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