User:Kosebamse/Case study

A case study in intolerance

This is an edited excerpt from a user talk page. Long, but worth reading. IMO the most interesting is the lenghty debate starting at section V.

Editing done: omitted unrelated text ([...]), pseudonymised users except Jimbo Wales and me, pseudonymised article titles and diffs, omitted a few words ([...]), removed timestamps

I

[...]

I can't understand why you keep removing information from [RN] so it is now protected. Please discuss it on the talk page. You can not continue reverting pages and refusing to discuss your reasons or even giving an edit summary explaining what you are doing. [An]

I only removed [L]'s nonsensical wikification of words like [...] (and thereafter reverted to my version after he reverted; he should know better than to add information during an edit war; he will ultimately have to re-add this information on the basis of my version). Sorry if that is not obvious to you. I note that you're taking sides here, accusing me of reverting when I just made a normal edit and the first to revert was [L]. --[Other user]

You didn't just delink [...]; which is arguably quite valid (this is a wiki, [Other user]...); you removed valid information, whole sentences describing aspects of the man's life, removed valid and notable dates; and, for some reason or other, decided that each president's full name should be written out. [L]

I am not taking sides. If I were to do that, I would have taken yours as I don't think words such as 'died' need to be wikified. It doesn't matter who reverted first. There is no reason to continue it, particularly not without discussion. And your first edit to the page did remove information; the [date] that the book was published. [An]

My fault. Apparently I edited his first version. But the wikification issue remains and this alone would probably have led to the same edit war. So if it doesn't matter who reverted first, and we both continued it, why did you blame me and did not send [L] the same message? --[Other user]

I did not blame you. Obviously in an edit war, there must be two people at fault. Don't make assumptions about what I did or did not say to [L]. Wikipedia isn't the only place that messages may be conveyed. [An]

II

[Other user], I think it might be a good idea if you try to avoid articles written by [L] for a while. There's are plenty of other people who can check his work and [so many] other articles that you could work on instead. Hopefully this might prevent every new page [L] writes needing to be protected. Do you think you could do that for a while please? [An]

I'm not the problem here. If other people correct his punctuation, [L] will react just the same. Take it up with him. I can edit anyone's articles, and will not make exceptions for those who take it personal when their errors are corrected. [L] will just have to be banned if those edit wars are to be prevented. --[Other user]

I didn't say you were the problem. I was just suggesting one possible to a problem. It takes two to edit war, so you can hardly call for [L]'s banning without calling for your own. On another topic, what was [diff] about? Just curious. [An]

It was clearly [L] who was in the wrong on [SI], not me. So what do you propose? Just ignore his errors? If you are against a ban, then you can't complain about having to protect those pages. About this edit, it seems caius mysteriously put my signature on a comment he wrote, so I corrected it. --[Other user]

III

[...]

As you know, I am currently trying to help resolve the conflicts around [Sl] and [Gl]. Please note that I will remain strictly impartial as to content issues but will try to help in the discussion. Methinks it is time to return to debating facts on the talk pages of these two articles and it would be appropriate for you to take part.

As there have been numerous examples of less-than-cooperative behavior around German-Polish matters, I would urge you to remain factual and abstain from each and all personal attacks (which are not allowed on Wikipedia anyway). If this attempt to reach a compromise remains unsuccesful and/or reversion wars are restarted after the protections are lifted, I am rather sure that there will be calls to ban both of you. This is your chance to prove the pessimists wrong. The same message goes to [N]. Good luck. Kosebamse

[...]

IV

Hey, I don't want to take sides in your edit wars with [L], but on the other hand, I think it'd be good to lay off of him a bit. In general, I recommend against reverting things with just 'rv' if there's any trouble. Better to look at what the other fellow is doing and try to work with him.

In the case of [I], [L] was rewriting a paragraph and left out some information. You wanted to put it back. But you reverted his paragraph completely, which I think upset him. It might have been better for you to have (a) added the information back while respecting his other edits as much as possible and (b) to step away from the article for at least an hour or two, to see where he was headed with it.

