If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page. If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I'll watch your page and reply when able.
A note on email: Except in the most unusual circumstances Wikipedia-related discussion should be carried on here, in view of the Wikipedia community. My email is enabled but I'll almost always respond on-wiki.
Care of the cow brings good fortune.
Sorry I wasn't here to take your call. You can leave a message after the tone.
I'm unsure as to what can/should be done at this point, but if you're willing to keep an eye on the situation, it's appreciated. Thanks, R. Baley01:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks R. Almost certainly a sleeper sock; the only question is whose. Any hints you can provide would be helpful in focusing my sooper-sekret cabalistic rouge admin powers. Cheers - Raymond Arritt01:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case "vested interest" is so vague that I can't see how it's outing in any meaningful sense. It could simply mean that you're someone with the same political leanings. Thanks for the note; if there's anything else that concerns you, don't hesitate to let me know. I'll take a quick look through Timeshift9's recent contribs. Raymond Arritt01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what your answering before telling people they're wrong
You've got the burden of proof backwards. Copyright violation is a serious matter; if the material was copied from elsewhere with no indication of permission it would be irresponsible for an admin to leave it in place because the creator "may" be the copyright owner, or "may" have forgotten to post copyright info, etc. The creator can follow up with the deleting admin in such cases. I've been glad to work with people when they've done that. Raymond Arritt03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please learn to read. I DID NOT SAY they should not delete it. I said they should not use the word "unquestionably". That is irresponsible.Michael Hardy19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman
Ready to swab the deck!
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh!
Thanks for trying to deal with my concerns over some of the wording... still a little way to go, but you've managed to do some good balancing. There are quite a few in industry who nowadays actually view taking a positive stance towards climate change as being strongly aligned to their interest, either as a good corporate citizen or as something that adds a direct contribution to their bottom line! (Of course, some companies blatantly "didn't get it" or have missed the boat, and still fight a rearguard action.) This complicates the "traditional" eco-warrior stance, as their preconceptions don't always hold true 8-) Ephebi18:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet indef-block
I noticed you suggested here on AN/I to indef-block a repeat vandal who has used a sockpuppet. Since you're an admin, could you execute the block? It looks to me like the right thing to do. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Raymond arrit, thanks for your message on my talk page. The line of mine to User:ScienceApologist that you complained about was intended to be somewhat humerous, hence its deliberately over-the-top language and borrowing of dialogue from Fawlty Towers. However the underlying issue is serious enough, and one i feel ought to be investigated. I will endeavour to do so without letting my sense of humour offend anyone. Be seeing you.--feline118:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I
Raymond - I wanted to make sure that I didn't offend you somehow in our discussion about the Hitler trolling thing on AN/I. I certainly see where you're coming from, and I don't want anyone to have carte-blanche to do whatever they'd like with their userpages. I just don't want to see a potential editor get smacked with the hammer just because he made a stupid mistake - that's all. Kind regards -- Folic_Acid | talk 17:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - it's time for me to eat my humble pie. Looks like you were right all along - the guy was a troll. Thanks for sending him on his way. I suppose you can have that second (or is it seventh?) glass of beer now. Cheers -- Folic_Acid | talk 13:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and, thanks again
Amazing what can happen when a person goes off to have some lunch. And thanks for blocking the jerk - I was about to ask if someone would, when I saw you had already done so. The interesting thing is I don't know who this guy is - never reverted anything he did under this user name and the only other contact I've had with him, as far as I know, is the last time he cursed me out. Who knows. Tvoz|talk20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further on the point: I did make the edit he complains about, back in April, but the one I reversed had been posted by a different username, and that user has not been back on the page (nor has this one ever been there). If that is the same person as this, perhaps he should be watched - seems like a long time to hold a grudge like that, and move it to a different username and bring it up out of the blue. There have been no subsequent discussions of my reinstatement of that section as far as I recall, and no one else has removed the section that I reinstated. The whole thing is weird. Tvoz|talk21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's free beer here? Since when? And why wasn't I told? Completely unfair. I'm requesting a full community ban on you two for...er....public drinking. Yeah, that's it. But if you share with me, I'll be too drunk to write out the AN/I, etc.