Manning Bartlett wrote:
I've been following the various commentary about 24 with interest, and = maybe I can offer some thoughts for consideration.
We have run into at least one character similar to 24 in the past - = Cunctator. (Although 24 seems worse). That is - a person who is clearly = quite intelligent, capable of making very worthwhile contributions at = times, but frequently unable to distinguish between the encyclopedia = agenda and their personal agenda.
The solution to 24 is probably the same as with Cunctator - the silent = ignore and passive editing approach. Maveric has tried to reason with 24 = repeatedly, but when reason is clearly failing there is nothing else to = do but protect the project.
I will try this approach -- however, this person contributes at a phenomenal rate and I'm not sure if I can just sit by and let this person's personal agenda mare the project.
As much as people seem to hate admitting it- there is a "cabal" in = operation at the Wikipedia. However, rather than being some secretive = and exclusive operation, it is a freely admissive assembly: Live by the = rules and you're in.=20
Those who contribute often and really care do form a kind of a group -- at the very least. I never really understood the total aversion against an administrating body (especially one that is based on meritocracy).
I know of no occasion where someone who accepted the central editorial = guidelines was ever made to feel excluded - one's "respect and = authority" is purely a measure of one's level of participation and = commitment, not a matter of "who you know" or (especially) "how long = you've been here". Jimbo retains ultimate control of the project (by = virtue of his paying for the damn thing), but the remainder of us are = its true authority structure. The Wikipedia Militia was assembled along = these lines - some howled with outrage, but most of us understood its = purpose.=20
right on.
So this is a time when the "cabal" or "militia" must rise to the = occasion - we must simply edit quietly and remove the detritus to either = meta or to oblivion, as is appropriate. 24 is chiefly motivated by his = ability to engage us - people such as this live for their ability to = command the attention of people, and to eliminate his negative behaviour = we must remove this incentive. Two things will result - he/she will = either learn to play by the rules, or he/she will go away. Either way, = the project is better off.
I really don't think this person will learn -- 24 has most certainely been told about our policies and refusses to abide by them. The only supprissing thing is that I have yet really to get into an edit-war with him/her -- maybe he/she does not know how to REVERT an article yet. God help us...
There is no shame is using our "collective authority" - we do not need = any special measures. We edit, delete, and watch each other. If Maveric, = Vibber, JHK, Jimbo, KQ or someone similarly respected elects to delete = content of 24, I'm probably going to be fairly accepting of their = judgment. This is motivated by my trust of them as rational beings who = understand the purpose of Wikipedia. This trust is not absolute, but = certainly substantial (and I mean no disrespect - absolute trust is not = possible as we are all fallible)=20
I will remove content, but I will not delete an article made by 24 unless it is missnamed. I am too emotionally involved now and can't trust myself enough to do that. That doens't mean I wont place articles in [[wikipedia:page titles to be deleted]] though.
If the "Militia" were an exclusive operation, then there would be shame = to it, but that has never been the case, nor could it ever be (without = some seriously fundamental changes to the structure of Wikipedia, which = I suspect would never happen.)=20
There is no shame to reversing the work of crakpots.
[.......] However, entire articles which usurp recognised terms for personal dogma = are not controversial at all - they have to go, and that's that. = Collectively it is our responsibility to get rid of them.
Warm regards Manning Sydney, Australia
The 'pedia will be a much nicer place after you return.
maveric149