On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:24 pm, Ed wrote:
I looked some of Ark's comments on Talk:Infanticide, and he sure seems upset about something. I'm going to see if I can engage him in dialogue, and see if I can figure out why he feels he must use language like the following snippets:
- my lazy opponents ... you lazy bums ...
- I don't accept the judgement of idiots. ... I am dealing with morons ...
living in denial * I'll say what conclusions can be supported from the evidence (which I don't feel the least need to spell out ...)
Perhaps he (she?) doesn't realize how hurtful such words can be, to other contributors.
Ed Poor
Ed please try, but be advised that I have already spent /many/ hours trying to do the exact same thing (although you do seem better at this type of thing than me).
I have asked nice; that didn't work
I have pleaded; that didn't work
I have suggested that his rhetoric is harming the project; that didn't work
I have stated that his rhetoric is a violation of our etiquette policy; that didn't work either
I have even stated that if he did not play nice and continued to sap the energy of other contributors that his actions will have to be reviewed by the mailing list and he may be blocked from editing;
That warning obviously hasn't been headed.
I personally give up and say we should issue one final warning and then test the block user function if that warning is also ignored. This person is not at all worth loosing any valued and long time contributor over. Wasn't the fact that we tolerate stuff like this (the amature and persistant POV stuff Ark does, not the rhetoric) the reason why Michael Tinkler left the project?
If it means loosing somebody like Ark to keep somebody like Michael, then I say we should have some, but limited tolerance for the Ark's of the world.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:24 pm, Ed wrote:
I looked some of Ark's comments on Talk:Infanticide, and he sure seems upset about something. I'm going to see if I can engage him in dialogue, and see if I can figure out why he feels he must use language like the following snippets:
- my lazy opponents ... you lazy bums ...
- I don't accept the judgement of idiots. ... I am dealing with morons ...
living in denial * I'll say what conclusions can be supported from the evidence (which I don't feel the least need to spell out ...)
Perhaps he (she?) doesn't realize how hurtful such words can be, to other contributors.
Perhaps. I think it is morely likely Ark has experienced how hurtful such attitudes can be and feels turnabout is fair play. How can we, the Wikipedia community, ask he/she to forgive and forget past transgressions and focus on the friendly assertive dialogue so necessary to building a correct consensus view regarding article content and phrasing; if we are incapable of ignoring current trangressions or heated hurtful rhetoric?
Ed Poor
Ed please try, but be advised that I have already spent /many/ hours trying to do the exact same thing (although you do seem better at this type of thing than me).
I have asked nice; that didn't work
In an anarchy he/she is as sovereign as we are.
I have pleaded; that didn't work
See above.
I have suggested that his rhetoric is harming the project; that didn't work
Perhaps his/her personal assessement is different.
I have stated that his rhetoric is a violation of our etiquette policy; that didn't work either
This is incorrect.
We have suggested guidelines, not enforceable policies. The single exception to date (that I am aware of) is the posting of material perceived by others as physical threats. If Ark has read the guidelines then your statement merely diminishes your credibility or the Wikipedia community's. Either you do not know what you are talking about or the community has failed to accurately articulate the governing guidelines.
Hmmm ... that sounds a bit like 24's early wild allegations, before moving on to productive personal attacks, flame wars, and ultimately temporary banning .... erroneously mutating into a long term ban.
The guidelines explicitly state do as you please, serene in the prospect of others editing your work to suit themselves and eventually the community at large.
The sole remedy laid out by the existing guidelines to poor material is editing. Banning is not mentioned for the heinous crime of being in flagrant disagreement with others.
I have even stated that if he did not play nice and continued to sap the energy of other contributors that his actions will have to be reviewed by the mailing list and he may be blocked from editing;
Exlicitly threatening he/she with the nonexistent cabal.
That warning obviously hasn't been headed.
Implying that you have authority to issue such a warning.
I personally give up and say we should issue one final warning and then test the block user function if that warning is also ignored. This person is not at all worth loosing any valued and long time contributor over. Wasn't the fact that we tolerate stuff like this (the amature and persistant POV stuff Ark does, not the rhetoric) the reason why Michael Tinkler left the project?
Retaining long time contributors is a poor reason to block other contributors. This approach guarantees built in bias and makes a mockery of the NPOV guidelines we currently embrace. How can we present all views, appropriately tagged and merged into an overall NPOV presentation, if only material from the current majority view is available?
If it means loosing somebody like Ark to keep somebody like Michael, then I say we should have some, but limited tolerance for the Ark's of the world.
If it means losing newcomers to keep long time contributors, then I say we should tolerate some stodgy appeal to long time authority and seniority, but stop far short of a closed union shop. After all, we already have some contributions from the long time regulars. Better to get some fresh thought and blood into the project occasionally.
Best of all would be to improve our methods such that strange esoteric (to long time regulars) views or incorrect materials are not so threatening to the perceived quality of the Wikipedia and the reputation of Wikipedians associated with the project.
regards, Mike Irwin aka mirwin
--- "Michael R. Irwin" mri_icboise@surfbest.net wrote:
Perhaps. I think it is morely likely Ark has experienced how hurtful such attitudes can be and feels turnabout is fair play. How can we, the Wikipedia community, ask he/she to forgive and forget past transgressions and focus on the friendly assertive dialogue so necessary to building a correct consensus view regarding article content and phrasing; if we are incapable of ignoring current trangressions or heated hurtful rhetoric?