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is uncivil of you to ask me to go to a 7-11, while the beer Tvoz and you were sharing appears to be good imported stuff. I'm definitely filing a complaint...possibly an arbitration request. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions02:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, seriously, Raymond, the 7-11? I expected more from you. Maybe something on tap? And Orange, I'd really like not to hear the word "arbitration" while I'm savoring this beer. Tvoz|talk03:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does Miller Lite have to do with beer? I know the production requires a liquid, a horse, and a fridge, but I always thought any liquid that does not kill the horse is ok...wasting real beer on the process seems to be such a ...erm...waste. --Stephan Schulz08:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watts Study/physical review of ground stations/ tendentious editing
Ok, you're accusing me of tendentious editing. Is that because I'm not going along with the cycle of put in an edit, see it get reverted with little/no argument on the talk page of the respective article and no serious attempt to engage me in improving reporting on this project? That's not supposed to be the way that Wikipedia works. You're supposed to at least try to find a way to include data, if not in the form an editor would prefer in some other form even in some other place. I was unhappy Mars global warming was shoved into Climate of Mars but I've been building that article (and not just the global warming parts) in good faith after the decision was made. Constantly killing reports on this Watts project without going through the normal editorial process is not something that I think should uncritically accepted.
I've given my reasons but I don't get a lot of reasonable feedback on how to get the information out more appropriately. Instead it's just revert, revert, revert with little real engagement on the actual independent review that is built into the project. Certainly if there were peer reviewed papers examining other physical reviews of the UHCN network that contradicted Watts, they should be preferred. But there are none because the Watts project is unique. All the other analyses taking on UHI effects out there is statistical in nature. And I think that there's a legitimate case to be made for going with the best that you've got on a particular subject.
I'm aware of the possibility that I've gone overboard on this and this certainly won't be the hill upon which I die but reverting with no serious comments is no answer. TMLutas04:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
still waiting - Oct 30
I have been awaiting your response to try to sort out this tendentious editing business. You do not seem to be willing to work with me on improving my method of raising subjects so that they are no longer tendentious. I'm not even entirely clear on what part of the WP:TE essay I've supposedly transgressed. Give a fellow a clue, would you? Accusations without follow through look an awful lot like the Wiki equivalent of a SLAPP suit except here instead of ruinous legal fees, blocked accounts are the threat. TMLutas03:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a fair response except I think you're not answering there either. If I'm in error, please provide a link to the appropriate section. Until I find it, I'm still waiting. TMLutas22:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered you several times. Unfortunately, it's not the answer you want to hear, so you're pretending that I haven't answered you at all. Raymond Arritt22:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought you should know, WMC's casual libel of Watts clarified things for me. There is no solution to be found in any group of editors paying close attention to global warming related pages. I've given up on the edit. The only cure is fixing the rules. TMLutas02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi...Your recent comment about leaving Wikipedia to be dominated by 'paranormalists' I concur with 100%. I am of the same mind on this. But, SA's tactics are not helpful; nor is editing paranormal type articles in such a way to dominate those articles with scientific criticism. I think the best approach is to build strong and pithy criticism sections in each article to make them less POV from a paranormal standpoint - but at the same time allowing for the classic definition as given in paranormal terms to precede this criticism. I liken it to religious topics, which are addressed as such, and have a critics section (Noah's Ark or other related stuff) at the end to inform the reader of