Could someone have a look at the conflict over Alexander Lukashenko, between Adam Carr and 172. And give their opinion ? I hardly dare to say it, but I reverted to a version that is anterior to december 2003, to insure it was "somehow" stable.
[[User:Anthere|ant]] (worth a ban ?)
On Sunday 01 February 2004 01:33 pm, Anthere wrote:
Could someone have a look at the conflict over Alexander Lukashenko, between Adam Carr and 172. And give their opinion ? I hardly dare to say it, but I reverted to a version that is anterior to december 2003, to insure it was "somehow" stable.
Does it matter _that much_ which version a page is protected on? I'd argue that it matters less than breaking rule # 2 of the page protection policy.
Best, Sascha Noyes
From: "Sascha Noyes" sascha@pantropy.net
On Sunday 01 February 2004 01:33 pm, Anthere wrote:
Could someone have a look at the conflict over Alexander Lukashenko, between Adam Carr and 172. And give their opinion ? I hardly dare to say it, but I reverted to a version that is anterior to december 2003, to insure it was "somehow" stable.
Does it matter _that much_ which version a page is protected on? I'd argue that it matters less than breaking rule # 2 of the page protection policy.
I tend to agree with Sascha Ant, the reality is that there is a lot of propaganda about Lukashenko floating around. He is a dictator, he did expell OSCE representatives but there are a lot of people in Belarus and elsewhere who might agree with other versions of "reality" and see him as a mostly benevolent force. To write a really good article about this guy requires a lot of reserach and most of the versions of the article that I have seen are pretty poor. Better to leave the old version for now and deal with the disputes as it will likely take a while to resolve the issues between these contributors and separate fact from fiction and propaganda which is coming from several different sources.
Alex756
Alex R. a écrit:
From: "Sascha Noyes" sascha@pantropy.net
On Sunday 01 February 2004 01:33 pm, Anthere wrote:
Could someone have a look at the conflict over Alexander Lukashenko, between Adam Carr and 172. And give their opinion ? I hardly dare to say it, but I reverted to a version that is anterior to december 2003, to insure it was "somehow" stable.
Does it matter _that much_ which version a page is protected on? I'd argue that it matters less than breaking rule # 2 of the page protection policy.
I tend to agree with Sascha Ant, the reality is that there is a lot of propaganda about Lukashenko floating around. He is a dictator, he did expell OSCE representatives but there are a lot of people in Belarus and elsewhere who might agree with other versions of "reality" and see him as a mostly benevolent force. To write a really good article about this guy requires a lot of reserach and most of the versions of the article that I have seen are pretty poor. Better to leave the old version for now and deal with the disputes as it will likely take a while to resolve the issues between these contributors and separate fact from fiction and propaganda which is coming from several different sources.
Alex756
Alex,
I was acting as a mediator. The mediator is not supposed to judge, nor to arbitrate. I spent 10 minutes trying to respect a rule I was criticized for not using another time. Now, not only was I wrong not to know that this rule was not valid any more, but on top, I should have decided what was the proper version as a neutral mediator ?
People, if you want help, please stop complaining each time someone makes a move, that the move is incorrect. That is the *best* way to discourage good willingness.
Seriously
Sascha Noyes a écrit:
On Sunday 01 February 2004 01:33 pm, Anthere wrote:
Could someone have a look at the conflict over Alexander Lukashenko, between Adam Carr and 172. And give their opinion ? I hardly dare to say it, but I reverted to a version that is anterior to december 2003, to insure it was "somehow" stable.
Does it matter _that much_ which version a page is protected on? I'd argue that it matters less than breaking rule # 2 of the page protection policy.
Best, Sascha Noyes
Sasha
Last time I protected a page on en, I was quite severely told that I had broken a very important rule, which said "revert to the last stable version" (I protected the last version).
Perhaps that rule is no more enforced.
I am always a train late in rules updates.
I fear I know not the rule number2.
I may have done another "boulette" :-)
Sascha Noyes a écrit:
On Sunday 01 February 2004 01:33 pm, Anthere wrote:
Could someone have a look at the conflict over Alexander Lukashenko, between Adam Carr and 172. And give their opinion ? I hardly dare to say it, but I reverted to a version that is anterior to december 2003, to insure it was "somehow" stable.
Does it matter _that much_ which version a page is protected on? I'd argue that it matters less than breaking rule # 2 of the page protection policy.
Best, Sascha Noyes
I checked what was rule number 2. I saw it was "never protect if you have edited the page"
I suppose you are trying to tell me now that I have broken rule number 2 in reverting the article to a previous state while protecting it ?
I never edited the article before I made that reversion. I am *absolutely* not interested by this article This morning I answered to a request of Adam Carr for mediation. Mav and I told him there were other steps before mediation.
