Subj: Re: Hardblocking Usernames
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:13 +0100
From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton-…@public.gmane.org>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l-…@public.gmane.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english


They should have thought about that before doing something blockworthy, then, shouldn't they?

But…But…Blocks are preventive, not punitive, right????

While saying "They should have thought about that before doing something blockworthy, then, shouldn't they?", I picture Thomas Dalton looking something like this:

This user has been Butt Blocked.

Are you happy now, Guy? ?Çö One click on an ED page and our once high standards now wimper off in a State Of Extreme Detumessence ?Ǫ

Jonny

* '''Question.''' Re: "I'm not happy about the circumstances in which it was created, which seem to include using it as a weapon against him", (font color="Purple" [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]). I don't know enough about this article to vote yet, but I don't understand how an article can be used as a "weapon" if it stays within Wikipedia guidelines. [[User:Angelina Wartenberg|Angelina Wartenberg]] 14:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is trolling, when told "we're looking at this" and "we're
concerned, too", to reply "BUT YOU NEED TO DO IT IN PUBLIC!!!".

We don't need to do it in public.

We shouldn't want to do it in public. I don't want to be part of an
organization which refuses to conduct legitimately sensitive business
in private.

Accountability in some situations is "we trust Arbcom and Jimbo, who
we find to be honorable trustworthy people and who we expect to do the
right thing for Wikipedia, and explain to the degree possible
afterwards".

Accountable in what way? Available for public flogging? He already is,
and that's not merely 'accountable', that's Draconian.

(Jayjg, if you are reading this, you have my support on the matter,
whatever the issue is.)

An uncivil environment is a poor environment to work in. It is not conducive to an useful and positive outcome from an already difficult situation. If editors are not staying within the boundaries of civility then they should be warned accordingly, and if they persist, then blocks should be enforced.

If conversations devolve into uncivil rants at each other, how is that helping anyone? Yes, we all believe our side is the right answer and find it difficult to assume good faith of the other parties, but we must force ourselves to as much as possible, and to stay civil. Else we are just a bunch of arguing editors who are doing exactly nothing for improving the site.

Reminding fellow editors of our need for civility is a good thing as it reminds people to stay useful.

Contents
1 Why does an uncivil environment hurt productive editing?
1.1 Us vs. Them mentality
1.2 Destruction of nuance
1.3 Bad feelings
2 See also

Why does an uncivil environment hurt productive editing?
So, why does an uncivil environment hurt productive editing?

Us vs. Them mentality
Let's say I accuse you of "edits bordering on vandalism" about your efforts to NPOV an article. This makes you angry, right? Enough of this sort of thing leads to an Us versus Them mentality, which can prevent any attempt at compromise.

Destruction of nuance
The truth of a situation is often a subtle, difficult to articulate thing. An uncivil environment tends to result in such loud shouting that it becomes impossible to be heard over said shouting, thus making subtle, nuanced positions almost impossible.

Bad feelings
If you're in a bad mood, you're more likely to make a mistake. Incivility encourages a bad mood, thus encouraging mistakes.

Getting adminship is based on how you behave. If you behave maturely, you can get adminship no matter how young you are, and if you behave immaturely, you can be denied it no matter how old you are. This is exactly the way it should be. Wikipedia does not look at age, just as it doesn't look at degrees; it looks at performance. And practically speaking, even if this wasn't a good thing per se, there'd be no other way to manage things; a meaningful age verification system for adminship noms would be extremely difficult and would turn most people off from the process, either because of the trouble involved, because of the feeling of privacy invasion, or because they actually are underage.

He said he was a friend of the most famous smear victim on Wikipedia, John Seigenthaler Sr., a journalist who in 2005 was maliciously linked to the Kennedy assassination as a prank by an anonymous editor.

Mr. Seigenthaler managed to turn the tables on Wikipedia, questioning in an op-ed in USA Today how the project could cavalierly allow his reputation to be trashed for so long. When the episode was over, it was Wikipedia’s reputation that had been hurt.

"John’s argument is that it was up there for months without editing," Mr. Godwin says. "What that actually tells you is that not many people read it."

Because of the attention, Mr. Godwin says, Mr. Seigenthaler’s Wikipedia biography is a model: it has two photographs, 24 footnotes and has been edited more than 1,000 times. And that example of self-correction fuels Mr. Godwin’s view that "the best answer for bad speech is more speech."

Jimbo explains to Ellen Fanning on Australian television, April 1, 2007, that the Seigenthaler incident was Seigenthaler's fault. This is an MP3 audio file, about 2 minutes long: http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/seigen.mp3

Crack attorney Mike Godwin has already been Jimbo-washed. He tells the New York Times on August 20, 2007:

Jimbo explains to Ellen Fanning on Australian television, April 1, 2007, that the Seigenthaler incident was Seigenthaler's fault. This is an MP3 audio file, about 2 minutes long: http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/seigen.mp3

Crack attorney Mike Godwin has already been Jimbo-washed. He tells the New York Times on August 20, 2007:

This is appalling.

1. I'd like to have a transcript of Der Jimbo's bilge on that interview. The man is deeply disingenuous, and deliberately misrepresents the whole situation.
2. I know that Wikipedia Watch has a list of a few disgraceful edits that have stayed on the site. But we really need to expand that list somewhere, to create a compendium of shame to present to interested parties.

Doesn't really change the fundametals: it's a web forum populated at least in part by frustrated POV pushers and grudge-bearers, it has no authority as a site, no editorial policy, no fact-checking process, and is often used as a platform by those whose attampts to promote an agenda have been rebuffed from Wikipedia. It engages in harassment, outing and attacks, and has absolutely no redeeming merit sufficient to overcome that problem and qualify it as a source for anything. Any user who is not banned and has a problem with a Wikipedian's behaviour can bring it up on Wikipedia. Banned users are banned, full stop, we have taken a decision that we don't want to hear what they have to say (especially when it's the same kind of self-serving nonsense that got them banned in the first place). It is a perfect example of a site we should not link without a very good reason indeed. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Source. WP:R4Arbitrariness/Attack Sites/Workslop#Wikipedia Review

Banned users are banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned because they're banned …

Thomas Dalton: Wikipedia is not reliable enough to base national policy on... of
course, it's more reliable than the stuff the spin doctors come up
with.
Geni: It has been tried (I think the relivant [sic] country was in south america).

New Entry


I think not, Geni.

Closely followed by this from "Armedblowfish"

Subj: Re: Jimmy Wales in the news
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:25:26 +0000
From: David Gerard <dgerard-…@public.gmane.org>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l-…@public.gmane.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english

On 04/03/2008, Screamer <scream-…@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Are there any real concerns here? If so, I would be most ecstatic to discuss them.

Well, Jimbo doesn't appear to have touched the article himself in any way. Others, e.g. Ms Marsden herself, claim he claimed otherwise.

I know a lot of people are going through the actual logs of work on the article — JzG did a lot of cleanup, and he's one of the experienced BLP machete-wielders, hacking crap bios back to neutrality and relevance, and he may be a crusty fellow in many ways but I can't imagine him doing the wrong thing to an article on anyone's behalf.

I don't think there's actual crossing of the streams in evidence, but if there is it'll undoubtedly show up.

- d.