Wed 11th May 2011, 1:25pm
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 11th May 2011, 2:48am)
QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 11th May 2011, 12:17am)
He's learned that he needs to stay away from depleted uranium if he wants to continue to play the wiki game, and also don't use an account. The connection is living in Northern California, and his affinity for the reference desks, drama boards and the wmf.
Yeah, I think you may well be right (again). Of course, he's hardly one to talk about not going away quietly,
He's clever though, I'll give him that much. Still, the Stockholm Syndrome tends to detract from the cleverness.
Haven't seen the evidence, but if an account works on Depleted uranium and Cold fusion, it's likely Salsman. Here's what I have to say about him.
I first met him in connection with Instant runoff voting. He tried to get me blocked, and, while I was still pretty new and naive, I knew enough to set it up so it backfired. He created sock after sock, and the community was slow to recognize them, but, eventually.... I was able to work with the socks, and as a sock, he was not as contentious as certain recognized editors.
Later, he was helpful at Cold fusion. There was far more problem from "legitimate editors," who would do absolutely outrageous things, revert war, game RfPP to get the article protected in their preferred state, push and demand the blocking and banning of others, etc.
I'm working on process for "editor rehab." Part of that is respecting the editor! Wikipedia seems to think that if an editor has been banned, this must be because they were Bad, and only if they get that they were Bad, abjectly apologize, is there hope. That doesn't work with human beings, unless they are Sick.
If an editor can recognize that they were uncivil, obsessed, arrogant, etc., great. But that cannot be forced, or it's unstable and insincere. And it's not necessary. What is necessary for cooperation is demonstrated cooperation, and assessing blame for the past is not a part of that.
Salsman would be a very good candidate for self-reversion per ban. I may have suggested it to him already, and I wouldn't expect him to start yet, the results of my experiment should be collected and analyzed more thoroughly first. I invited him to participate at Wikiversity, and if he's done anything there, I don't recall it. Wikiversity is also a place for "rehab" to begin. Original research is allowed there, and it's part of education to discuss topics. So Depleted uranium could be discussed.
Wikipedia is a setup for conflict, because there is scarce "territory" to fight over. We almost never see revert wars at Wikiversity, in mainspace, because the neutrality policy based on neutrality-by-inclusion, and subpages are allowed in mainspace, so there are easy and obvious solutions to conflict over content: fork being one of them. Balance? So what if a mainstream point of view position is brief, perhaps consisting mostly of a link to the Wikipedia article, and a fringe POV has a whole family of subpages with long and tedious discussion? What matters for neutrality is that someone comes to the top-level resource on Cold fusion, and sees neutral coverage.
Top-level coverage isn't neutral? It's a wiki. Fix it! I'll work with anyone who wants to help there, and especially invite "skeptical" editors. I want the "skeptical POV" represented, partly because I want it examined, in detail. Just as I want the evidence for the Pons-Fleischmann effect to be examined, in detail.
I urge anyone who finds themselves in conflict with Salsman to *discuss it* with him. He's not insane, except as anyone who has an enduring interest in Wikipedia is crazy in some way. Present company most definitely included.
And if you can't find agreement with him, engage in true "dispute resolution process." Probably best off-wiki. Or if it's about an article topic, on Wikiversity. Good use for that wiki, properly done. I'll help, if anyone wants support from a third party who is motivated to seek consensus. Remember this: by definition, consensus includes you.
The Wikipedia trope on consensus has it mean "everyone but you, jerkface. Go away!"