FT2's state visit, So how was it for you? Options

[Peter Damian]

I'm not sure what to make of it. But I won't say anything in any case, because I would like to hear what the uninvolved parties think. (The involved parties being myself, Probivouac, and Docknell - could I ask them not to comment, please).

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[dogbiscuit]

The main really obvious thing is his use of Bellman's Rule of Three. I think he thinks that if he says something often enough then it will be true, regardless of any comments against that position.

On the other hand, I can understand why he would give no quarter to Peter and Docknell given that they are severely on his case. I have an open mind whether he is simply misguidedly naive on NPOV on controversial subjects - the no consequences USENET philosophy that people will evaluate information and come to their own views, in spite of the fact that it is clear that the inability to maintain a NPOV article on controversial subjects demonstrates that it is a fallacy. Clearly, Peter and Docknell are trying to establish whether it is naivety or active promotion.

The main failing of FT2 is that he thinks other people are not as clever as him and that enough obfuscation will allow him to win an argument; I think that it just reduces his stature. I'm not a great one for yes/no answers when it is a world of grey, but as he is playing the political game, there are a few yes's and noes that he should give, even with qualifications. I am not sure those two words are in his vocabulary though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[FT2]

On the other hand, I can understand why he would give no quarter to Peter and Docknell given that they are severely on his case.

It's a bit like a few other issues, where public consensus had trouble handling the idea others might actually know what they were talking about.

I have an open mind whether he is simply misguidedly naive on NPOV on controversial subjects - the no consequences USENET philosophy that people will evaluate information and come to their own views, in spite of the fact that it is clear that the inability to maintain a NPOV article on controversial subjects demonstrates that it is a fallacy. Clearly, Peter and Docknell are trying to establish whether it is naivety or active promotion.

Like it or not, wikipedia is based on NPOV - we don't slant articles for what people "should" think or to "protect" them. On distasteful subjects that often means removing strong "anti" biases as well as "pro" biases, and both sides hate it. (Imagine editing [[Homosexuality]] on a wiki whose mother tongue is from a country with the death penalty for it, and people are sure gay=aids, for example.)

Peter felt very strongly on finding 1/ I dared edit a horrible topic, 2/ didn't feel ashamed to list it in my contribs page at arb election. He objected, hit a wall, objected, hit a wall, and it spiralled. But he's a decent guy at heart and that's why I am willing to attempt mediation.

Docknell there's a problem, because most here believe him to be a decent honorable user; I've been tracking the sock-puppets of a virulent and very smooth multiple-banned abuser for 3 years and to me it's pretty unmistakably the same person and identical modus where he has used the facade of "decent honorable user" many times, before showing the real face. We won't agree unfortunately; and I'm not really aiming to change anyone's beliefs.

The main failing of FT2 is that he thinks other people are not as clever as him and that enough obfuscation will allow him to win an argument; I think that it just reduces his stature. I'm not a great one for yes/no answers when it is a world of grey, but as he is playing the political game, there are a few yes's and noes that he should give, even with qualifications. I am not sure those two words are in his vocabulary though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I'm wordy because thats how I am. Same as some are terse, and others abrasive or whatever. Its not easy to answer a question with many overtones, in 5 words. If a person has to have a weakness, that's not the worst one to have. It's a bit of an in-joke, but among actual disputants, more seem to state they appreciate it (1 2 3 4) than dislike it.

[Carruthers]

Docknell there's a problem, because most here believe him to be a decent honorable user; I've been tracking the sock-puppets of a virulent and very smooth multiple-banned abuser for 3 years and to me it's pretty unmistakably the same person and identical modus where he has used the facade of "decent honorable user" many times, before showing the real face. We won't agree unfortunately; and I'm not really aiming to change anyone's beliefs.

You are going to have to treat him as an honorable user here because he is one at this site. Even if you were to prove that his is a longterm vandal on WP, that doesn't change the fact that he is an "honorable user" here.

I'm only speaking for myself of course, but I would think that many others here feel the same way.

[Jon Awbrey]

Docknell there's a problem, because most here believe him to be a decent honorable user; I've been tracking the sock-puppets of a virulent and very smooth multiple-banned abuser for 3 years and to me it's pretty unmistakably the same person and identical modus where he has used the facade of "decent honorable user" many times, before showing the real face. We won't agree unfortunately; and I'm not really aiming to change anyone's beliefs.

You are going to have to treat him as an honorable user here because he is one at this site. Even if you were to prove that his is a longterm vandal on WP, that doesn't change the fact that he is an "honorable user" here.

I'm only speaking for myself of course, but I would think that many others here feel the same way.

FT2 needs to try, try, try and grasp the fact that many of us consider Wikipedia to be a dishonourable and even dangerous enterprise. And so we do not hold it against people who have in good conscience chosen to oppose it and even blockade it in various and sundry ways.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[FT2]

FT2 needs to try, try, try and grasp the fact that many of us consider Wikipedia to be a dishonourable and even dangerous enterprise. And so we do not hold it against people who have in good conscience chosen to oppose it and even blockade it in various and sundry ways.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

I can respect that comment, which is spoken plainly and well, honest, and doesn't "play around". It's not necessarily going to mean we have much to say to each other a lot of the time, but that's not because of any dismissal or disrespect. I can understand where you're coming from. I think the issue here is beyond "right/wrong" (I'll explain that if you like) - I tentatively think you're missing a key aspect here, but that point isn't the most obvious. And if I'm mistaken I'd like to find out.