what science has to say. This avoids edit wars and uncessary controversy over these subjects - like paranormal, occult, etc. etc. I also share your concerns about Wikipedia's credibility. The concerns I have with some editors associated with the RationalSkeptics group, is they edit articles outside of the mainstream editing patterns of Wikipedia ignoring Arbcom decisions and causing conflict. This will only lead to a bad reputation for 'mainstream' type editors and for the group itself. The pattern has to change, to something like I suggest to avoid these endless edit problems with paranormal editors and to have firm ground to stand on to achieve NPOV articles. --Northmeister01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who is on record as accepting that EVP in fact exist [3] you're inevitably going to have a different perspective than mine, which is that of a physical scientist. I'm not yet prepared to toss aside everything we've learned since Copernicus. For all practical purposes we speak in two different languages. Raymond Arritt01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Although if I were to reject the notion that this phenomena exists, I would not be a good observer of things. How can anyone dispute there are sounds there? What it is, is another can altogher, and here you as a physcial scientist might agree with me. So I don't get your point pertaining to what I addressed originally. Namely, SA and problem editing which will only serve to cause endless disputes needlessly. Seems you didn't address the concerns but rather chose to address your assumption of my assumptions, which are not correct. --Northmeister02:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Magnetized particles exist on tape, noise exists in radio signals, and so on. Naming any of these things "EVP" requires a point of view that is irreconcilable with physical science. Raymond Arritt02:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But, they are so named - not literally by science but by those outside of the science - thus the problem - terms or otherwise. What I hear can't be discounted - what it is (the point of contention) can be accounted for through proper scientific method. Anyway, I do appreciate your candor and responses. --Northmeister02:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you're missing NM, is that what you hear can be discounted. The so-called phenomena of EVP require a specific belief system (i.e. voices can be found in noise if we listen hard enough and are "open" to hearing them) in order to function. In that sense, what we are discussing in the article is an eccentric belief system based on the controlled misuse of electronics. - LuckyLouie06:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha
So what you're saying is that all of that information is fixed and will never even be changed or even considered at all. I still don't understand why it is so hard for you to consider global warming MIGHT not be man-made. The debate is not over no matter how much you would like to think it is. Jeez, the way y'all are acting kind of reminds me of an Evangelical's complete close-mindedness and denial of the theory of Evolution and the Big Bang.--Lucky Mitch01:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the assumptions, but judging from your message, you disapprove of the point I am trying to get across. Am I incorrect?--Lucky Mitch01:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you do believe that the change in climate MIGHT not be due to human activity and that the Wikipedia articles should reflect this?--Lucky Mitch02:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe there's a possibility (a very small one) that "the change in climate MIGHT not be due to human activity." But Wikipedia articles can't reflect what you are I think "MIGHT" be the case. They have to reflect the state of the science as it presently exists, which is overwhelmingly that the change in climate is mainly due to human activity. Raymond Arritt02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I may disagree with you on your opinion on how possible it may be that climate change might not be due to human activity, I do respect your opinion and apreciate you at least acknowledging the possibility that climate change might not be due to human activity. Many people I have talked about the issue with will not even consider it. I will stop bothering you now.--Lucky Mitch02:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Dominionism
Hi Raymond. The Template:Dominionism TfD, which you initiated, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AN/I
You recently referred to me as "fantastically arrogant," implying I had required another user to get my permission before she removed a lengthy conversation from WP:AN/I. Normally I ignore personal attacks, but this was such a fantastically stupid attack that I feel I should respond. I specifically told her five lines up she didnt need my permission to do anything. Wow. Perspicacite19:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my -- please re-read my comment. I was responding to the statement by Alice S. that you had her permission; viz., "Perspicacite [i.e. you] doesn't need your [i.e., Alice S's] permission..." I had hoped that the level of indentation made that clear. Given her defense of some borderline-racist comments that was a much milder rebuke than what I was actually thinking. Raymond Arritt19:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond, I replied to your comment on Gray at William M. Connelley's talk page, but William deleted it, so I'm reposting it here:
