I would like to state my admiration for the human concern that is evident on WP talkpages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2#A_simple_request
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeffpw

It is only right that people should show such concern for any bereaved individual, regardless of how much pro-crank POV pushing they have conducted, and regardless of the pedophile protection they have just been caught doing.

And I mean it!

The same concern should apply to ALL! Even for editors who get banned for editing crank articles by applying well sourced critical information.

And what about sockpuppets who’s family member’s have passed on?

Just as an aside, will the facts get properly dealt with?

How much slack should an individual get, when they report a personal problem?

How much time should a WPdian get to post a statement?

Does it often happen when editors are under scrutiny? Are there other sorts of Wikistress that make other problems permissible?

How often does this sort of thing happen?

FT2 is a manipulative personality who's gamed his way to the top. He is playing a card that's worked for others in the past. Is it true? Who knows? With honest leadership, you wouldn't have to ask.

(Jeffpw is a different story, his statement about the death of his partner oozes authenticity and is deeply moving.)

The part referring to Jeffpw, who I (amongst several others) had a tete a tete with about not being able to protest about one of his friends being blocked for inappropriate pedophilia related activities.

His (Jeffpw's) husband passed away the next day, and I don't support harassing him further. Come on folks, show a little human dignity and let's turn the cynicism down from 23 on a scale of 1 to 10, OK?

WP is not the real world, and the real world is much more important than WP

All the time. A college prof I had once told us at the beginning of the course, on day #1, that we got ONE grandparent funeral. That was it. Even if we had 4 (or 6 or 8 of these, counting divorces), all we could claim during the course was one. Likewise, well known disasters like "The dog ate my flashdrive", "A hard drive crash/virus ate my term paper." And so on. "I just found out my new hotness is boning another." Or: "My old hotness just found out that I'm boning another."

Also, he said infinite combinations were possible, but we could choose only one per class per term:

My beloved dog, who ate my flashdrive, has died.
My beloved dog, who I am boning, has found another owner that they like better.
I just found out that the new older hotness, who I am boning, is my grandmother.
My grandmother ate my flashdrive.

And so on.


Naturally, it goes without saying that we all are more likely to extend condolences and indulgence to those who themselves have shown empathy. So pick a category, FT2, and take your number.

Milt (veteran of many college courses, on both sides).

Ah, but Wikipedia can affect people in the real world! That, however, is another thread.

I don't understand why people who are going through real-world stress continue to edit Wikipedia. I'm not admonishing Jeff (his reactions to trolls on his page is understandable), but I would log out to avoid the flashing orange bar and let others watching my talk page deal with the trolls. WP is not a stress-reliever in any sense and is certainly not the place to be when someone you care about has past away. I would not be able to handle a real life crisis and wiki-drama at the same time.

I wish Jeff the best during this trying time.

No I seriously support giving them both time to deal with bereavement whenever it is known.

And real life IS far more important than WP, so they should not care a toot about WP in their situations. Many editors have to put up with all sorts of life struggles when they edit.

So Jeffpw and FT2 probably shouldn't even mention such things anywhere publicly on WP. And they should have to put up with the consequences of the activities they conduct on WP.

Or

Everyone should get the same concern and respect regardless of how many FT2s call them liars, harassers, virulent sock puppets etc.


For example, lets say an editor working on the pederasty article is motivated by the death of a friend who committed suicide as a result of pederastic rape at the age of 12. Perhaps they should be given a bit of slack here and there?

Or

Perhaps FFodor (clearly not Headleydown, and likely the IPs would be totally different geographically)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FFodor

was editing the zoophilia article motivated the death of his dog caused by a fence hopping "zoophile"?

Or

Maybe the woman in this article had a problem with the way the homeopathy and NLP articles are written?

" She had a stiff neck. The homeopath's assistant, who claimed to be a "neurolinguistic programmer" manipulated her neck."

http://www.ncahf.org/nl/1996/9-10.html

Do we give them the same sort of slack?

He's using WP to focus on, and to occupy his mind from his pain right now. Posting messages and formatting his page, etc. I totally understand where Jeff is coming from on that, and did something similar myself on usenet when I had a similar thing happen. The messages of support and the effort involved in answering them is helping his mind not ponder on the awfulness of what has just happened. He must be going through immense pain right now.

I understand. It is unfortunate though that WP in general is not always very supportive of its members when they are in pain or need support .

Hopefully the support he's getting on his talk page will help him. It is times like these I wish Esperanza would revive and encourage a more collegial and harmonious atmosphere.

Yes, bereavement is hard work. So how about the pain FT2 might possible be feeling right now? Or what about all the others who are not in deep shit with WP scrutiny, and who are not mentioning their particular personal troubles? In what ways should we be giving them a bit of slack? Apart from following WP rules without all the extra groupthink bullshit?

For the first two quotes, I would probably be editing, too. Look at all the supportive messages. That would be of immense help to me, as it seems to be to him. Wikipedia has always sort of been my escape from live. Sort of an alternate little world... albeit a fucked up one. But it's a good distraction at times. And, in a situation such as this, the added support is invaluable considering these are times that many people just want to be left alone. So this gives one that needed space, and someone still whose shoulder(s) you can cry on.

For the second... another prime example of the age issue. 13 to edit (he's like 11) and 16 for admin. 5 years should be enough time for him to mature to a point that he would be trustworthy of the mop.

I'm not going to say anything different from what I've always said. There is no good reason why Wikipedia cannot be a civilised place, where a caring, supportive atmosphere allows consideration for others. The likes of JzG have created a toxic atmosphere of distrust - and he in particular is notable for being abusive yet hiding behind the white flag of personal problems. He was notable for editing on the day of his father's funeral - very much manning the machine gun post while vigorously waving the flag.

People need to understand there are two activities going on: editing an encyclopedia, and managing the editors. I am quite content that there should be no bar to editing, and can understand that keeping occupied will be a useful distraction - any wobblies can soon be fixed without the recourse to drama.

However, managing people requires that you are sensitive to their needs as well as your own - so if you can't take the heat, don't put yourself in the kitchen. In the real world, you would expect people to take the time off that they need to get straight, but in reality you would not cut much slack for people who, say, abuse customers. In fact, most people know how to conduct themselves and these events cause very little problems in real life to other people - I can't think of anyone who I know who has become abusive to other people or would have felt the need to ask to be cut some slack.

Wikipedia would do well to have a policy of a mandatory removal of bits for a set time if people claim personal distress for whatever reason. Two reasons: it takes judgement out of the loop so there is no criticism implied, and it stops people gaming the system. Doesn't stop them editing but I'd also suggest that a limit to main space articles would also be sensible to keep them out of drama.

Yes, the drama can well be cut

The "this editor is suffering from wikistress" label seems to be applied whenever people cannot get their way.

There are many of such dramas that totally distract from the straightforward editing of articles.

Removal of such drama (especially when the editor got themself into shit at the same time) is a reasonable thing to do.

After all, if an encyclopedia is there just for psychological support, then you may aswel have articles that simply cater for whatever people are feeling at the time.

More on point - "my head just fell off" may well be true, but its not relevant to the edits.

The feeling of purpose can be an anti-depressant or stress reliever. On that note, I disagree about saying that Wikipedia does not carry real-world meaning. There are other measures to weigh in also that are well evident.