So my watchlist came up as MONGO violated WP:CANVAS and spread messages to several hundred people thanking them for voting in his request for adminship. I have seen people banned for doing it to ten people. This isn't really about MONGO as lots of other people do this, but about how after an RFA ends shouldn't there be a rule against people canvassing every talk page thanking them for voting?

Kelly Martin released the hounds on Anthony when he did it to her :

http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/...an+in+the+World

So far right now on MONGO's edit history he's been at it for THREE HOURS STRAIGHT doing nothing but canvassing thank you notes. And he is still at it. It's the middle of the night, too. He's stayed up all night just doing this for many hours.

He'll be over here later, thanking each of us for our support. I'm due a barnstar apparently for this.

Then he'll start going through the telephone directory and calling people up.

Thanking someone for participating in a discussion is not violating WP:CANVAS. Of all the reasons to bring up something an editor has done...

Things like this are what makes it frankly laughable when any of the cabal (well, anyone) pulls one of their "User has less than x edits" retorts. Or uses "User has more than x edits" as some de facto point in an argument.

So many of this lot have orders of magnitudes more edits in project space than article space. Don't even start me on certain cablistas habits of "saving" every two minutes (in case her net connection dies, ostensibly? Or to make it possible to micromanage her edits, although woe betide you if you have the gall to rv her), and then boasting about how many edits she's made.

It's all part of the Social Networking Game though, Firsfron. Put a bit of time in grooming as many people as you can, and then recall the favors at a later time. Makes it easier to bend content and other people to your will when needed. Refilling the bank of power, so to speak. And as the most important thing in the game is status and power, these little things are important.

That's probably true, Kato, but it could be argued that any regular contact with other editors is social networking. Any user who leaves a note for another user can be accused of social networking. Any any user in contact with other like-minded editors on a regular basis is bound to develop a rapport with these editors, which really isn't much different than the working relationships between (for example) editors of The New York Times.

A simple "thanks for voting; it failed" really doesn't seem to have the sinister repercussions being assigned to it here. It's "thanks", not "you owe me one". Tell me what I'm missing. I thanked people on my own RFA, and I never saw a danger in it.

Discussing the relative merits of an article, or a source, or the specifics of subject matter with another editor is not social networking. It is an essential part of collaborative work.

Having an unrelated chat or dropping a friendly line to an editor you work with closely is not a big issue. But going onto pages of people who have had nothing to do with your work, connected to you only because they were in the congregation for some weird public ritual is Social Networking. Not collaborative work.

Which beggars the question, why are they on the site? Are they there to help create a body of work? Or are they there to take part in some huge social game?

I'm finding this anti-social-networking rant to be
rather sexist. Sheesh, just because I like having
friends doesn't mean I'm power hungry and want
to take over my town or whatever.

Life is quite literally safer with friends. Really,
there are some streets you don't want to walk
down alone.

No, I don't really think Kato is sexist, but liking
having friends is a rather feminine quality, and
it doesn't make one power-hungry, so....

Though I wouldn't characterise it as social networking in its own right, meeting up with like-minded individuals is a means to a productive co-operative, and is to be encouraged.

Certainly my initial experiences on CompuServe forums in the early 90s for the purposes of technical support and learning hard things to learn in the world of computing was very effective. It also taught me that American culture (which was the bedrock of the forums) could be very supportive and giving, rather than the stereotypical "What's in it for me?" view that many non-Americans form. Very much part of that culture was "Don't return the favour, pass it on." Not only did it change my career for the better, it also gave me an insight into what was good about American culture, so my starting point is that this way of working can be a very good thing.

That perhaps points to a difference between a small, focused grouping with common aims of self-improvement, and the disparate rag-bag of individuals, who in very small areas may be able to form sensible projects, but are like gazelles being dragged down by the big cat admins or picked off by the hyenas out there, lurking around.

The big difference on CompuServe was that as a sysop (their equivalent of an admin), you wore the badge of the company you supported, and were held accountable. That kept you on the straight and narrow. There were also rewards. I may have been a volunteer, but I attended two or three week sysop conferences including trans-Atlantic flights, and they didn't mind providing a hire car for a week before for me to tour California.

