On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.
On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
on 8/27/07 6:59 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.
And, who moderates the moderator?
Marc
On 27/08/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
There's none on Wikipaedia either, at least not one people actually pay attention too. Let's see... if you ask for offensive material to go poof! from ED, they will make the situation worse. If you ask for offensive material to go poof! from Wikipaedia, they will do the same thing. Hrmmmm......
Legitimate requests are not attacks, regardless of how they are phrased. And criticizing terminology is expanding the issue needlessly. Shall we /not/ see how many sub-issues we can drag into this thread? Just a thought, but stay on topic.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.
on 8/28/07 9:10 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
Legitimate requests are not attacks, regardless of how they are phrased. And criticizing terminology is expanding the issue needlessly. Shall we /not/ see how many sub-issues we can drag into this thread? Just a thought, but stay on topic.
OK, "go away" may be a "legitimate request" (actually, it reads like an order); but what do you call "you trolling fuckwit"?
Marc Riddell
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 28/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/28/07 9:10 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
Legitimate requests are not attacks, regardless of how they are phrased. And criticizing terminology is expanding the issue needlessly. Shall we /not/ see how many sub-issues we can drag into this thread? Just a thought, but stay on topic.
OK, "go away" may be a "legitimate request" (actually, it reads like an order); but what do you call "you trolling fuckwit"?
Marc Riddell
Like I said, Wikipaedia is also an attack site. David hardly started that. It's ingrained in the culture.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.
on 8/28/07 9:43 AM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/28/07 9:10 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
Legitimate requests are not attacks, regardless of how they are phrased. And criticizing terminology is expanding the issue needlessly. Shall we /not/ see how many sub-issues we can drag into this thread? Just a thought, but stay on topic.
OK, "go away" may be a "legitimate request" (actually, it reads like an order); but what do you call "you trolling fuckwit"?
Marc Riddell
Like I said, Wikipaedia is also an attack site. David hardly started that. It's ingrained in the culture.
If this is so, and we expect to become - and to remain - a legitimate, respected project - we've got a lot of work to do.
I personally believe that the vast majority of Community Members are above that sort of behavior. That's where the hope comes from.
Marc
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 28/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/28/07 9:43 AM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/28/07 9:10 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
Legitimate requests are not attacks, regardless of how they are phrased. And criticizing terminology is expanding the issue needlessly. Shall we /not/ see how many sub-issues we can drag into this thread? Just a thought, but stay on topic.
OK, "go away" may be a "legitimate request" (actually, it reads like an order); but what do you call "you trolling fuckwit"?
Marc Riddell
Like I said, Wikipaedia is also an attack site. David hardly started
that.
It's ingrained in the culture.
If this is so, and we expect to become - and to remain - a legitimate, respected project - we've got a lot of work to do.
Let's see... if you ask for offencive material to be removed from ED, they will make the situation worse. If you ask for offencive material to be removed from Wikipaedia, they might very well do the same thing.
More courtesy blankings, deletions and oversights would help solve this problem. Also, try avoiding public interrogation of OTRS members on private matters.
I personally believe that the vast majority of Community Members are above that sort of behavior. That's where the hope comes from.
Marc
It really doesn't matter if it is intentional or not. Courtesy blankings, deletions and oversights are not sanctions against the users who made the comments.
However, there are certain societal values that encourage attacks. Placing freedom of information and Google's right to cache above the feelings of real people. Placing the public's right to know who people are above the privacy and safety of people who seriously could get hurt. Placing the need to punish those who do 'bad' things above actually resolving the situation, even if they were only responding to bad things which were done to them. The belief that if someone is attacked, they must have done something to deserve it.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, will make the whole world blind and toothless.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.
Armed Blowfish wrote:
<snip> It really doesn't matter if it is intentional or not. Courtesy blankings, deletions and oversights are not sanctions against the users who made the comments.
However, there are certain societal values that encourage attacks. Placing freedom of information and Google's right to cache above the feelings of real people. Placing the public's right to know who people are above the privacy and safety of people who seriously could get hurt. Placing the need to punish those who do 'bad' things above actually resolving the situation, even if they were only responding to bad things which were done to them. The belief that if someone is attacked, they must have done something to deserve it.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, will make the whole world blind and toothless.
<snip> Precisely.
On 28/08/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
<snip> It really doesn't matter if it is intentional or not. Courtesy blankings, deletions and oversights are not sanctions against the users who made the comments.
However, there are certain societal values that encourage attacks. Placing freedom of information and Google's right to cache above the feelings of real people. Placing the public's right to know who people are above the privacy and safety of people who seriously could get hurt. Placing the need to punish those who do 'bad' things above actually resolving the situation, even if they were only responding to bad things which were done to them. The belief that if someone is attacked, they must have done something to deserve it.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, will make the whole world blind and toothless.
<snip> Precisely.
: )
I note you are ignoring my plea to keep this thread on-topic. You have moved your focus from David's post to my plea to not muddy the waters by adding a sub-topic about terminology and phrasing which you find objectionable. Not sure that's an improvement.
Allow me to copyedit David's email, if it will help:
"Perhaps it would be better if you accepted that your personal curiosity cannot be satisfied on this issue. There are sometimes private issues which must be considered, but would cause more harm than good to publicize. I am sure that once the investigation is complete, we will all be informed of the findings, sans any details which are of a delicate or potentially harmful nature. I am certain you will understand, and that you merely did not consider the larger issues."
Better? Longer, I'll grant.. but it says the exact same damn thing, except for some flattery (I'm not the least bit "certain" he'll get it.) Only it wouldn't have gotten to the point so well, and probably would have been lost in the thread. David's has the advantage of shock value, which commands attention.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 8/28/07 9:10 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
Legitimate requests are not attacks, regardless of how they are phrased. And criticizing terminology is expanding the issue needlessly. Shall we /not/ see how many sub-issues we can drag into this thread? Just a thought, but stay on topic.
OK, "go away" may be a "legitimate request" (actually, it reads like an order); but what do you call "you trolling fuckwit"?
Marc Riddell
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 8/28/07 10:17 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
I note you are ignoring my plea to keep this thread on-topic.
No, I have rejected your attempts to bury this incident.
You have moved your focus from David's post to my plea to not muddy the waters by adding a sub-topic about terminology and phrasing which you find objectionable. Not sure that's an improvement.
Allow me to copyedit David's email, if it will help:
"Perhaps it would be better if you accepted that your personal curiosity cannot be satisfied on this issue. There are sometimes private issues which must be considered, but would cause more harm than good to publicize. I am sure that once the investigation is complete, we will all be informed of the findings, sans any details which are of a delicate or potentially harmful nature. I am certain you will understand, and that you merely did not consider the larger issues."
Better? Longer, I'll grant.. but it says the exact same damn thing, except for some flattery (I'm not the least bit "certain" he'll get it.) Only it wouldn't have gotten to the point so well, and probably would have been lost in the thread. David's has the advantage of shock value, which commands attention.
I believe it is time we heard from David himself.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 8/28/07 9:10 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
Legitimate requests are not attacks, regardless of how they are phrased. And criticizing terminology is expanding the issue needlessly. Shall we /not/ see how many sub-issues we can drag into this thread? Just a thought, but stay on topic.
OK, "go away" may be a "legitimate request" (actually, it reads like an order); but what do you call "you trolling fuckwit"?
Marc Riddell
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bury? I see I have been unclear.
I'm not trying to "bury" a thing. I am saying this is a side issue, which complicates the thread unnecessarily with other issues. You might as well have said "No, I'm *not* going to keep this thread on topic, its far more important to me to move David's blunt approach and my objections to it to center and front. I will accuse anyone who thinks this is muddying the waters of trying to "bury" something, because if what *I* think is important is not addressed with what I consider adequate gravity, they're clearly trying to 'hide' something - because it could not *possibly* be that they disagree that OMG David said some Mean Stuff with Naughty Language The World Will End Oh My!"
If this is still unclear to you, I cannot help you.
Puppy has spoken, puppy is done.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 8/28/07 10:17 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
I note you are ignoring my plea to keep this thread on-topic.
No, I have rejected your attempts to bury this incident.
You have moved your focus from David's post to my plea to not muddy the waters by adding a sub-topic about terminology and phrasing which you find objectionable. Not sure that's an improvement.
Allow me to copyedit David's email, if it will help:
"Perhaps it would be better if you accepted that your personal curiosity cannot be satisfied on this issue. There are sometimes private issues which must be considered, but would cause more harm than good to publicize. I am sure that once the investigation is complete, we will all be informed of the findings, sans any details which are of a delicate or potentially harmful nature. I am certain you will understand, and that you merely did not consider the larger issues."
Better? Longer, I'll grant.. but it says the exact same damn thing, except for some flattery (I'm not the least bit "certain" he'll get it.) Only it wouldn't have gotten to the point so well, and probably would have been lost in the thread. David's has the advantage of shock value, which commands attention.
I believe it is time we heard from David himself.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 8/28/07 9:10 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
Legitimate requests are not attacks, regardless of how they are phrased. And criticizing terminology is expanding the issue needlessly. Shall we /not/ see how many sub-issues we can drag into this thread? Just a thought, but stay on topic.
OK, "go away" may be a "legitimate request" (actually, it reads like an order); but what do you call "you trolling fuckwit"?
Marc Riddell
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 28/08/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Bury? I see I have been unclear.
I'm not trying to "bury" a thing. I am saying this is a side issue, which complicates the thread unnecessarily with other issues. You might as well have said "No, I'm *not* going to keep this thread on topic, its far more important to me to move David's blunt approach and my objections to it to center and front. I will accuse anyone who thinks this is muddying the waters of trying to "bury" something, because if what *I* think is important is not addressed with what I consider adequate gravity, they're clearly trying to 'hide' something - because it could not *possibly* be that they disagree that OMG David said some Mean Stuff with Naughty Language The World Will End Oh My!"
Well, it's been one counter-attack after another for some years now, except now it seems to be a full-blown war. Let's see, where did this start? Ah, offencive and sometimes personal material on living persons being posted on Wikipaedia. Sometimes in articles, sometimes as part of the rather ugly banning process. Then what? Wikipaedia resists the blanking/deletion of said material. And then? Criticism sites spring up, and eventually start attacking individual Wikipaedians. Endless cross-site flame wars... on and on and on....
So can someone please let OTRS blank, delete and oversight without so much interference?
If this is still unclear to you, I cannot help you.
Puppy has spoken, puppy is done.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 8/28/07 10:17 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
I note you are ignoring my plea to keep this thread on-topic.
No, I have rejected your attempts to bury this incident.
You have moved your focus from David's post to my plea to not muddy the waters by adding a sub-topic about terminology and phrasing which you find objectionable. Not sure that's an improvement.
Allow me to copyedit David's email, if it will help:
"Perhaps it would be better if you accepted that your personal curiosity cannot be satisfied on this issue. There are sometimes private issues which must be considered, but would cause more harm than good to publicize. I am sure that once the investigation is complete, we will all be informed of the findings, sans any details which are of a delicate or potentially harmful nature. I am certain you will understand, and that you merely did
not consider
the larger issues."
Better? Longer, I'll grant.. but it says the exact same damn
thing, except for
some flattery (I'm not the least bit "certain" he'll get it.) Only
it wouldn't
have gotten to the point so well, and probably would have been lost in the thread. David's has the advantage of shock value, which commands attention.
I believe it is time we heard from David himself.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 8/28/07 9:10 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
Legitimate requests are not attacks, regardless of how they are phrased. And criticizing terminology is expanding the issue needlessly. Shall we /not/ see how many sub-issues we can drag into this thread? Just a thought, but stay on topic.
OK, "go away" may be a "legitimate request" (actually, it reads like an order); but what do you call "you trolling fuckwit"?