Ahh, I'm not logged in. But, I'm Jimbo. Jimbo Wales

It's impossible to work with [L], he's just a troll. I give my reason in the first edit summary, then "rv" is sufficient. It's [L] who continues to revert things even when everyone is telling him his version is wrong (just ask [DQ] about the comma war on [SI]). --[Other user]

I disagree that it's impossible to work with him, and I do not agree that 'rv' is sufficient. You aren't even trying, take for example [I]. He was making serious edits, and rather than try to accomodate his edits in the least, you just kept reverting. You wanted to add back some information that he was omitting, which is fine, but you were ALSO reverting the ENTIRETY of his changes, which is completely unfair. I think you can do better than that. Jimbo Wales

Well, we just have to disagree then. Why should I repeat the edit summary I gave before? Don't you think maybe he should have accommodated my edit instead of just reverting? I agree my actions on [I] could have been unfair if it had been any other user than [L] - but you have to see it in context, he was on a roll of making moronic edits just to seek conflict. For a clear proof of that: he was adding an irrelevant Dutch transliteration of the Russian name of [AC] and while that edit war was still going on, he did the same thing (adding random foreign transliterations) with [FD] and [IT], pointlessly escalating the conflict. He is just back to his old ways. Why did you unban him anyway? Can you please publish his statement that supposedly convinced you he has changed his ways? --[Other user]

V

[...]

Hi [Other user] - some work has been done about [Sl] and [Gl], and also [N] has gotten involved, so I guess it would be a good idea if you re-entered into the debate on the respective talk pages. Cheers, Kosebamse

I still support my last versions and I'm not wasting my time with [N]. Everything has been said before. --[Other user]

But [N] and [S] have exchanged apologies, removed each other from the problem users and seem to be working together now. It's too early to say what the others who were involved say about this, but your opinion would matter very much. It takes two to tango or to fight a war, and it also takes two (or more) to make peace. Please don't stick to hostility when your opponent is willing to accept a compromise. Kosebamse

There's no need for a "compromise". The article was fine before [N] arrived. He just tries to get as much of his POV into it as he can get away with. He starts with some completely outrageous things, then backpedals a bit and generously suggests a "compromise". I'm not falling for that. --[Other user]

[Other user], it takes two to tango. Some people may find your views as outrageous as you find theirs. NPOV is about writing things that everyone can accept, however much one autor disagrees with the others. Please calm down, think it over, and give peace a chance. Kosebamse

Sorry, I don't accept this relativism. [N] has a pretty obvious agenda, while I am defending NPOV here as in any other place. Just look at [2] - in your view I probably should have made a compromise with [LA] there. But I steadfastly defended the NPOV version, and by now that person is about to be banned, as it has finally dawned on some other users that he is only interested in pushing an extreme POV, something that was clear to me from the beginning. [N] is exactly the same kind. --[Other user]

Call it relativism if you like, I would call it openness. I don't want to decide about good or evil, wrong or right etc. - I just would like NPOV to prevail. As Jimbo once said, NPOV is not about an article that everybody agrees with (that would be illusory in politically charged fields), but about one that nobody disagrees with too strongly. I don't want to argue about other people's agendas - as long as people stick to the rules (no personal attacks, if I may repeat it) and cooperate, I would accept that there is a wide variety of opinions on Wikipedia. Of course there are views that are more mature, are expressed superiorly, are better backed by facts, have more followers etc. than others. But these will prevail through discussion in a climate of mutual respect, not through refusal to discuss. Kosebamse

"one that nobody disagrees with too strongly" is illusory too. There is no way to reconcile POV and NPOV. You still seem to refuse to recognize the fact that some people have no interest whatsoever in NPOV. --[Other user]

It may be illusory in some cases, but it is a goal that we can strive for. Nobody said it would be easy! There are indeed some who openly disrespect NPOV, and I don't want to be too lenient with these (it was my initiative that got [Kh] banned this week), but there are others who just don't understand or trust NPOV, or are too much in love with their own opinions. That's o.k. to some degree, and perhaps it's not even desirable to be too neutral about one's own opinions - after all, love can motivate you to great deeds. But it is these less-than-perfect Wikipedians (AKA normal humans) who need everybody's respect, because otherwise they won't cooperate. I doubt that Wikipedia would ever have gotten off the ground had it relied only on Buddhas and Jesuses who never quarrel, or on reputable scholars who understand their field so well that they need no counterpart to write encyclopedia articles. I am convinced that Wikipedia can very often deal with strong opinions, but not with refusal to cooperate. It is not my or your or their Wikipedia, it's ours. Kosebamse

