[WikiEN-l] Odd

Wed Jul 13 01:30:34 UTC 2005

I agree that alot needs to be done about stress. A successful
mediation method would be a big step in that direction.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 7/13/05, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/13/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
> >
> > > I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all
> > > edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor"
> > > Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this
> > > until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am.
> > > I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot
> > > cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
> > >
> > > Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any
> > > edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit,
> > > so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular
> > > sort of crackpot.
> > >
> > > What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely
> > > Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of
> > > one particular editor?
> > >
> > Well, I happen to know that a case came before the ArbCom concerning
> > LaRouche followers who tried to add citations from their leader to a
> > number of unrelated articles, which resulted in a decision that was not
> > in their favor.
> >
> > And I seem to remember that one of the editors involved in limiting
> > their attempts to flood Wikipedia with pro-Larouche citations was Adam
> > Carr. These wouldn't be Carr's words, would they?
> 
> They would indeed. However, who said them is essentially irrelevant.
> What is important is the attitude behind making such a statement.
> 
> > I suggest you do more research: the ArbCom concluded these people
> > were POV-pushers, & a danger to Wikipedia. I doubt you will find much
> > support criticizing the person wrote this, no matter how ill-tempered
> > that editor might be.
> 
> I'm not for a moment trying to support LaRouche POV pushers. Seems to
> me that the system is working as intended to limit their penetration
> to the extent allowed by agreed wikipolicy i.e. not a lot.
> 
> What bothers me is the fact that long established editors seem to get
> to a point where they can't continue any longer and go off the rails
> and off the rules. Adam Carr isn't the first to do so in the six
> months or so that I've been here.
> 
> I mentioned earlier that his "ultimatum" sounded like a teenager's
> statements just before an unsuccessful suicide attempt. A plea for
> attention. This in itself is a fairly serious thing to do, indicating
> that the person making such a statement has reached the end of his own
> resources and needs external help. But I know for a fact that Adam has
> his own wikisupport network in place.
> 
> If these sorts of dramatic exits are common on Wikipedia, then I
> venture to suggest that something should be done to reduce their
> recurrence. I don't want to feel in a year or so that I can't go any
> further and that Wikipedia is doomed and that I'm following in the
> footsteps of a large number of burnt-out editors.
> 
> Regardless of my own differences with Adam (and those have almost
> always been over attitude rather than content), he made a valid point
> about a system that allows vandals and cranks to have a significant
> impact. If the cost of defending against people who dedicate their
> existence to pushing a POV is a string of burnt-out editors, then it
> may be too high, especially as nobody here is being paid for their
> time. Can we really expect unpaid volunteers to put themselves under
> heavy and unrelenting pressure?
> 
> --
> Peter in Canberra
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>