[WikiEN-l] Re: DNA controversy: 168, Lir, Mav, and Erik

[Anthere]

Hello Steve,

I appreciate the whole piece of what you wrote, though I do not agree on 
all of it.

But one thing hits me real hard.

It is the comment you make saying this "That 168 would blank Erik's
 > pages, however, really upsets me.  It is childish and unconstructive 
 > and
 > shows absolutely no interest in being part of a community and working
 > with others."

I saw NO evidence of this.

This is 168 contributions list

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=168...

I see no indication that 168 blanked Erik page.

These are Erik pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Eloquence&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Eloquence&action=history

There is NO evidence that 168 vandalised Erik pages

I think 168 never did that. If he did, it was not on Erik pages. And it 
is the first I hear about it.


That sounds like witch hunt.

The fact you say that this behavior is childish and unacceptable and a 
clear sign he can't participate to the community, because he vandalised 
Erik pages, and that finally you suggest banning him.... is 
just...letting me... totally abashed.

I hope no one will ban him without checking facts and without offering 
him this arbitration he requested so much to justify himself.


Yes, I can communicate with 168, but not to announce him he was banned 
for having vandalised Erik pages among other vandalisms.


It is impressive how things can turn.


steven l. rubenstein a écrit:
> I have been trying to follow the list-serve discussion of this, and have 
> gone through the talk-page and page history of DNA, and admit that I may 
> be missing some facts.  The whole thing is overwhelming.  Unless this 
> discussion ends with some sort of productive resolution, a whole lot of 
> capable people will have wasted an awful lot of time.  This distresses me.
> 
> As I see it, there are really three different issues here and it would 
> be unconstructive to reduce it to one, even if that one were the one 
> that started it all:
> 1) a conflict between 168 and Lir over the content of the DNA article
> 2) a conflict between 168 and Mav over the process of editing an article
> 3) a conflict between 168 and Erik over the rights and responsibilities 
> of a sysop
> 
> As for the first conflict, I have little to say except I myself have 
> been involved in revert wars with both parties.  In my experience, 168 
> knows more about molecular biology and I respect his knowledge. 
> 
> As for the second conflict, I must confess that some time ago I was 
> caught up in a revert war with 168 concerning genes and drift.  
> Obviously I am biased, but my experience was that it is practically 
> impossible to work with 168 because s/he is highly resistant to 
> compromise.  But compromise is a crucial value for a community project. 
> We have to be able to distinguish between factual knowledge and process 
> -- not because facts are unimportant but because each of us has to admit 
> that we may not know all the facts and that another contributor might 
> have something important to offer.  This is even more important when it 
> comes to style (i.e., a matter over which no one has particular 
> expertise; that is, a molecular biochemist may have authority in 
> molecular biochemistry, but not necessarily in style).  I agree that 
> ultimately there was an edit war between Lir and 168 that has to be 
> resolved, and that the merits of the DNA article provide the basis for 
> resolving it.  But there is a larger issue which is how to work with 
> others, and I am very concerned that 168 cannot work well with Mav who, 
> besides being quite knowledgeable about biology, is clearly someone who 
> is devoted to wikipedia and a congenial member of the community.
> 
> As for the third matter, do I understand correctly that Erik merely 
> de-sysoped 168?  It seems to me that he did so with good cause.  Perhaps 
> there should have been dome discussion first, but really, things did 
> seem to be getting out of hand.  One reason for clear policies is to 
> ensure that we don't have to get bogged down in endless discussion.  
> Perhaps some want to revisit the matter of a de-sysop policy -- okay, 
> that certainly merits discussion.  But de-sysoping isn't, in my mind, so 
> awful.  I admit were I de-sysoped, my ego would be bruised.  But it 
> wouldn't silence me, I could still work on articles like most people; I 
> don't think of de-sysoping as being as serious as even a temporary ban, 
> especially since it can easily be reversed.  If I were de-sysoped I 
> would make an appeal here, to create some general discussion, or would 
> contact other administrators for help.  That 168 would blank Erik's 
> pages, however, really upsets me.  It is childish and unconstructive and 
> shows absolutely no interest in being part of a community and working 
> with others.
> 
> We have a problem that keeps escalating.  The three escalations all have 
> one person in common -- 168.  Now, I hate suggesting that someone be 
> banned and am not saying 168 ought to be banned, especially when he 
> knows so much.  But knowing a lot is not enough here; contributors have 
> to be able to work with others.  Can someone communicate with 168?
> 
> Steve
> 
> Steven L. Rubenstein
> Associate Professor
> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
> Bentley Annex
> Ohio University
> Athens, Ohio 45701
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l