Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:59, 27 July 2008

Talk to me baby! —Jemmy

Edit warring

Admins here seem prone to insist one "handle it on the talk page." They don't recognize the reality that what the editor has got to do is win edit wars against morons. I went to #wikipedia-en and asked how to win an edit war, and they said: don't edit war. (Eventually, though, someone did give me concrete advice: request page protection. Still, the initial reaction indicates the problem.) This attitude is totally detached from reality. If someone refuses to listen, or to listen to reason, or is incapable of reason, you've got to edit war. —Jemmy_tc

Read your note on your user page. The admins are right, of course, that you shouldn't "edit war." If the other users are editing according to an agenda or are doing things against Misplaced Pages rules, you can try to get them to stop yourself by giving them warnings, but if it doesn't work out you may need administrator assistance to get the user blocked to enforce the rules. Naturally, inappropriate edits like that should be undone, but that doesn't mean that having an edit war is the right way to resolve the problem. On the other hand, if the other editors aren't breaking the rules and simply disagree with your vision for the article, then discussion is the right thing to do. Yes, that can lead to a stalemate but there are ways to break it, for instance, by going to request a third opinion, or other forms of dispute resolution. Edit warring in this kind of case just makes things worse because it makes everyone more upset. Mangojuice 14:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What I would like to point out is that "administrator assistance," such as through dispute resolution, through requesting page protection or a block for disruption, etc., are nothing but means of winning the edit war. They are not distinct from it. It is only the edit war that creates the need for administrator assistance; and it is only through obtaining the support of the administrators for a particular version of a page that an edit war can definitively be won. The problem I am highlighting is that such support is likely to be withheld with some admonition to discuss, regardless of whether this is possible. Look, for example, at the protection request for No True Scotsman. If the problem could have been sorted out on the talk page, there would have been no need for protection. And in fact the conflict is not resolved: there is nothing preventing the same user from adding the same content at this point.

From my perspective the problem is this: I have put far too much time into this minor article, about which I hardly care, and which nobody else is taking care of. Thus I am stuck watching this page, with no means to enforce WP policy, or for that matter basic standards of quality, but to revert—which according to the policy, I am not supposed to do! Only administrative action can resolve the issue definitively, and it is not forthcoming. —Jemmy_tc 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a terminology difference then. What you call an "edit war" we typically call simply a dispute or conflict. When we say "edit war" what we normally mean is a dispute in which the editors only edit back and forth between their preferred versions instead of looking for a more constructive way to resolve things. As for No True Scotsman, clearly the system worked there - you requested protection and it was appropriately granted as there was really nothing else that could be done. But if admins err on the side of requesting more discussion in borderline cases (which that one was not), it's out of a desire to stay out of the conflict and not choose a side. Mangojuice 14:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Six months later, the page remains in ruins -- the other editor having reinstated the nonsense, which I had removed. What am I to do but remove it again? Well, I'm not going to bother. The fundamental problem -- the unwillingness (or inability, due to WP policy) of anyone with administrative power to make editorial decisions -- remains. Again, the only recourse available is an edit war, in exactly the sense of the term that you describe (i.e., reverting without discussion). There simply is no "more constructive way to resolve things." People who will not listen to reason can be dealt with only by force -- either edit warring, or administrative action. You're not willing to do the latter; I'm not willing to do the former -- and so No True Scotsman will just continue to suck. —Jemmy_tc 07:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't intend to take any part in repairing the article, I won't be bothered either. Frankly, I'm a volunteer: don't try to push me to work on something I'm not necessarily interested in just because I'm an administrator. Administrators are not super-editors: we don't get to make final content decisions or anything, we just have a few more buttons to use. If you actually look through the edit history you'll find a lot of stuff has been clipped out, and many other editors support you. Whoever put the stuff in hasn't been active in months. Mangojuice 13:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hamish last edited the page on June 4 (the 62.64.* IP addresses are his). His section is still in there, though there is an OR tag. He has still not responded to my comments on the talk page from six months ago. Anyway, I'm not trying to get you to do anything -- I'm just reiterating my point. I don't see why you say I "don't intend to take any part in repairing the article" -- as if there were a "part" for me to "take" -- other than (here is the point reiterated) continuing an edit war. —Jemmy_tc 14:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of property is theft!