I didn't propose it, DHeyward did; I just support it. :-) I disagree that it's too short, especially if we include the Webster quote - which basically tells the reader that his views are not even endorsed by a longtime colleague, let alone the scientific community. But, if you have a suggestion for a compromise version, post it on the talk and see if everyone agrees. Though, I would not support anything sourced to a blog. BLP is clear on this issue, and anyway, we have more compelling criticism from a colleague so we don't need blog-sourced criticism. (Nothing against RC here, BTW. The only argument I have against RC per se is that it is unpublished and critical of Gray). ATren13:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for blocking User:Anittas, he was taunting me in my talk page that nobody cares about his racist comments, obviously somebody cares and I'm glad. If there were only those comments I might have closed my eyes and let it pass, but he continued the pattern of racist comments in other pages. -- AdrianTM05:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Global Warming:
F'crissake! I might not actually be a troll and may actually have a question i want answered. PLEASE understand me! If i did something wrong, or asked the question in the wrong place, then PLEASE post me a message. thank you 64.123.143.14503:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense meant; I never said you were a troll. The "TPG" in my edit summary refers to "Talk page guidelines."[4] The talk page for that article has a strong tendency to veer off from its purpose of discussing the article and get bogged down in aimless discussions (or arguments). Thus as stated at the top of Talk:Global warming many of us are strict about removing discussion that isn't specifically focused on the article itself. If you have a specific proposal for improving the article you're welcome to join in, but please don't use the talk page as a forum for asking general questions. Raymond Arritt04:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks
Yeah, I know you're right, but editors leaving it stand there without comment really disappointed me when I saw it today. Thanks for the removal. He's been at it for years, apparently on other articles, and I find it hard to understand why more can't be done, even though I do get that a range block might cause collateral damage too high to be acceptable. So I guess he has successfully gamed the system, and we just have to sit back and take it - which doesn't come easily to me when I'm the subject of such an attack. But I suppose you're right anyway. Tvoz|talk04:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, we'd have to block a /17 to catch all those IPs. That would be over 32,000 addresses. Could be worth bringing it up at AN/I and proposing an effective ban on this idiot, such that any user is free to delete its contributions. Raymond Arritt04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, how is this a BLP concern? There's no question that he served as part of Merck's team, and it's not accusing him of doing anything unethical -- it's simply a statement about his participation in a highly notable case. If I'm missing something here, please amplify. Raymond Arritt04:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have the reason on your user page, the segment "bitter political infighting" David Shankbone is on the warpath against Ted Frank, who briefly edited here and was involved in an arbitration case Ted Frank brought against him. Fred Bauder04:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me the lack of good faith, Fred. Nobody is on a war path and if you are going to make such scurrilous remarks I'm going to tell you to grow up. I'm currently working on my interview with the Dalai Lama's representative, preparing an interview with a Republican Presidential candidate and Al Sharpton, that I can assure you Ted Frank is the least of my worries. Comment on the edits, Fred, not the editors--don't they teach that to arbs? If you'd like to see further "defending" language, look at Frank's own AEI bio. --David Shankbone04:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And let's not twist history, either. I was the one who asked JzG to bring that ArbCase - or do you forget the reason why THF stormed off the project? Because he completely disagreed with it? And virtually every finding of fact was in his disfavor. --David Shankbone04:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shankbone, drop it. Now. I came a hair's breadth from blocking both you and THF for disruption back in August, and you're now doing everything you can to snap that hair. You may well succeed. Raymond Arritt05:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested that Shankbone treat the topic "Ted Frank" as