The TimidGuy case, aye, there's the rub Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

There will always be people (often they tend to be ex-followers) who will act out of spite wherever mention of a particular religion is found, but it is a huge oversimplification and basically an act of drinking the religion-in-question's Kool Aid to claim that the only people interested enough in a religion are either the adherents or detractors.

I wonder what Will Beback's actual motivation is. His cup runneth over with spite, and it's interdenominational spite -- he couldn't possibly be an ex-adherent to the broad array of religions and political groups he demonizes.

[Rhindle]

What it comes down to is that Mr. Beback is a real piece of work. Hopefully, this time he'll get his comeuppance that has been more than overdue.

[iii]

I wonder what Will Beback's actual motivation is. His cup runneth over with spite, and it's interdenominational spite -- he couldn't possibly be an ex-adherent to the broad array of religions and political groups he demonizes.

Some people are motivated by a desire to destroy that with which they disagree. A kind of moral panic regarding minority ideologies can develop especially when one holds to a mainstream ideology that has similar features to the minority ideologies that one is opposing.

On the other hand, it is very easy for someone who is a true believer to mistake a person who is just dismissing favored arguments for one who is trying to rape, burn, pillage, and salt the earth. My advice is to try not to take things too seriously.

[Fusion]

... neither paid editing, having an undisclosed POV, nor being paid AND having an undisclosed POV ... Jclemens (talk) 1:46 am, 13 December 2011, Tuesday (10 days ago) (UTC−6)

I am in some difficulty here. What is the difference between these two ideas?

[SB_Johnny]

... neither paid editing, having an undisclosed POV, nor being paid AND having an undisclosed POV ... Jclemens (talk) 1:46 am, 13 December 2011, Tuesday (10 days ago) (UTC−6)

I am in some difficulty here. What is the difference between these two ideas?

I think it's 3 ideas. Adding another "nor" would improve both the grammar and the semantics.

[Cla68]

The thing about Transcendental Meditation ™ is, why would any truly neutral editors be working in that topic? I imagine that the only editors interested in it would be followers of the philosophy, and those that hate it like a bad burrito.

In spite of claims to the contrary, there are academics who study religious movements who don't hate the subjects they study "like a bad burrito", and they do write scholarly articles and books about these subjects. More often than not, though, followers don't appreciate anyone who isn't a follower saying anything about their religion that doesn't toe their line. There will always be people (often they tend to be ex-followers) who will act out of spite wherever mention of a particular religion is found, but it is a huge oversimplification and basically an act of drinking the religion-in-question's Kool Aid to claim that the only people interested enough in a religion are either the adherents or detractors.

It has been my experience that neutral editors with an interest in the subject depart when they have their edits reverted and observe the battles between the pro and con editors on the talk page. This is the reason why I believe there aren't too many neutral editors involved in the Intelligent Design, global warming, TM, Lyndon LaRouche, Sarah Palin, Israel/Palestine, and other contentious topics. That's one of the reasons for enforcing the BATTLEGROUND policy, because battleground tactics by editors drives newcomers away.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Sun 25th December 2011, 4:27am

[iii]

It has been my experience that neutral editors with an interest in the subject depart when they have their edits reverted and observe the battles between the pro and con editors on the talk page. This is the reason why I believe there aren't too many neutral editors involved in the Intelligent Design, global warming, TM, Lyndon LaRouche, Sarah Palin, Israel/Palestine, and other contentious topics. That's one of the reasons for enforcing the BATTLEGROUND policy, because battleground tactics by editors drives newcomers away.

You seem very swayed by argumentum ad temperantiam. It's as though you cannot conceive of how to find "neutrality" other than by searching for the middle ground between the personalities of the anonymous nitwits who argue on that website. Believing that "neutrality" is "between the pro and con editors" is a very wikiality-based idea and is nothing more than a hallmark of shitty scholarship and academic myopia. But this is your particular brand of advocacy. That others involved with Wikipedia actually take your fallacious claims of being able to see "neutrality" seriously is just a symptom of how fucked up Wikipedia is.