This evening, I saw no progress, only reversions going on. I thought in my innocence, that I could protect a page I had never edited once, since I saw Adam and 172 reverting it on turn. Bad move !
Last time I protected a page, I was very coldly told I did wrong, because I protected the current version, and not the stable version. So, as a good girl, I am careful this time to protect the stable version, and to list the page in the protected pages And I did not do the right think again ???
Want me to be very strongly honest here ?
No, I won't, I might break a rule of basic politeness.
Anthere wrote:
Sascha Noyes a écrit:
Does it matter _that much_ which version a page is protected on? I'd
argue
that it matters less than breaking rule # 2 of the page protection
policy.
I checked what was rule number 2. I saw it was "never protect if you have edited the page"
Hi Anthere,
I think perhaps that Sascha wasn't accusing you of doing anything wrong. I interpreted their comments as "it isn't that important which version you protected it at (as hopefullly it will only be a temporary measure), it is just good that neither you or anyone lese broke Rule 2".
I could be wrong but I think that was the intention.
Regards,
Andrew (Ams80)
On Sunday 01 February 2004 02:46 pm, Anthere wrote:
Sascha Noyes a écrit:
On Sunday 01 February 2004 01:33 pm, Anthere wrote:
Could someone have a look at the conflict over Alexander Lukashenko, between Adam Carr and 172. And give their opinion ? I hardly dare to say it, but I reverted to a version that is anterior to december 2003, to insure it was "somehow" stable.
Does it matter _that much_ which version a page is protected on? I'd argue that it matters less than breaking rule # 2 of the page protection policy.
Best, Sascha Noyes
I checked what was rule number 2. I saw it was "never protect if you have edited the page"
I suppose you are trying to tell me now that I have broken rule number 2 in reverting the article to a previous state while protecting it ?
I never edited the article before I made that reversion. I am *absolutely* not interested by this article This morning I answered to a request of Adam Carr for mediation. Mav and I told him there were other steps before mediation.
It is correct that you were not involved in the dispute. I just had a knee-jerk reaction to seeing someone revert a page to a particular version, and then protecting it. (Having seen 168.. do that on [[DNA]] just yesterday - a dispute in which they were involved). For this I apologise.
This evening, I saw no progress, only reversions going on. I thought in my innocence, that I could protect a page I had never edited once, since I saw Adam and 172 reverting it on turn. Bad move !
Last time I protected a page, I was very coldly told I did wrong, because I protected the current version, and not the stable version. So, as a good girl, I am careful this time to protect the stable version, and to list the page in the protected pages And I did not do the right think again ???
I don't see anything on [[Wikipedia:Protection policy]] about reverting to a "stable version" before protecting a page, so I don't see what the people telling you to revert to a stable version would have based this on. I do, however, see on the policy page that:
"In addition, admins should try to avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless of course, one version is trolling or vandalism in which case you don't want to protect that version. However, it is best to let someone else do the reversion to maintain some distance."
Which would seem to contradict what they told you.
Want me to be very strongly honest here ?
No, I won't, I might break a rule of basic politeness.
I don't have a problem with you expressing your honest opinion, and appreciate the fact that you were obviously not concerned which version of the page should be displayed, but rather that you wanted to end the reversion war.
Best, Sascha Noyes
My apologies for "advising" you how to go about protecting a page, when in fact you were completely correct and I was completely incorrect. I hope you take my word for the fact that it wasn't meant as an attack on you, but only (wrongly!) pointing out the rules.
Best, Sascha Noyes
Going back to December, 2003, just puts 172's version up. He has written articles from a favorable point of view for several of these dictatorships. What is happening is that someone has challenged his apologetic point of view.
Fred
From: Sascha Noyes sascha@pantropy.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:24:25 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Alexander Lukashenko
On Sunday 01 February 2004 01:33 pm, Anthere wrote:
Could someone have a look at the conflict over Alexander Lukashenko, between Adam Carr and 172. And give their opinion ? I hardly dare to say it, but I reverted to a version that is anterior to december 2003, to insure it was "somehow" stable.
Does it matter _that much_ which version a page is protected on? I'd argue that it matters less than breaking rule # 2 of the page protection policy.
Best, Sascha Noyes -- Please encrypt all email. Public key available from www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Anthere a écrit:
Could someone have a look at the conflict over Alexander Lukashenko, between Adam Carr and 172. And give their opinion ? I hardly dare to say it, but I reverted to a version that is anterior to december 2003, to insure it was "somehow" stable.
Actually, I wrote this message initially to ask if some people could have a look at the issue generating the conflict, but saw no effect whatsoever. I also listed it on [[request for comment]], where it had no result either.
Sort of an experiment. Which lend me to think the step 2 of Wikipedia:Conflict resolution is not very likely to lead to success.
I also think that involving other people in troubled waters, is perhaps asking for more troubles than not.