if it were a COI and use the talk pages rather than edit the BLP information directly. At heart, these edits are a COI problem because a contributor's NPOV is easily questioned when dealing with former foes. Shankbone refuses my request, so perhaps you could help clarify the COI guideline? Cool HandLuke06:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is now bordering on harassment, Luke. Cease and desist. This issue has been discussed with Fred, with Raymond and with you, and you are now asking Raymond to raise it again. You are harassing me, so stop. --David Shankbone06:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing no such thing. You said that I have no authority to tell you what three other admins already have and that I should have neutral admins look it over. That's what I would like to happen. I'm not asking several noticeboards to look into your behavior, just for a second opinion. You seem to intentionally annoy me, and I need a sanity check from time to time. I don't think asking you to follow COI is unreasonable, but this should be double-checked. Cool HandLuke07:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three admins and an arbitrator (Newyorkbrad, CoolHandLuke, Raymond aritt and Fred Bauder) have all politely asked David to stop editing Ted Frank related information, due the extremely contentious nature of their on-wiki interactions, which went all the way to a very hotly contested arbcom case. Ted is long gone from the project, and is not here to defend himself. If you know the details of the arb case, you will know that a reference to the Vioxx case is somewhat of a sensitive issue, because Ted was publicly harassed on that fact by a very well known documentary filmmaker. Obviously David knows this, and he still insisted on twice referencing the Vioxx case in Ted's blurb on the AEI page. There is no reason for David to be making these edits. There was nothing controversial in what David removed, definitely something controversial in what he added, and therefore I find it extremely difficult to assume good faith here. Is it really so much to ask that David refrain from editing this one person's biographical info? ATren07:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David, I'm sorry to see you have removed the section of your talk page dealing with this issue. Irrespective of how one feels about Merck's conduct, if there is more than one factual way to refer to a person in a half-sentence capsule description, we should 1) look for a broadly applicable description rather than focusing on a single specific fact or incident (the undue weight clause), and 2) we should generally respect that person's wishes if they object to one reference over another, especially if the objected-to version is less respectful of the undue weight clause. (I would certainly afford you the same courtesy if you were the subject of an article.) As we recently discussed, brief capsule descriptions should generally be neutral and broadly applicable. For example, in the article Law & Order, which makes a passing reference to Fred Thompson, it would be appropriate to refer to him as "presedential candidate Fred Thompson" or "former Senator Fred Thompson" but not as "former pro-choice lobbyist Fred Thompson" , which is an NPOV and undue weight violation. (That complicated issue can be convered in a neutral and balanced way in Fred Thompson of course.) Here I feel from your other edits that you feel that defending Merck and other corporate clients is bad thing, which just reinforces that any capsule description of THF as "the lawyer who defended Merck" is an undue weight violation. Please stick to neutral descriptions in passing mentions and lists, and save the coverage of the issue for the main article. More broadly, I am concerned that you appear to be making THF-related edits that have more to do with picking at old scabs and less to do with an altrusitic interest in writing the world's greatest free encyclopedia. Count me as a fourth admininstrator who thinks you should avoid making further THF-related edits. Thatcher13112:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disengaging
David Shankbone is engaging in the same kinds of behaviors that so enraged THF, now with CHL and me. I'm disengaging. If you have any questions about my past or present conflicts with DS, feel free to ask. I've been unswervingly civil with him in all cases, even as he was harassing me by repeatedly raising unrelated age-old disputes. I have nothing to hide here. ATren17:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's preposterous. You two are pursuing and trolling me - I haven't engaged either of you. You have no ability to think clearly on this subject, even though you removed your rant about it on your User page. --David Shankbone18:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond, if you have any questions as to my "pestering" of William M. Connolley, feel free to ask on my talk or email. ATren18:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Howdy Raymond arritt, thanks for participating in my request for adminship and your suggestion of becoming an admin several months back. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.