Well, I don't think [N] is any more useful than [Kh]. --[Other user]

How does that agree with the fact that he is now talking with one with whom whe strongly disagreed, and that they have apologized, and stopped shouting at each other on the problem users page? Many people would not have expected that from him. And many people, I guess, would not expect that you apologize and talk instead of revert, complain, revert, complain. How about proving them wrong? Can't you see that you are being given a lot of leeway? Intelligence, knowledge and motivation are very fine and valuable, but cooperation is equally important. Kosebamse

What should I apologize for? Cooperation with vandals is not helping the Wikipedia. --[Other user]

You could apologize for calling people vandals without hesitation or second thought, for example. Or in general, for being confrontational when there would have been other ways. I know it can be hard to stay cool and assume good faith when confronted with people writing garbage or being aggressive. But as you might learn from how people tend to deal with you, it does not help much to always insist on being right. Sometimes you could just try to forgive and forget, even if you are convinced that you have been wronged. That way you would probably gain a lot of respect without making much fuss. Kosebamse And by the way, I'm going to bed now. But lets talk tomorrow. Goodnight. Kosebamse

You might as well apologize for accusing me of things I don't do. It's not me who's throwing around the word "vandal" liberally. Those I do call vandals are ones I have no doubt about. I can't help it if other people take longer until they come to the same conclusion. Assuming good faith is what you do in the beginning when you meet someone - then, however, when you deal with that person for a while you see someone's good or bad faith and you don't have to assume anything anymore. Apparently you just haven't followed the goings-on at Silesia and elsewhere long enough to know what [N] has been up to. I'm here to write an encyclopaedia, not to be respected by those who have other goals. --[Other user]

"Assuming good faith"? [[Other user] you rarely assume that initially from what I have observed in your edits ... IMO, you don't assume anything, but label ppl quickly as "vandals" when thier edits don't fit into your POV (as your repeated rv's, edit wars, and the otherwise uncompromising POV edits show) ... since my inital interactions with you, i've watched some of your edits and see a cycle ... [no need to reply as it will be a denial and probably an attack on me; so save the space] Sincerely, [R]

Note to others: See [Talk] where both [AO] and [J] have agreed that [R]'s [HB] nonsense amounted to vandalism. [R] is clearly a vandal, much like [N] promoting his political views in conscious violation of NPOV policy. --[Other user]

[HB] has alternate meanings which you (and others [among which is [J] [who is antiUS]]) refuse to accept ... it was 1st used to describe a [...] and has that meaning. As to labeling me a vandal, see the vandal page on that account (and how quick [Other user] was to label me as such). [R]

[Other user], after all it's your decision how you want to treat others, but please don't complain if Wikipedians judge you by your social skills as well as the quality of your work. Did you ever wonder why so many highly gifted and productive people are never discussed at problem users while you are a seemingly constant topic there? Did you ever consider that this might be because people view you as a tad uncompromising, or less than cooperative, or self-righteous? Did it ever dawn on you that you might gain everybody's respect by showing a mature attitude when confronted with immature behavior? It's not that I particularly like working with people who are problematic to work with. But I highly respect those who have reformed their ways. Do you know the story of the prodigal son? Try to apply it to [N], or to [L], who was once banned, was allowed to return, and by now has gained the respect of those who formerly criticised him fiercely, like Jtdirl.

