[WikiEN-l] 172 sysop status temporarily revoked

Wed Jul 23 23:20:18 UTC 2003

JT wrote:
>172 commented: 'I know that I've been warned against 
>this, but I'd be tempted to protect this page from 
>that garbage.' -172
>
>Mav's response was - 'I tend to agree.'

Whoa! I think there is a /huge/ misunderstanding here.
My response was to 172's comment that ended with
"Second, it's hideously written and full of
grammatical errors. These people, seeking to have this
low-brow polemic inserted in such a crucial article,
are making a mockery of Wikipedia, which is striving
to be a good, scholarly source of reference." NOTE: I
moreso agreed with the text before that somewhat harsh
sentence.

See:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Catholicism&oldid=1183464

Here is the diff for my edit:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Catholicism&diff=1183487&oldid=1183486

When I submitted my comment I got an edit conflict so
I pasted my response right after 172's sig. JT's quote
of 172 was appended by 172 in the edit just before
mine; that is what caused the edit conflict. I didn't
check to see what caused the conflict - that's my
fault and I apologize. To be clear I did /not/, at
all, in any way "tend to agree" that the page should
have been protected. Again it is my fault for not
properly handling the edit conflict. 

But the fact remains that it did look like I indicated
agreement with page protection. Apparently my opinion
on things carries some of weight with at least with
172 so I can see some logic in his assertion that he
had support. All this should be taken into
consideration.

Erik wrote:
>....
>People come to Wikipedia and are amazed by 
>being able to add information. We encourage 
>them to do so. Be bold!, we say. So they add 
>what they believe is right, at the best of 
>their ability. ...
>WikiLove is about giving people the benefit 
>of the doubt, and not attributing to malice 
>what can be explained with simple ignorance.
>...

Very wise words.

>When dealing with people, you should give 
>them a way out. A way to agree with you 
>without hurt feelings. 

Bing, bing, bing! Give this man a prize!

>I'm not saying we should embrace people 
>like DW even after they give us constant 
>abuse. I'm saying we should be tolerant 
>of newbies, tolerant of young Wikipedians 
>who don't have the knowledge we expect of 
>them. We should be teachers and models, 
>not arrogant editors who chase away the  
>meddling kids.

Yes, I think that is a very good attitude to have
toward newbies. I can't really say more since you
covered the topic so well.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com