[Cla68]

It has been my experience that neutral editors with an interest in the subject depart when they have their edits reverted and observe the battles between the pro and con editors on the talk page. This is the reason why I believe there aren't too many neutral editors involved in the Intelligent Design, global warming, TM, Lyndon LaRouche, Sarah Palin, Israel/Palestine, and other contentious topics. That's one of the reasons for enforcing the BATTLEGROUND policy, because battleground tactics by editors drives newcomers away.

You seem very swayed by argumentum ad temperantiam. It's as though you cannot conceive of how to find "neutrality" other than by searching for the middle ground between the personalities of the anonymous nitwits who argue on that website. Believing that "neutrality" is "between the pro and con editors" is a very wikiality-based idea and is nothing more than a hallmark of shitty scholarship and academic myopia. But this is your particular brand of advocacy. That others involved with Wikipedia actually take your fallacious claims of being able to see "neutrality" seriously is just a symptom of how fucked up Wikipedia is.

I didn't say that neutral editors fall into the middle-ground between pro and con editors.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I didn't say that neutral editors fall into the middle-ground between pro and con editors.

That's right, he didn't. I think that the responsible way to run an encyclopedia (assuming that that were the actual objective of WP) would be to simply exclude dubious and contentious material, and concentrate on that which is indisputable. This, of course, is the point where the WP:ACTIVISTS cry Censorship! or in the case of Will Beback, "whitewashing." As opposed to what one typically finds in articles about controversial topics or persons, which I suppose would be "blackwashing."

[iii]

I didn't say that neutral editors fall into the middle-ground between pro and con editors.

Denied implication, thy name is Cla68.

That's right, he didn't. I think that the responsible way to run an encyclopedia (assuming that that were the actual objective of WP) would be to simply exclude dubious and contentious material, and concentrate on that which is indisputable.

For every idea, you can find a nutjob who finds even the most mundane of content to be dubious, contentious, and disputable.

[that one guy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...imidGuy.27s_ban

Apparently Fladrif thinks it's ok to circumvent policy. Lovely

[It's the blimp, Frank]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...imidGuy.27s_ban

Apparently Fladrif thinks it's ok to circumvent policy. Lovely

Could he be a sock of Will Beback?

[Rhindle]

Wikipedia has trouble dealing with tag teams of editors.... Will Beback talk 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

[SB_Johnny]

Wikipedia has trouble dealing with tag teams of editors.... Will Beback talk 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

[No one of consequence]

I can't believe how much I used to care about this stuff.

And they are mystified by their editor retention problem?

[Cla68]

I can't believe how much I used to care about this stuff.

And they are mystified by their editor retention problem?

One of WP's worst problems is dealing with established, agenda-driven editors. It's time-consuming, frustrating, tedious, and unrewarding. I know, however, this isn't the only reason people leave Wikipedia, as there are plenty of other problems as well.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 3rd January 2012, 11:29pm

[SB_Johnny]

I just noticed Jimbo has been weighing in on the workshop page as an "arbitrator". Shouldn't he actually be weighing in as a "party"?

I guess we'll find out the backstory next time somebody leaks.

[Detective]

I just noticed Jimbo has been weighing in on the workshop page as an "arbitrator". Shouldn't he actually be weighing in as a "party"?

This is a function of the fact that Jimbo's role is still (presumably intentionally) ill-defined. Originally, Jimbo was a one-man ArbCom. He set ArbCom up to share the load, and as far as I know he can still set aside any decision it makes. But has he ever said that he won't act as a member if he feels like it? Has anyone else ever told him he can't? Is NewYorkBrad reading?

[Kelly Martin]

This is a function of the fact that Jimbo's role is still (presumably intentionally) ill-defined. Originally, Jimbo was a one-man ArbCom. He set ArbCom up to share the load, and as far as I know he can still set aside any decision it makes. But has he ever said that he won't act as a member if he feels like it? Has anyone else ever told him he can't? Is NewYorkBrad reading?

Jimbo is the God-King; by definition, he can do whatever he want, because he is the law.

[EricBarbour]

Jimbo is the God-King; by definition, he can do whatever he want, because he is the law.

And usually, he doesn't know what to do.....so he dumps it on a minion.

(Remember his proposal for a "privy council"? Nothing was done, apparently.
The God-King is not godly enough.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 4th January 2012, 11:13pm