Perhaps, rather than public calling for help (at the risk of attracting people willing to bring trouble), discreetly asking for help to specific people (known for their ability to handle conflict for example) is more likely to be beneficial.
In short, I am not convinced by step 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment
Can the one who suggested it give his opinion perhaps ?
------
Incidentally, I suggested to the disputants to agree upon a temporary version for the blocked page. I thought agreeing on this single point, could be a first step to a more global agreement on the other points.
I am glad to say 172 agreed to Adam Carr version for a temporary one.
From: "Anthere" anthere8@yahoo.com
Anthere a écrit:
Could someone have a look at the conflict over Alexander Lukashenko, between Adam Carr and 172. And give their opinion ? I hardly dare to say it, but I reverted to a version that is anterior to december 2003, to insure it was "somehow" stable.
Actually, I wrote this message initially to ask if some people could have a look at the issue generating the conflict, but saw no effect whatsoever. I also listed it on [[request for comment]], where it had no result
either.
Sort of an experiment. Which lend me to think the step 2 of Wikipedia:Conflict resolution is not very likely to lead to success.
I think that you may have comments or may not, but the fact of the matter is that the wiki is a collaborative process open to all. We should keep that in mind and this step in the dispute resolution process gives input to anyone interested. If there is no one interested then the parties appear to recognize the differeing POVs and if that cannot be reconciled you can take the dispute resolution process further.
I also think that involving other people in troubled waters, is perhaps asking for more troubles than not.
I think that it really has to do with content and that is something that we can help with to one degree or another.
Perhaps, rather than public calling for help (at the risk of attracting people willing to bring trouble), discreetly asking for help to specific people (known for their ability to handle conflict for example) is more likely to be beneficial.
If both are useful why not try posting it and soliciting comments; really at an early stage this could only get people interested in the subject page, that would be a good thing, no?
Alex756
Part of the problem here is that we don't get a lot of news out of Belarus. So even if someone is interested and has a general opinion we may still not know the specifics. I know not to trust anything 172 writes but can't vouch for the factual basis of the alternative article.
Fred
From: "Alex R." alex756@nyc.rr.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:57:40 -0500 To: anthere8@yahoo.com, "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Alexander Lukashenko
From: "Anthere" anthere8@yahoo.com
Anthere a écrit:
Could someone have a look at the conflict over Alexander Lukashenko, between Adam Carr and 172. And give their opinion ? I hardly dare to say it, but I reverted to a version that is anterior to december 2003, to insure it was "somehow" stable.
Actually, I wrote this message initially to ask if some people could have a look at the issue generating the conflict, but saw no effect whatsoever. I also listed it on [[request for comment]], where it had no result
either.
Sort of an experiment. Which lend me to think the step 2 of Wikipedia:Conflict resolution is not very likely to lead to success.
I think that you may have comments or may not, but the fact of the matter is that the wiki is a collaborative process open to all. We should keep that in mind and this step in the dispute resolution process gives input to anyone interested. If there is no one interested then the parties appear to recognize the differeing POVs and if that cannot be reconciled you can take the dispute resolution process further.
I also think that involving other people in troubled waters, is perhaps asking for more troubles than not.
I think that it really has to do with content and that is something that we can help with to one degree or another.
Perhaps, rather than public calling for help (at the risk of attracting people willing to bring trouble), discreetly asking for help to specific people (known for their ability to handle conflict for example) is more likely to be beneficial.
If both are useful why not try posting it and soliciting comments; really at an early stage this could only get people interested in the subject page, that would be a good thing, no?
Alex756
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You are right Fred, there is not a lot of "reliable news" in English out of Belarus. There are plenty of sources if you speak Russian, however. In English there is the Belpan news service with some of their articles reprinted on Charter97.org and on Brestonline.com, there are also a few Russian services that have English versions of stories written. There are various Human Rights reports that have a lot of verifiable information and OSCE committees that regularly report on Belarus. The problem with a lot of this material is that there are always allegations about the news sources being slanted to be "pro Western" or pro Luka.
Regarding journalists everyone pointing the finger at everyone else and even Russian journalists are being expelled from that country so it is hard to know what is accurate or propaganda from either side. If you've been to Belarus (I've been there four times) you quickly realize that it is hard to study this country in the face of all the mounting opposition to Lukashenko outside Belarus and what appears to be a very apathic populace that is just trying to survive. Reminded me a lot of Haiti as it shares a similar status with the western hemisphere's poorest country, but without the aging soviet infrastructure and few international aid projects. Lukashenko's renovated main train terminal in Mensk is _so_ tacky.
Alex
From: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@ctelco.net Part of the problem here is that we don't get a lot of news out of Belarus. So even if someone is interested and has a general opinion we may still not know the specifics. I know not to trust anything 172 writes but can't vouch for the factual basis of the alternative article.
Fred