I'm afraid you'll have to give some examples of where the person in question has been provoked and/or verbally abused before anyone takes those suggestions seriously.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
--- "Michael R. Irwin" mri_icboise@surfbest.net wrote:
Perhaps. I think it is morely likely Ark has experienced how hurtful such attitudes can be and feels turnabout is fair play. How can we, the Wikipedia community, ask he/she to forgive and forget past transgressions and focus on the friendly assertive dialogue so necessary to building a correct consensus view regarding article content and phrasing; if we are incapable of ignoring current trangressions or heated hurtful rhetoric?
I'm afraid you'll have to give some examples of where the person in question has been provoked and/or verbally abused before anyone takes those suggestions seriously.
Stephen G.
How unfortunate. I do not intend to scour an everchanging medium for examples of past transgressions. Particularly since people often perceive things differently and I might not recognize something that appeared provocative or abusive to Ark anyway. If I did find something that appeared so to me, it is very possible that it would be merely dismissed as vaporous by the original provocateur anyway. I have participated in professional seminars where pychologists and communications specialists demonstrated to the class through lab exercises that most people perceive themselves differently than others do.
I have been impressed by the quality of overall participation here at Wikipedia and doubt that most Wikipedians would intentionally give offense over trivia. Of course, most regulars do not consider editing content trivial. We also have many random dropins from newcomers who are not always easily distinguishable from regulars. Also, mistakes will happen occasionally even with the best of intentions and feathers will get ruffled.
I suggest we be careful in implementing your suggestion of mercilessly gang editing Ark's material in question, lest Ark see hordes from the mailing list descending upon his/her work as "provocation" to further uncivil behavior.
Some participants here on the mailing list have noted that Ark has contributed productively, if a bit abrasively, in the past. They might take it a bit personally should Ark use the opportunity provided to get banned.
It might also lead them to suspect our processes can be improved a bit. 24's banning certainly raised my suspicions in that direction quite a bit.
I volunteer to try to help Ark find some substantiating data, opinion, suspicions, etc. for the controversial material while also attempting to discredit Ms. Hoffman's and others sources and materials .... not note, Ms. Hoffman.
Fun stuff! It is not often one acquires an opportunity to attack academia's material in one last desperate attempt to help truth triumph over the weight of historical neglect, outright revision or wishful thinking.
regards, Mike Irwin, aka mirwin
My apologies for posting this to the mailing list. I tried to submit a feature request at SourceForge, but I didn't see it appear on the list, so I assume I don't know how to do it correctly.
My problem is this: I have several pages in my watch list that have become redirects since I started watching them. I want those pages off my watch list. The only way I know how to get a page off my watch list is to go to that page and click the "Stop Watching" link. But when I try to go to a redirect page, I get redirected before I have a chance to stop watching. So what should I do?
Incidentally, this makes wonder too what to do if I decide that a redirect page should in fact be the main page and I therefore want to edit it away from being a redirect. Is that possible?
Thanks in advance, and my apologies if I have chosen the wrong forum to ask.
Peace, -Fritzlein
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com
--- Karl Juhnke yangfuli@yahoo.com wrote:
My problem is this: I have several pages in my watch list that have become redirects since I started watching them. I want those pages off my watch list. The only way I know how to get a page off my watch list is to go to that page and click the "Stop Watching" link. But when I try to go to a redirect page, I get redirected before I have a chance to stop watching. So what should I do?
Incidentally, this makes wonder too what to do if I decide that a redirect page should in fact be the main page and I therefore want to edit it away from being a redirect. Is that possible?
The answer to both questions: when you are redirected, you should see a notice under the title of your final destination that says, "Redirected from [[redirect page title]]" If you click on that link, you will be able to edit the redirect page, and remove it from your watch list.
Thanks in advance, and my apologies if I have chosen the wrong forum to ask.
That's what the list is here for!
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
I personally give up and say we should issue one final warning and then test the block user function if that warning is also ignored.
I strongly object. Using stupid rhetoric on talk pages is not grounds for locking someone out. Ark has made a lot of good contributions relating to computer security, and it's unfortunate that he doesn't play nice with others. He also has an agenda to push. But let's not get too ban-happy. Read on for my alternative solution.
This person is not at all worth loosing any valued and long time contributor over. Wasn't the fact that we tolerate stuff like this (the amature and persistant POV stuff Ark does, not the rhetoric) the reason why Michael Tinkler left the project?
Rather than banning the person in question, a better option would be for many different Wikipedians to ruthlessly edit the problem articles. There's not need to engage the person in empty and insulting rhetoric; simply make the changes that are necessary and document why on the talk page. Ignore any name-calling.
If it means loosing somebody like Ark to keep somebody like Michael, then I say we should have some, but limited tolerance for the Ark's of the world.
I agree. However, the ban should be an absolute last resort. Banning people simply adds more fuel to certain fires, namely the idea that the Wikipedia project engages in censorship when people piss off the almighty sysops.
It seems that Julie is the only person right now who is trying to balance the Infanticide article. Let's all do a little research and give her a hand. That way, one knowledgable person isn't left to twist in the wind by herself, and the article can't be hijacked to push a single point of view.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org