It is a shame that WP brings this into disrepute.

Does everything for you have to come down to sexism? Do you have to change the subject in every discussion to how you're being oppressed by others' free speech?



...and the above looks like a sexist comment to me. Many feminists get offended when people try to claim some characteristic or other as masculine or feminine. Then others act like you and insist on designating things as feminine (and therefore superior), so that a heated culture war can go on even with nothing but feminists in the room.



I don't think that's considered canvassing; canvassing is spreading word about a vote while it's going on for the purpose of trying to influence it, so it doesn't apply to messages sent after the voting is over.

I don't see an analogy between walking down the street with or without friends, and collaborating to create a body of work for an online "encylopedia"?

Unless people aren't really that interested in collaborating to create a body work, and are involved because they are more in need of a virtual social network?

My theory is that a large number of people involved are not motivated primarily by creating a body of work. They are motivated by a misplaced need for company, friendship, status or power. Which, due to the "consensus" structure of WP and even the software (or perhaps because of it), actively undermines the prime objective of creating a legitimate resource.

In short, many people on WP are prone to back up their "online friends" against people they disagree with regardless of content concerns. I can provide numerous examples of this.


I have no idea how you construe any of this to be sexist as my comments made no assertions of gender bias. (And weren't we talking about MONGO anyway?). Particularly given that both females and males engage in similarly complex bonding rituals to gain friends. Ever spent time on a golf course?


Dan, does everything for you have to come down to your obsession with the "oppression of free speech?"

From the WP Guide to RfA's:



So does this mean MONGO NOT READ, or MONGO NOT CARE?

He racked up 148 "thank you" edits in two sessions, 12:42-13:09 26 January and 01:03-03:09 27 January. Nice stats if you can get 'em...

I think his true (drama queen) colors surface in this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=187051524



Yes, you certainly are, aren't you?

And, from the same page, compare and contrast with:



Minimal drama? Better outcome than expected - and he failed the RFA? So he expected to fail and wanted to go through with an RFA? Sounds like unnecessary drama to me.

Bah! Humbug!

If MONGO really wants to change his spots, the first thing he should do id get rid of his self-reinforcing troll hate comments page. Forget about the drama and the drama will forget about him.

At the moment, I am not being oppressed, I am
being offended. There's a difference.

If a guy I am dating starts beating on me because
I see my friends too much, then I am being
oppressed, and I will leave him, just so soon as I
feel I can do so safely, which could very well
involve saving up money to get out of town.

If I am volunteering at a computer lab, and I am
told to leave just because I am a woman and they
want the lab to be guys-only after a particular time,
then I am being oppressed. I never volunteered at
that computer lab again. Sheesh. And none of them
knew how to fix that error where you have to run
fsck manually, which isn't even that hard....

If someone just says that my love of having friends
makes me an inferior control-freak, then I am being
offended, not oppressed, so long as the person
does not actually take any action against me. If
that person started deleting posts in which I had
e-hugged people, then I guess I would be being
oppressed, but not to the same degree as if the
person took real life action against me.

Anyway, at least I don't pretend to support free
speech, only to turn around and ban someone
who has already left for protesting threats of
physical violence, after being partially responsible
for the fact that threats of physical violence were
made against the person in the first place.



I'm not saying being sociable is superior. I am
saying it is not inferior. I have nothing against
loners! But just because I like having friends
does not mean I am power-hungry.

I knew one guy who self-identified as feminist
and thought that lesbian BDSM porn was
feminist. I thought this was just an excuse to
look at porn. I do not consider BDSM porn
remotely feminist. Erotica, maybe, but BDSM is
basically on the opposite side of the spectrum
from erotica.

Anyway, there were some great things about
him too, and he got me pregnant. Now, he
was transexual and actually considered himself
to be a lesbian woman. Well, sorry, but I think
a woman would've understood why I wanted to
keep the baby, and not pressured me to get an
abortion. Anyway, I had a miscarriage.

Some of us have an instinctive need to be
surrounded by friends, no matter where we
are or what we are doing.

Besides, there is nothing stopping a person
from having multiple goals.