Marc Riddell
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
> Go away, you trolling fuckwit. > > > There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.
On 28/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I believe it is time we heard from David himself.
The guy was blatantly posting to cause trouble and drama, and I have no patience nor cause for patience with that.
- d.
On 8/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I believe it is time we heard from David himself.
The guy was blatantly posting to cause trouble and drama, and I have no patience nor cause for patience with that.
- d.
He was probably just bored.
I agree with "Puppy" (? lol). WikiEn-l has a habit of arguing about minor things and losing the big picture in the noise.
On 28/08/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
I note you are ignoring my plea to keep this thread on-topic. You have moved your focus from David's post to my plea to not muddy the waters by adding a sub-topic about terminology and phrasing which you find objectionable. Not sure that's an improvement.
Hello Puppy! : ) What do you believe the topic is?
Allow me to copyedit David's email, if it will help:
"Perhaps it would be better if you accepted that your personal curiosity cannot be satisfied on this issue. There are sometimes private issues which must be considered, but would cause more harm than good to publicize. I am sure that once the investigation is complete, we will all be informed of the findings, sans any details which are of a delicate or potentially harmful nature. I am certain you will understand, and that you merely did not consider the larger issues."
Better? Longer, I'll grant.. but it says the exact same damn thing, except for some flattery (I'm not the least bit "certain" he'll get it.) Only it wouldn't have gotten to the point so well, and probably would have been lost in the thread. David's has the advantage of shock value, which commands attention.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 8/28/07 9:10 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
Legitimate requests are not attacks, regardless of how they are phrased. And criticizing terminology is expanding the issue needlessly. Shall we /not/ see how many sub-issues we can drag into this thread? Just a thought, but stay on topic.
OK, "go away" may be a "legitimate request" (actually, it reads like an order); but what do you call "you trolling fuckwit"?
Marc Riddell
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, I for one am looking at the Subject line, which is "Jayjg is AWOL" and while I agree that transparency vs. potential harm and other sub-topics which naturally cascade from this are still on topic, David's choice of approach is a different topic, and IMO any discussion of it here is unlikely to be beneficial to resolving the Jayjg and related issues, but will rather send us off, like little ADD sufferers, into totally unrelated polemics and responses, making it that much less likely that the initial questions will be resolved at all, due to being lost in the white noise caused by this distraction. In short, if you want to bitch at David, do so in private email. If you want to discuss language and civility on this email list, start another thread.
Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 28/08/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
I note you are ignoring my plea to keep this thread on-topic. You have moved your focus from David's post to my plea to not muddy the waters by adding a sub-topic about terminology and phrasing which you find objectionable. Not sure that's an improvement.
Hello Puppy! : ) What do you believe the topic is?
Allow me to copyedit David's email, if it will help:
"Perhaps it would be better if you accepted that your personal curiosity cannot be satisfied on this issue. There are sometimes private issues which must be considered, but would cause more harm than good to publicize. I am sure that once the investigation is complete, we will all be informed of the findings, sans any details which are of a delicate or potentially harmful nature. I am certain you will understand, and that you merely did not consider the larger issues."
Better? Longer, I'll grant.. but it says the exact same damn thing, except for some flattery (I'm not the least bit "certain" he'll get it.) Only it wouldn't have gotten to the point so well, and probably would have been lost in the thread. David's has the advantage of shock value, which commands attention.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 8/28/07 9:10 AM, Puppy at puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
Legitimate requests are not attacks, regardless of how they are phrased. And criticizing terminology is expanding the issue needlessly. Shall we /not/ see how many sub-issues we can drag into this thread? Just a thought, but stay on topic.
OK, "go away" may be a "legitimate request" (actually, it reads like an order); but what do you call "you trolling fuckwit"?
Marc Riddell
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 27 Aug 2007 at 19:27:25 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go away, you trolling fuckwit.
There's no "No Personal Attacks" policy on this list, apparently.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 28/08/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
David's has the advantage of shock value, which commands attention.
