Gareth Owen wrote:
I'm continually baffled by the fact people keep replying to Cunc. There is nothing in his actions over the last month that distinguishes him in anyway from a good old fashioned Troll.
He and I had a very nice private conversation not so long ago in which we both ended up apologizing sincerely for a quarrel we had about some things that were said in a debate on Wikipedia itself.
I think that the fundamental characteristic of a troll is that a troll deliberately tries to generate more heat than light, as an end in itself. I think that in the case of the Cunc, this isn't quite accurate. I think he's trying to generate light. He's just difficult and inflammatory.
Boy, that made me feel warm and fuzzy. But I know where you're coming from, and the criticism may be warranted. (Though I would have written: I think that in the case of the Cunc, this isn't accurate. I think he's trying to, and does, generate light. He's just sometimes difficult and inflammatory. )
I am in a pretty difficult position, because people have gotten into the habit of attacking my motives and character, which means I either have to expend energy defending them (like here) or I have to grin and bear it, or just leave. And I don't enjoy any of that. I'm trying to be closer to WikipediAhimsa now.
I truly think people's expectations of my behavior have been influenced by the unfairly negative characterizations of it, and such expectations then influence their perception of my behavior.
But maybe I am really a troll, as GWO and LMS assert.
It's certainly not for me to tell you what to think, and I clearly have made some mistakes. Enough about me. How was the wedding?
TC
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:06:55AM -0500, The Cunctator wrote:
I am in a pretty difficult position, because people have gotten into the habit of attacking my motives and character, which means I either have to expend energy defending them (like here) or I have to grin and bear it, or just leave. And I don't enjoy any of that. I'm trying to be closer to WikipediAhimsa now.
Or you could stop being difficult and inflammatory. What a concept.
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:06:55AM -0500, The Cunctator wrote:
I am in a pretty difficult position, because people have gotten into the habit of attacking my motives and character, which means I either have to expend energy defending them (like here) or I have to grin and bear it, or just leave. And I don't enjoy any of that. I'm trying to be closer to WikipediAhimsa now.
Or you could stop being difficult and inflammatory. What a concept.
Would I presumptuous to consider your sarcasm ("What a concept") inflammatory?
Or should I consider it a well-deserved rebuke?
Reading between the lines for both of our comments, it looks like I'm implying that people's response to me is unfair, while you're implying that it is.
I think much of people's response is fair, actually. The little that I consider unfair is when people characterize my intent: whereas you said "You could stop being difficult and inflammatory", you didn't say "You are trying to be difficult and inflammatory, and it's what you enjoy, and it's your reason for living," which is what LMS has said about me.
I'm writing directly to you because I don't want you to think I'm trying to showboat. But I'm not trying to keep this private, either, if you think I'm erring in that direction.
yours, TC
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 06:15:46PM -0600, kband@www.llamacom.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:06:55AM -0500, The Cunctator wrote:
I am in a pretty difficult position, because people have gotten into the habit of attacking my motives and character, which means I either have to expend energy defending them (like here) or I have to grin and bear it, or just leave. And I don't enjoy any of that. I'm trying to be closer to WikipediAhimsa now.
Or you could stop being difficult and inflammatory. What a concept.
Would I presumptuous to consider your sarcasm ("What a concept") inflammatory?
Or should I consider it a well-deserved rebuke?
I think it was a well-deserved rebuke. The "what a concept" phrase was intended to mean that my proposed solution was completely obvious.
Reading between the lines for both of our comments, it looks like I'm implying that people's response to me is unfair, while you're implying that it is.
I think their reaction is understandable. In fact, I think it was very restrained and patient. Only after repeated attempts to come to an understanding through reason.
I don't think your behavior is acceptable. You criticize without giving constructive criticism, you imply conspiracy theories that don't exist, and you mischaracterize other people's statements.
I think much of people's response is fair, actually. The little that I consider unfair is when people characterize my intent: whereas you said "You could stop being difficult and inflammatory", you didn't say "You are trying to be difficult and inflammatory, and it's what you enjoy, and it's your reason for living," which is what LMS has said about me.
I'm writing directly to you because I don't want you to think I'm trying to showboat. But I'm not trying to keep this private, either, if you think I'm erring in that direction.
I don't know what your intent is, but I know how it appears from here. And it appears from here that you understand the problem, and yet you continue to perpetutate it.
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, The Cunctator wrote:
I think that in the case of the Cunc, this isn'taccurate. I think he's trying to, and does, generate light. He's just sometimes difficult and inflammatory. )
I am in a pretty difficult position, because people have gotten into the habit of attacking my motives and character, which means I either have to expend energy defending them (like here) or I have to grin and bear it, or just leave. And I don't enjoy any of that.
Er, that's not quite what happened most recently, is it? The above claim is precisely the sort of misleading claim that irritates me. In fact, you posted a completely misleading, inflammatory discussion of the "Wikipedia Militia" page. Many people, myself included, responded strongly to your unfair rhetoric. It's not as if you're merely the victim of an unprovoked attack. So do not misrepresent the situation. There were indeed good reasons to respond to the incredible rudeness of your behavior; don't expect polite people to tolerate it. Moreover, you cannot expect many people to give you very much sympathy for the harsh, but *perfectly appropriate* responses people have made to you.
I truly think people's expectations of my behavior have been influenced by the unfairly negative characterizations of it, and such expectations then influence their perception of my behavior.
Give me a break! As if you had not earned your reputation slowly and painfully over a period of months, and as if we all did not know this!
But maybe I am really a troll, as GWO and LMS assert.
I'd like to point out that you, Cunctator, are the one who decided (rather trollishly, I might add) to make public my opinion that you are (were acting like) a troll. I told you that *in private e-mail*. Moreover, in private, I know of a few others who have asserted the same thing about you. Now, if you want people to stop accusing you of being a troll, then stop acting like one. If you want detailed advice on how to do so, I'm sure there are many here who would be only too happy to help.
I really do wish we could stop this. Cunctator, if you would cease to write such inflammatory stuff, we will have no grounds on which to criticize you. Apart from the inflammatory stuff, you've done some very good work for the project. I know that you won't like to be told to cease your ill-prosecuted, self-chosen role as resident passionate gadfly; but you know, the original gadfly, Socrates, is known as the very model of reasonableness and politeness. Plato's Socrates let the facts, or logic, speak for themselves, and did not resort to insulting innuendo and dirty rhetorical tricks. Even the famed Socratic irony was generally very gentle, and usually consisted of Socrates praising someone for knowing something that Socrates knew all too well his "victim" *did not* know.
Larry Sanger
OK
I initiated this thread, solely for the purpose of clearing up a quote of mine being used out of context. I named no names, and laid no blame. I felt misrepresented by the quote, and wanted to clarify my position, not spark a conflict.
However, I was probably in error for writing the original post to Wikipedia-L, for which I apologise.
Now I am saying - can we drop it completely? Wikipedia-L is really not a forum for sorting out personal disputes, or criticising individuals.
If you want to criticise a decision, or an action, or an article, or discuss a policy, count me in. But I find expressing contempt for any individual, for any reason, to be unacceptable in this forum.
I'm not trying to offend anyone by this, and I truly hope no offence is taken.
Let's just build the 'pedia.
Warm regards Manning
The logo debate goes on - the last horse in seems to still be the leader. When do we get a decision, Larry, or are you still too busy with conjugal concerns? :-)
Has anyone seen the recent additions to the original "logo" suggestions page? Some of them are as funny as hell - I don't know who made them, but clearly someone who's been around for a while. Obviously they are not appropriate for the main pedia, but I'd be keen to see if the one about "My encyclopedia can beat up your encyclopedia" has any support for being the META logo.
Personally I like the "One billion unfinished entries served" but there's no way that would fly.
Manning
Sorry to drag this out, but I feel I have something important to add.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Manning Bartlett wrote:
If you want to criticise a decision, or an action, or an article, or discuss a policy, count me in. But I find expressing contempt for any individual, for any reason, to be unacceptable in this forum.
I wish I could agree, but I can't, not entirely. I agree that the initial posts about Cunctator being a troll, which started this most recent dispute, were unnecessary.
My own post, while it did express no small amount of contempt for some of Cunctator's public statements, was made not out of hostility but out of self-defense. Cunctator now tries to say that he himself is under "attack," as if he had not brought the criticism of his behavior upon himself. Words have consequences. In a dispute that has become personal, the consequences are consequences for reputation, and some of us (myself certainly) require at least a decent reputation in order to be able to do our jobs. If someone makes many misleading public statements (intentionally, or not!) that tend to undermine my reputation, I think it's important that I defend it. Repeatedly, if necessary. I won't apologize for doing so.
Two important qualifications to the above: first, of course, it would have been better if the dispute never happened in the first place. Then I would have enjoyed, well, *not* getting defensive. Second, if the misrepresentations are not credible to anyone, then of course there's no point in trying to correct them. But if someone has enough good will and credibility in the Wikipedia community, then, when he says something that I think is particularly damaging to me, I must consider responding, out of self-defense.
This is all of course a huge waste of time, in that all of our time would be far better used in working on the encyclopedia. But--seriously--I don't see how it can be helped! For instance, I would like to be able to take the high road and say, "There's no need to respond to this, I'll just let thinking people come to whatever conclusions they like." I wish it worked that way, but I really don't think it does. Personal attacks of all sorts really do have consequences, and if they have even some small amount of credibility, then if you don't fight back, there are going to be people who are convinced to some small degree.
Finally, I want to make a distinction--one that is all too easily blurred, however--between reasonable, constructive criticism on the one hand, and unfair, misleading attacks. I welcome constructive criticism. I don't even demand niceness. I do generally want fairness, though.
I'm not trying to offend anyone by this, and I truly hope no offence is taken.
No offense taken here.
Larry
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org