Hi yes I was worried a little that I had broken the 3RR but I thought maybe I was ok doing so on the basis of the warnings and presuming it in the end to be vandalism as they simply refuse to discuss the edits. But no worries I will be careful as I suppose in instances where it isn't clearly vandalism maybe I should report to the Admin Noticeboard earlier, and thanks, hopefully they will listen to reason and add sourced NPOV content, though I won't hold my breath! ♦Tangerines♦·Talk18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RDNS says they come from HUNTINGTON BEACH. There a probably more IPs, and good reason to believe it is the same person. If this were a single user account she would have been blocked by now for disruptive edits. Yet, the dynamic IP has given her immunity? Do you know how to go about this? Brusegadi (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly the same person. There's not a great barrage of edits so it's best simply to revert them as they occur. If it gets out of hand the best thing to do is semi-protect the articles. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I slap down the {{The Barnstar of Good Humor}}, I try always to say at least one funny thing in the message, and since I'm too tired (read: intoxicated) to say anything at all substantive at present, I can't confer a barnstar on you; I can, though, say that this was much enjoyed. Cheers, Joe04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a start, anyway. Apparently he has been range blocked in the past, by the way, but I do understand the problem - I just think something more should be done about it. Anyway - Cat Stevens - actually Talk: Cat Stevens - is where I've encountered his anti-Semitic remarks - is it reasonable to protect an article's talk page? He has been disruptive on Bob Dylan for years - here are twoexamples of discussion about it - he also was involved in a revert war sometime in the last year on Bob Dylan about the structure of the article (I don't recall it being particularly ideological, but I'd have to check). And his history on Adolf Hitler is legion - that one is already semi protected, I assume permanently so. I have seen him editing disruptively on other articles as well. I recall Prime number was one, but again, not ideological. Thanks Raymond. Tvoz|talk19:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cat Stevens and Bob Dylan already are semi-protected. If he pops up elsewhere let me know. As far as I'm concerned any editor has carte blanche permission to revert offensive edits or remarks from ROHA. It is very important not to respond to him in any way -- such twisted individuals thrive on attention, whether positive or negative. Should anyone object to a revert send them to me and I'll take the heat. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your subpage User:Raymond arritt/Editwar draft is tagged as "official policy". Do you want to fix this so it won't show up in that category? I think it must be historical oversight :) and thought I'd mention :)
Oh good grief. Thanks for catching that! (It's a slowly-developing draft that will respond to some suggestions for merging 3RR into the larger context of edit warring.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries
You have taken bait far less than I. There are megabytes worth of examples where I inappropriately have responded to baiting. Fortunately, the user in question is now blocked and we can continue to work on writing an encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Civility-above-all-else crowd"
Hi, Raymond. I thought your comments at JzG's talk page were quite perceptive. There is an increasingly vocal group of people who think that civility and refraining from personal attacks are The Most Important Thing In The World™, even more than creating an encyclopedia. I certainly agree that some types of behaviour, even if the person is contributing productively to the encyclopedia, such as massive POV-pushing or edit warring, are disruptive to the point that the person should be blocked. But I do not characterise civility or personal attacks as disruptive in this manner.
The problem, of course, is when civility and personal attacks hinder any productive attempt at creating an encyclopedia, and instead creates something exactly counter to that, which happens at all too often when people choose to ignore the two policies. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not of the opinion that civility is a trump card. Given a choice between a civil, unfailingly courteous Holocaust denier and an editor with some rough edges who has a commitment to accuracy, I'll choose the latter. If that makes me a bad person, well, I can live with it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People who demand that "so-and-so needs to be blocked because he's uncivil" are missing the point. In a collaborative project, incivility results in a loss of credibility and makes people less willing to collaborate with you. That's the punishment for it. Even if you look at editors who are highly productive but "rough around the edges", there's no doubt in my mind that they'd be even more effective if they were unfailingly civil. Yes, we should expect a high level of civility from everyone, but it's pointless to demand a block for incivility or put people on "civility parole". In a project like this, incivility is its own punishment. MastCellTalk03:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, incivility and personal attacks do not generally create a battleground - I personally try to collaborate with someone even if they insult me or be incivil. I agree that good manners are important. I disagree, however, that someone with poor manners should be blocked (except in egregious situations). (Besides, blocking someone who is incivil or insulting will generally foster more incivility and insults.)
I, too, would echo what Raymond said, and add that if I had the choice between collaborating with an unfailingly civil person who had little to contribute to the encyclopedia and lots of drama to promote and an excellent content contributor with rough edges, I would choose the latter. --Iamunknown05:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're being used by a couple of super losers (Ellenberger and Thompson) who no reasonable person ought ever to get used by. Send me an email I can reply to at bigbear@bearfabrique.org. I use Wikipedia myself for things like "how does a sewing machine work" or "how does a diesel locomotive work" for which no controversy could exist, but this policy of treating every science controversy as if there were only one side to it and enforcing rules selectively is sooner or later going to start to have consequences to the owner(s) of Wikipedia, and the pain WILL filter downwards, and you probably won't want to participate in any of that.
