Business as usual, it occurred to me to make a helpful edit in Flagrant Violation of WikiDecency, so I did
. MastCell has his eagle eyes open for any Nonsense Like This, so he reverted
and blocked the IP. Compliant with WP:RBI
, so far, so no complaints from me, not that I'd actually complain
if they gave it their darndest.
But usually, when I'm blocked, I look at the admin's contributions, and came across this discussion
, where admins are lamenting how bad it is on Wikipedia.
I thought of dropping a comment there -- hey, I'd show the hangman how to tie the knot, if he asked, or seems to be having trouble -- but, nah, not this time. They are just kvetching, they don't actually want to know how to make it better, because they block anyone who tries to tell or show them. Too many words (in the telling, at least!), can't you boil it down so I can get it without interrupting my patrol for Those Awful Socks? I'm a Busy Man, you know.
Secret, MastCell: ArbComm isn't going to back someone who does the Right Thing even the Right Way, if they don't like it for some reason.
You wonder why Wikipedia is going to hell in a handbasket? Notice that you are running, and what you are carrying.
Okay, what I'd do, my humble or not-so-humble suggestion. When I revert a block or ban evader, and the edit is brief, it's trivial to see if it's a good edit or not! This one, from me, was obvious. Notice the context, and that context has been repeated over and over on that talk page: someone wants to discuss the topic and they are told Go Away. How about telling them something nicer that might actually help the WikiMedia Foundation?
I did this when enforcing blocks of Moulton on Wikiversity. I'd see the edits and revert them ASAP. I used to log these, but that's because I needed to be extremely careful, it's not essential. Then I'd revert them back in if they were okay, thus affirming my position as an editor that they were, at least, harmless in themselves. Even if Moulton was under an No Editing Absolutely Positively We Mean Business Ix-Nay Ix-Nay Ban.
If MastCell would consider that, I'd consider returning to self-reversion, so he could ignore the edits if he wants, and someone else could make the decision to bring them back in, if they want. As it is, he's got a pure negative going, he gets no value for his work reverting and blocking.
Of course, if he disagrees with linking to Wikiversity, that would be another thing. I considered adding a link to Wikiversity at the same time on the article page, but, mirable dieux, it was already there, placed by someone completely without my knowledge or request. If that were a new editor, he'd be accused and under investigation for being a sock of mine, I can be sure. But he goes back to 2004.
(Given that edit, the only evidence that this edit was mine was the content, the link to Wikiversity, plus the IP range is part of a large one used by my main ISP. If I'd been aware of the prior edit to the article linking to the same WV page, I'd have referred to it, creating a little useful confusion, and next time I might use an actual sock, so that MastCell can get his knickers wrapped more tightly. Natural consequences. If MastCell emails me, we could have a nice chat, I'm sure. But doesn't RBI require
that responsible users
completely disconnect and refuse to communicate with the
, ... banned editors?)
So the only question here is whether or not it is useful to suggest to people who want discussion (and original research) that they can go to Wikiversity. I predict that within a year or so, this will become common practice. And the overall effect on Wikipedia will be an uptick in the quality of discussion and articles.
One more piece of wikitrivia: From Talk:Cold fusion
IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss your personal opinions of the merits of cold fusion research. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, which is about cold fusion and the associated scientific controversy surrounding it. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you wish to discuss or debate the status of cold fusion please do so at the VORTEX-L mailing list.
Sure. But there is a Wikimedia Foundation project that is even better. I put the cross-wiki template in the CF article
last year, dreaming for a moment that it might not be controversial, it was reverted,
with this summary: (removed link to CF wikiversity page, which is essentially self-published by Abd and biased; if you want to add it back please discuss it first)
I thought that was delicious. By that argument, related articles on Wikipedia should not be under "See Also" because they might be "self-published" by the editors who worked on them. Wikiversity is covered by WMF neutrality policy, and editing is open, generally, to Wikipedia editors under SUL, but neutrality there is understood in an inclusive way. It's not an encyclopedia, which, practically by definition, must exclude much. Wikiversity is for educational resources, and discussion is an important part of any serious education.