Should the prime objective be to create a
legitimate resource? At any cost? Even if
it means defaming people and making
threats of physical violence? No! The
prime objective should be to help people.
Things which seriously hurt people are
clearly contrary to that.



Is it wrong to expect support from one's
friends on non-content-related issues?
For example, if a person is being
threatened, is it wrong for that person
to expect support from his or her friends
then?



Where I live, the women, on average, tend to
be more sociable than the men. I have no idea
why that is. When I call a woman on the phone,
she is more likely to understand if I just want to
talk, whereas a man is more likely to expect me
to have something useful to say. No, I've never
spent time on a golf course; I am not rich.

One can canvas for political support of one's agenda.

One can canvas to discover what the dominant or popular beliefs are among a demographic group.

If one is searching for definitive knowledge on some subject, one would be wise to contact credentialed subject-matter experts rather than canvassing the general population.

Now would be as good as time as any to announce that I do not care how many marriages, abortions, arrests, miscarriages, drug habits, etc. people here have had. Certainly I sympathize with you, the unknown stranger, but I urge you to find the reaction you are looking for elsewhere, or at least in an offtopic forum of this board. (This in a thread railing against WP for social networking, no less...)

I do not think I am a "STAY ON TOPIC!!" nazi but I guess I do have a line where even I will "oppress free speech, maaaaan."(<--this guy never oppresses free speech, i bet)

AB remember that this forum exists to criticize Wikipedia. I don't really care who you make friends with here at WR, but in the mean time try to keep the threads in Wikipedia related areas relatively on topic. Keep in mind I'm just a regular member asking this, I have no special power here, it's not a threat, and ultimately I really don't care what you do, I would just appreciate not hearing about the troubles and tribulations you've had in your life in forums for Wikipedia discussions. I mean no offense to you for this.

Hope that doesn't sound sexist...

Erm, it's not like it happened on purpose. We were using protection.




Would it help if I spelt out my point for you?

I do not see any substantial difference between social networking
in real life, online, on WP, or anywhere else. So, if it is not power
seeking in real life, per examples, why is social networking, in and
of itself, power seeking on WP?

Which is not to say that there aren't power hungry people on WP,
but just because people are being nice to each other doesn't
mean they are planning to call in favours when they need to hurt
someone in the future. And if they are, that says something about
them, not about social networking itself.

All that sexist and personal problems stuff takes bandwidth. Bandwidth takes electrical power. Generating electrical power pollutes Our Earth. Using it creates heat. Heat, trapped by greenhouse gases produced by generating electrical power, causes climate change.

Please stop, AB.

Depends on the type of electrical power generation.

I'm already using a carbon-neutral heating method
this winter, which counts for something.

If you really want to save bandwidth, tell your
browser not to download images. A blogger
calculated that about 90% of the bandwidth cost of
downloading one of his blog posts was consumed
by images.

Oh, and turn off your computer when you are not
using it. Not to mention all the other electrical
equipment in your home.

You might also try using black backgrounds on
your computer, and a black background stylesheet
for your browser.



I said I was using a carbon-neutral heating method.
I did not say it worked well. I could use more heat.

One of the curious features of social networks, online or in meat-space, is that dominance hierarchies tend to arise.

I suppose a higher order objective would be to foster the emergence of empathy rather than political dominance. Alas, empathy is a resource that is in short supply.

Perhaps it is a feature of the human condition that we are wont to inflict pain and suffering on each other until, at long last, we genuinely feel each other's pain.

Offline is meat-space?

I am not sure I like being referred to as a piece of meat.

I am vegetarian.



Erm, this is not rare where I live. There are dominance
hierarchies, yes, but that is separate from friendship.
People who dominate over me are one thing. But my
friends are equals.

Empathy for friends is not in short supply, at least not
here. Empathy for others, especially for enemies, is
another matter.



Again, where I live, this is not rare among friends.

See meatspace for a definition and origin of the expression.

All members of the animal kingdom are made of meat (protein). Even vegetarians.

Yes, but meat also has certain negative sexual connotations.

Is empathy actually rare where you live?

And for you everything is about "negative sexual connotations". You've got more tripwires and third-rails than the Wikipedia Clique, which is really saying something.

I suppose it would have been better if the
Arbitration Committee had deleted the thing
that outed my gender, and I were still
pretending to be a man, but it's too late for
that now. Damn them.

Anyway...

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/meat

MONGO went for 3 hours saturday late night and 1 hour sunday thanking people. Four hours total spent just thanking people. Wow! Does anyone want to talk about that?








This was when you were both in college I take it?






Even Mr. Garrison hasn't done that.

He even thanked me... and I opposed him!

Almost any noun in the English language can be construed as being an allusion to sex.


Quite rare.

Just last week, Barak Obama noted in one of his campaign speeches that we have an empathy deficit in this country.

Lol what's wrong with thanking people for voting? I personally appreciated it, but it wouldn't be enough to sway me into voting Mong next time or anything.

Now, regarding all that AB stuff, it reminds me of this Daily Show segment:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...daily-show-down

Since you may have missed it after the thread went a bit awry, this is what's wrong:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=75853

*sigh* The point was we both self-identified as
feminists, but had radically different views on
the topic.

But since you ask, no, I've never had the money
to go to a college or a university.

It's not the canvassing act which I found interesting, but the request for adminship itself. What was the point to sbmit one when it was sure it would have failed (rightly so) ?

Some people can be incredibly hopeful and optimistic,
even in the face of poor odds. Others are simply bad
at judging what the odds are.

There is a third reasoning for fighting a losing battle.

If the cause is just, the publicity from being treated unjustly while the whole world is watching can be transformational. Gandhi and King used that tactic. Even Thoreau went to jail rather than submit to an unjust law.

Sometimes, in the advance of civilization, one has to lose a lot of battles to win the war.

Human progress comes grudgingly at best.

Wow. I feel sad for you. ;_;

{{{Moulton}}}

You really ought to find better friends.




Wait, who is fighting a losing battle against what?

I appreciate the virtual hug, but if your goal is to express empathy, then it would be necessary to observe that we are both in a state of alienation and disgust.


We are fighting a losing battle to ascend the Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder to the higher echelons of moral reasoning and ethical practice.

Ah, well, apparently you have just expressed empathy.

But yes, we are indeed both in a state of alienation and
disgust.

Note, however, that empathy is not rare where I live,
at least not among friends. It certainly does seem rare
online, but I assumed that was because people have
difficulty empathising when all they get is streams of
ASCII text... or UTF-8 or whatever.



Why not generalise that to a losing battle to improve
moral reasoning and ethical practice? I support that,
but I don't subscribe to the Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder
model specifically.

High school?

I noticed MONGO did more thanking and is now up to 5 hours.

This man spent 5 hours of his life doing nothing but sending the RFA thank yous. Wasting time?

Racking up edit count.

And/or generating drama.

Both of which are valuable status indicators at World of Wikipedia.

It is, curiously enough, called "canvassing", and it is, yes it is, supposed to be verboten, since it amounts to an abuse of Wikipedia resources for private interests.

It's exactly like when some political party sends you a thank you note for your last contribution — it's always a way of maintaining their mailing list for the next request.

Duh!

Jonny

My persistent affective state is perplexity. It's not a state that many people spend very much time in, so it's rare for me to find someone who shares and recognizes my perplexity. I'm not even sure there is a widely recognized smiley-faced icon for it.


If you have an alternate model of the stages of development of moral reasoning and ethical practice, feel free to share it with me. I turned to the Kohlberg-Gilligan Model because 1) it exists, and 2) it's well established in the academic literature, making it widely accessible to all who care to examine that issue.

...and 3) you seem to be obsessed with it, and one of the unwritten rules of WR seems to be that every participant needs to have a hobby-horse that they continually bring up, even if it requires changing the subject of every thread that comes along.

My thing about that is that some people would have a bot do it quickly. But MONGO appears to have a slow connection and he has to go through each person's talk page and most of these people it looks like let their talk page grow to enormous amounts and so it takes a long time to load first before MONGO leaves the comment and then a second time after he leaves it and MONGO spends so much time on it. It is a serious waste of time!

So, out with it! What is your Burning Issue?

Don't you mean "Wikipedia Review.com"?