However, as a moderator of this mailing list - indeed, probably the most prominent such - it is imperative that David hold himself to the highest standards of behaviour lest the membership of the list at large believe that it is appropriate to make such comments.
On 28/08/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
David's has the advantage of shock value, which commands attention.
However, as a moderator of this mailing list - indeed, probably the most prominent such - it is imperative that David hold himself to the highest standards of behaviour lest the membership of the list at large believe that it is appropriate to make such comments.
You are of course correct. I felt it pointless to tolerate the blatant trolling any longer.
(I should know better than to think that would slow the thread down in the slightest. Do please continue, all.)
- d.
On 8/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
David's has the advantage of shock value, which commands attention.
However, as a moderator of this mailing list - indeed, probably the most prominent such - it is imperative that David hold himself to the highest standards of behaviour lest the membership of the list at large believe that it is appropriate to make such comments.
You are of course correct. I felt it pointless to tolerate the blatant trolling any longer.
(I should know better than to think that would slow the thread down in the slightest. Do please continue, all.)
I am clearly not innocent of contributing to this, but I think I have to agree with Marc and James Farrar here that the use of the word "troll"/"trolling" here escalated rather than calmed down the discussion.
The question is, did our actions in arguing that the underlying claims were unreasonable (calling it trolling) cause the drama and criticism to die down, or escalate it? Clearly, we escalated it.
If we can't look back at what we did and the results, and think to ourselves "Ok, that didn't work, maybe we should try something different next time", then we're in a world of hurt.
The reason NPA is so important is that not following it takes situations with one aggrieved party and makes two, and then there's no right answer.
I'm sure none of us would have reacted with that directed and strong language to an in-person discussion on the same topic. It would be considered wrong and rude to do so, even if we were thinking the same underlying thoughts in reaction. Email and posting on wikis dehumanize the persons at the other end of the net link to some degree and lubricate people being more blunt than normal. This is extremely well documented and something I was talking to psychologists about before any of them were really studying the net... it's just blatantly obvious the longer you're an internet communications user.
To the degree that it lets people who want to stir stuff up act more aggressively, that's bad for online communities.
To the degree that it lets otherwise reasonable people in those communities react in negative feedback loops with the provacateurs it's worse. We have for example MONGO's longstanding negative feedback loop with at least one set of external trolls, where clearly they're egged on by his continuing to react in the manner that he does.
Marc's right that a bunch of us just did that here, me included.
On 8/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You are of course correct. I felt it pointless to tolerate the blatant trolling any longer.
(I should know better than to think that would slow the thread down in the slightest. Do please continue, all.)
- d.
FWIW, the entire issue of language aside, this and many other threads on related mailing lists are immensly boring reading. On that aspect of it, you are wholly in the right.
I have long thought that somebody should (as a service to the lists) announce - and follow through with - a James Nicoll pledge on the list(s), just to maintain them as a valuable use of time reading.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 8/28/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
David's has the advantage of shock value, which commands attention.
However, as a moderator of this mailing list - indeed, probably the most prominent such - it is imperative that David hold himself to the highest standards of behaviour lest the membership of the list at large believe that it is appropriate to make such comments.
Under the circumstances it was not inappropriate, IMO. I think most of the other list mods share my apathy w.r.t this incident. People who are obviously trolling do not deserve any more than what David gave them; it may not have been the best course of action (I personally would not have done that), but it was far from the worst.
Johnleemk
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Puppy Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:17 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is AWOL
(snip) "...the advantage of shock value, which commands attention."
True... but it may (and often does) command a less helpful type of attention. And encourages a trend.
If that was a sensible way to interact with people we felt were trolling, then WP:NPA would probably read "Personal insults are allowed if it is necessary in the user's view to command attention."
It doesn't.
We don't have a problem expecting newcomers and experienced editors alike to all be civil on wiki regardless of provocation, and regardless how they are off it.
We do so because we deem this helpful and constructive, *whatever* our view (good or bad) of the recipient.
FT2.