I think that have said everything that I can say about all this. Initially I started this talk because I tried to convince you that your cooperation on [Sl] and [Gl would be highly desirable so that everybody can agree on a compromise and the war be declared ended. Given the attituide that you defend so doggedly, I am afraid it will be difficult to find peace there. But please don't act annoyed if work is going on there without you, and things are agreed upon in a way that you don't like. I am rather certain that people will have a clear opinion of you if get involved in another reversion war. Kosebamse

Highly gifted and productive people are routinely listed on Problem users. Anyone can put any frivolous complaint there, so what? People are entitled to their opinions. Yes, I am uncompromising toward vandals and trolls. No one has everybody's respect, that's an impossible thing. I know I have the respect of those people whose respect I care about. I am quite ready to welcome anyone who has reformed his ways, but I haven't seen it from [N] or [L]. Feel free to work with [N] if you are so inclined, I will see what you come up with. But of course I don't have to accept any "compromise" you agree with him, and am free to edit those articles. Remember if I "get involved" in a reversion war, there must be someone else involved too. --[Other user]

Don't imagine for a moment that you're so gifted and productive that WP really needs you. I would have see you leave than have you discourage dozens of other good contributors by your behavior. [S]]

Good contributors are discouraged by the ridiculous tolerance of vandals and trolls here. --[Other user]

Then please be discouraged and go away. As a bonus, you'll have the advantage of feeling superior to that lame Wikipedia that tolerates all those "vandals and trolls". [S]

I am discouraged, but I'll try to make it less lame or be banned in the attempt. "Wikipedia" is just what the users make of it, there's no inherent lameness to it, it's just a certain minority of users that is lame. --[Other user]

You're not the first editor who's decided to save Wikipedia unilaterally and singlehandedly; but all have failed. They either give up, or get themselves banned and their edits mass-reverted, or they learn to work with the rest of the community (this last is unfortunately rare). I've been working in large-scale net-based projects for a little over 20 years, and your approach always fails. Maybe you're so arrogant as to think you can beat the odds somehow; but are you intelligent enough to learn from others' experiences? [S]]

Who said anything about unilaterally? I'm hardly the only one who thinks there should be a stricter policy against vandals and trolls. Just ask those who now clean up all the articles Khranus edited. And that one was banned relatively quickly. He would have lasted much longer if he didn't refuse to talk to Jimbo, or if he didn't insult people as much, etc. Yet some people are more busy complaining about "self-righteous" users than about vandalism... --[Other user]

Well, [Other user], it's neither your Wikipedia nor your NPOV, it's ours, if that word means anything to you. If you think there's no way to reconcile POV with NPOV, I wonder how you think NPOV is reached? By survival of the most reckless? That's not how Wikipedia works, nor how it should work. But if you feel so far above community norms, you might be better off with a project of your own; after all, its GFDL, so you're free to copy whatever you like from here and make an encyclopedia of your own. And as for reversion wars and somebody else getting involved, that's exactly what I said above: it takes two to tango, and while there are indeed highly respected Wikipedians who have, regrettably, gotten involved in such wars, I don't know of any who have made it a hobby. Kosebamse

NPOV is reached by discussion between users who accept this principle. [N]'s history conclusively proves that he doesn't. And the vast majority of edit wars I am in are with this kind of users, where discussion is pointless: [LA] (who is about to be banned), [L] (who has been banned before multiple times), and [N]. As far as I know NPOV is the community norm, and I am its staunchest defender. And this inevitably (and regrettably) involves getting into edit wars. What is the alternative, just leaving the POV version there? I would prefer if repeat POV offenders could be banned, or if there were another procedure to settle such disputes, but that's not the case, so edit wars are the only alternative. I don't enjoy them; if I'm more involved in them than others it must be because I have greater patience. --[Other user]

[Other user], one word on farewell. NPOV is reached by discussion and consensus, not by unilateral declaration. It's neither your NPOV nor mine, nor theirs, it's ours. Whatever arguments you'll find to defend any kind of POV supremacism, they are not in line with the spirit or policies of Wikipedia. Same goes for refusal to assume good faith and forgive people who are willing to admit mistakes and reform their ways. Good luck on your crusade.Kosebamse

Repetition of previous arguments that have already been replied to, combined with an Eric-Cartman-style "I'm going home", is a sure sign that someone has lost an argument. I don't want to repeat my answers, but: 1) I have always assumed good faith - right until someone has proven my assumption either right or wrong. 2) Neither [N] nor [L] have admitted to their mistakes (if you have seen such please point me to it) nor otherwise shown that they have reformed. Also, I have on many occasions submitted to other views when they convinced me or when it was a subjective matter (not a matter of hard fact) and I was outnumbered. So what are you talking about with "POV supremacism"? --[Other user]

[...]