I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re:[WikiEN-l]Unreasonable block of user

Wed Mar 16 20:38:30 UTC 2005

----- Original Message -----
From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re:[WikiEN-l]Unreasonableblock of user
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:41:32 -0500
I really don't think this is helpful. I sense that Blair can be a useful contributor to Wikipedia. He is new and can be engaged. I've seen those more agreesive than he become valuabled members of the community. I would like him to calm down and work with the community, and also for the community to not go out of their way to bait him or any other honest user.

And as to the specific comment "Little clairvoyance is needed to know that the very first time you are reverted, it means that your edits are contentious and disputed." Nonsense. It can mean that, or it can mean that someone or more people editing the page feel invested in particular wording and are dismissing someone out of hand, or a combination of the two.

Sometimes I have excised entire new sections from an article, but I carry them over to Talk, and explain why they are incorrect or problematic and try to suggest ways to make them better.

--C

> 
> > From: "Blair P. Houghton" <blair at houghton.net>
> >
> > JAY JG wrote:
> >> I hadn't heard "Be bold" referred to as Wikipedia's "prime 
> >> directive" before; I'm not sure everyone here would agree.  In 
> >> any event, while I don't know the details of this particular 
> >> case, it amazes me how often people attempting to make major, 
> >> usually contentious, and often highly POV re-writes to articles 
> >> cite "Be bold", yet fail to note that the majority of that 
> >> policy is devoted to when you *should not* "Be bold".  In 
> >> particular, much of the policy clearly points out that on 
> >> disputed issues and controversial subjects one should, instead, 
> >> get consensus on Talk: pages first.
> >
> > Clairvoyance isn't my strongest skill.  I don't know who will 
> > complain until I do what I have a right to do.  And I suspect I'm 
> > "only human" in that regard, as is everyone else.
> 
> Little clairvoyance is needed to know that the very first time you 
> are reverted, it means that your edits are contentious and 
> disputed.  And it's a bad sign when people start taking about what 
> they "have a right to do" on Wikipedia; as far as I know, editing 
> Wikipedia is still not covered under the Constitution, Bill of 
> Rights, or similar legislation.
> 
> >> I believe we are straying into "argument from silence" logical 
> >> fallacy territory here.
> >
> > It's the basis for most of the Wikipedia.  What doesn't get 
> > munged is accepted.  And if you see a problem, you fix it.  Has a 
> > lot to do with the way life works, too.  Which is one of the 
> > attractive features of the place.
> 
> As soon as you are reverted, the "argument from silence" is 
> obviously no longer correct.
> 
> >> Cooperation is something that comes from both sides; it cannot 
> >> be unilaterally imposed by "Bold" individuals.
> >
> > Tell that to the guy who reverted me, hollering "consensus!" from 
> > the back of his mule, then having me jailed for arguing the 
> > point, then including everything I added
> 
> Referring to one's opponents on Talk: pages as "juvenile 
> delinquents" and oneself as the "teacher" is a particularly bad 
> strategy for getting cooperation.
> 
> > (but retaining a bit of stuff that is soon to be gone anyway).
> 
> This statement is an ominous sign.
> 
> Jay.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm