepped their authority slightly a chance to realize their error and gracefully mend their ways, then that's all the better. 4. It's ok to informally tell someone about the utility of taking the backhanded approach. 5. No one should ''order'' anyone to do take this approach though, as such would be tantamount to confirming and codifying injustice. 6. Care should be taken to avoid a friendly hint about the utility of taking the backhanded approach to wrongly come across as an order to put up and shut up.
Sounds fair?
Oh, and Peter -- about your uncanny observation:
On 3 Jan 2005, at 18:50, Skyring wrote:
an all-in brawl was being waged over the clitoris article, of all things! I hadn't imagined that there could be much dispute over such a thing, but there it is. As I hastily scurried away from the battlefield it seemed to me that all of the contestants were male, which perhaps says a great deal about the level of debate. Perhaps, as Murphy Brown once suggested, the participants could drop their pants, measure themselves against a plastic ruler, and sort out arguments that way.
Which brings me back to rankism, I guess!
Well, in a word, --- BRAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHA! LOL! ROTFL! (heh! pant!) ;-D
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
PS: Err, Peter: Which ''measurement'' are we talking? "Flaccid" or "fully armed"? I think I used to have a plastic ruler there somewhere... Note to self: Must respond to one of them offers in me inbox. Want to get a good score. Anything worth doing's worth doing well.
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:59:11 +0100, Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
Oh, and Peter -- about your uncanny observation:
On 3 Jan 2005, at 18:50, Skyring wrote:
an all-in brawl was being waged over the clitoris article, of all things! I hadn't imagined that there could be much dispute over such a thing, but there it is. As I hastily scurried away from the battlefield it seemed to me that all of the contestants were male, which perhaps says a great deal about the level of debate. Perhaps, as Murphy Brown once suggested, the participants could drop their pants, measure themselves against a plastic ruler, and sort out arguments that way.
Which brings me back to rankism, I guess!
Well, in a word, --- BRAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHA! LOL! ROTFL! (heh! pant!) ;-D
Sometimes it helps to put things in perspective by raising a ridiculous point. <g>
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
PS: Err, Peter: Which ''measurement'' are we talking? "Flaccid" or "fully armed"?
Is Wickipedia no help on this score? Perhaps we can inch our way towards an agreement if no ruling currently stands.
Skyring stated for the record:
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:59:11 +0100, Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
Oh, and Peter -- about your uncanny observation:
On 3 Jan 2005, at 18:50, Skyring wrote:
an all-in brawl was being waged over the clitoris article, of all things! I hadn't imagined that there could be much dispute over such a thing, but there it is. As I hastily scurried away from the battlefield it seemed to me that all of the contestants were male, which perhaps says a great deal about the level of debate. Perhaps, as Murphy Brown once suggested, the participants could drop their pants, measure themselves against a plastic ruler, and sort out arguments that way.
Which brings me back to rankism, I guess!
Well, in a word, --- BRAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHA! LOL! ROTFL! (heh! pant!) ;-D
Sometimes it helps to put things in perspective by raising a ridiculous point. <g>
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
PS: Err, Peter: Which ''measurement'' are we talking? "Flaccid" or "fully armed"?
Is Wickipedia no help on this score? Perhaps we can inch our way towards an agreement if no ruling currently stands.
If you can't stand up under pressure, you'll just have to limp away. Or, as the Good Book says, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." [Acts 26:14]
See also [[/1agra]] and [[C1a|1s]].
Jens Ropers wrote:
Nas, Fred et al.:
To my mind the disagreement at hand is mostly rooted in mutual misunderstanding rather than anything else.
- It occurs to me that Fred merely meant to say that this is an
imperfect world: While preferential treatment for well-known figures or "old pals" may be unjust, it is also very human for people to on balance lean towards committing such errors -- that's just how humans tend to behave and Wikipedia isn't immune against it. That being a given, it might turn out to be wise and/or useful to not be overly insistent on one's rights, but instead to voluntarily sit down in a lower room than one's rank would actually warrant because good things will happen to people who thus understate their position (cf. Bible, NT, Luke 14:8). Also, while a claimant may have justice on their side, loud screaming and complaining may -- in this imperfect world -- neither help their cause (however just) nor necessarily make them lots of friends.
- On the other hand, if Nas feels that favoritism is unacceptable as a
matter of principle and ought to be vigorously opposed on all fronts, then I am very sympathetic towards that view as well.
Meanwhile, the [[Gough Whitlam]] article has been unprotected and Peter has indicated his willingness to talk. I think the matter is closed on that front. As for resolving the remaining (IMHO) misunderstanding, maybe we can all agree on this:
- Favoritism isn't nice, and if it takes place within Wikipedia that
isn't nice either. 2. We should continue to uphold comeback mechanisms such as this mailing list, which will help to ensure favoritism won't get out of hand if it occurs. 3. If an affected person themselves (despite their right to insist on equal treatment) is happy to voluntarily take a backhanded approach and give an admin who may have overstepped their authority slightly a chance to realize their error and gracefully mend their ways, then that's all the better. 4. It's ok to informally tell someone about the utility of taking the backhanded approach. 5. No one should ''order'' anyone to do take this approach though, as such would be tantamount to confirming and codifying injustice. 6. Care should be taken to avoid a friendly hint about the utility of taking the backhanded approach to wrongly come across as an order to put up and shut up.
In this debate I think that Fred forgot that he was walking on eggshells long enough to put his foot in his mouth.
The sociological phenomenon that he described is one of the pillars of systemic bias. Some of us who have been here a little longer can still see both sides of the problem. We need to be hesitant about using our seniority as an argument, but there are occasions when that can become necessary. My tendency would be to reserve it for very limited occasions. It needs to be applied with a much broader view in mind than what can be contained in a single article.
People do develop reputations, good and bad. It is still dangerous to let that reputation override a documented alternative to what the article already expresses. The person with the reputation does not earn vacation time by virtue of that reputation.
Ec
Skyring wrote:
A couple of weeks ago I looked at one of the pages that dealt with recent edits and I was perplexed to see that an all-in brawl was being waged over the clitoris article, of all things! I hadn't imagined that there could be much dispute over such a thing, but there it is. As I hastily scurried away from the battlefield it seemed to me that all of the contestants were male, which perhaps says a great deal about the level of debate.
As a newbie you must find it difficult to appreciate just how long that battle has waged. :-)
Some males reserve their biggest wars for fighting over what they don't have.
Ec
I am not a sociologist. I do think that your "predictable phenomena" is a red herring, however. You still want people to shrug their shoulders. The higher the status, the less the law is "real". LOL.
Wikipedia policy is the same whether I am an editor or an arbitrator. Sorry if this upsets you. Point me to where it says "higher status people - ignore' on the 3RR. You can't!
What has been going on in the ArbCom! Unwritten rules! Policy is formed by wikipedia community consensus, not by admins. Or is that just something that can be ignored by some people? When did admins start thinking that they have increased authority, not just increased responsibility?
Your acceptance of rule-breaking "Hey, it is what it is" is appalling.
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 10:17:14 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
No, you should not shrug your shoulders, but you should also not get into a tizzy over predictable phenomena. If you think there "ought to be a rule", please go and make one to the effect that rules are to uniformly applied, and so on although that is already part of the unwritten rules under which the Arbitration Committee proceeds. We'll enforce it best we can, but remember the old Russian proverb: "Laws are like spiderwebs, they catch flies, not bumblebees."
I fear I'm breaking a rule now, "Don't feed the trolls."
Fred
From: nas ral jewishneoconipod@gmail.com Reply-To: nas ral jewishneoconipod@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:07:02 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Query admin powers
So we should just shrug our shoulders when we witness "informal deviation and transgressions especially by high status individuals"?
Are you serious with this stuff? And so the humble editor is trampled on cuz he ainted got friends in high places? Unbelievable.
Policy should be applied, and seen to be applied, fairly and evenly, no matter what "informal status" a person might have. I thought an arbitrator would agree to that!
Fred wants the so-called "laws of sociology" to overrule wikipedia policy. Is this an offical ArbCom line?
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:47:34 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
All formal organizations and their rules are subject to informal deviation and transgressions especially by high status individuals. We have not outlawed the laws of sociology just by creating a cool website.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
nas ral (jewishneoconipod@gmail.com) [050104 05:01]:
What has been going on in the ArbCom! Unwritten rules! Policy is formed by wikipedia community consensus, not by admins. Or is that just something that can be ignored by some people? When did admins start thinking that they have increased authority, not just increased responsibility?
No, the 'unwritten rules' are called 'having a Clue' or [[Wikipedia:Semi-policy]].
A sociological observation for you: a rigid formal rules structure is not useful when getting volunteers to do things, unless you actually want to favour system-gamers over contributors.
- d.
Fred Bauder wrote:
I would just wait for him to return from vacation. While seniority does not exist on Wikipedia officially, in practice it does and certain editors such as Adam Carr have a degree of favor. Other mechanisms for solving the problem such as negotiating with him or mediating will also require his presence.
Wonderful. We get done making fun of the "cabal", and an arbitrator of all people comes up with something like this.
Blocking work on an article because Adam finds it inconvenient to do research is not acceptable, no matter what his informal status is.
Fred Bauer is an arbitrator? Huh?
Ta bu shi da yu
Nicholas Knight wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I would just wait for him to return from vacation. While seniority does not exist on Wikipedia officially, in practice it does and certain editors such as Adam Carr have a degree of favor. Other mechanisms for solving the problem such as negotiating with him or mediating will also require his presence.
Wonderful. We get done making fun of the "cabal", and an arbitrator of all people comes up with something like this.
Blocking work on an article because Adam finds it inconvenient to do research is not acceptable, no matter what his informal status is.
csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Fred Bauer is an arbitrator? Huh?
... Yes?