Yo Jemmy, the section you removed was relevant and reliably sourced, and you offered no reason in your edit summary for your action. If you have concerns with the section, would you mind raising them on the article talkpage? Sincerely, Skomorokh 09:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of doing so. —Jemmy_tc 09:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Skomorokh 09:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What is Property? Property is Theft!

Yes, there is so much more we could say about What Is Property. Some of that was written at Property Is Theft. I say the first step is to bring them together.

I'm glad you brought up Category:Political slogans - you will see some of them italicised (also in the sub-category Category:American political slogans). Click on them, and you will see what I have in mind. I think that is a much better way to go for this case - the slogan does not naturally divide from the book. It's question and answer after all.

If after this you still think they should be separate, then that's fine. I will withdraw the proposal and we will carry on.

This Branden business is a waste of time. I see no pressing need to deal with it. Time will be better spent improving What Is Property. Having done some of that, there is a good chance Steve will relent, as he doesn't seem to me to be all that unreasonable. Or else he may lose interest. Or, failing that, I expect it will be easier to convince uninvolved editors or administrators to remove dodgy material from a passable article than it will be to convince them to remove dodgy material from a dodgy article.

Regards, --EmbraceParadox (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, about the redirect. But "property is theft" is a meme, in its own right, unlike the articles in that category that are redirects. Compare Workers of the world, unite! to We will decide who comes to this country. The former is a significant slogan; the latter is a mere statement. (There are only three redirects in the slogan category: Ease the squeeze, Asia for Asians, and the previously mentioned.)

What you say about Steve makes me think that you must be new here. Randites are a hard-headed bunch. It's a genuine cult. They're incapable of listening. A person who can't see why Branden's argument is nonsense is as far from reasonable as it is possible for a person to be.

Anyway, while I think I could write a good article for What is Property?, I am really not all that enthused with WP lately. What I've learned from watching disputes here is that any page depends on a cabal of good editors to defend it from the constant influx of uninformed idiots and whackos. A lone individual, who is not willing to put in an unlimited amount of time wikilawyering and begging administrators for help, can only expect to see his work destroyed. But hey -- don't let that stop you from writing it yourself! :) —Jemmy_tc 02:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have been around Misplaced Pages many years, on and off, mostly as unregistered IP. Obviously I am not so pessimistic. Admittedly, I am not familiar with Objectivists. Perhaps I will take you up on the What is Property challenge. Anyways it is silly that there was no french version of that article, given that it's french, so I'm starting there. Regards, --EmbraceParadox (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are now blatantly edit-warring

How could you possibly think this was a mature, constructive step in resolving this dispute? Both SteveWolfer and I had responded to your latest talkpage comment. Ignoring these comments, opting not to bother pursuing dispute resolution and reverting SteveWolfer without even bothering to leave an explanatory edit summary is tendentious editing, and if you continue you know well you are flirting with a block. I've tagged the section as {{disputed}}, and I hope to see no more reverts on this page while consensus is reached. I'll be addressing Steve with this as well. Sincerely, Skomorokh 12:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

StephenWolfer is absurdly claiming that he is discussing the issue, even though he hasn't responded to me. He talked with EmbranceParadox. That is not the same thing as talking to me! He ignored my comment, yet reverted my changes. Of course I am edit warring! What else can I do when the other editor will not respond and is edit warring? —Jemmy_tc 13:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I already told you; mediation or give it up. As you chose to continue edit-warring, I've started a thread at the administrator's noticeboard asking for intervention here. Skomorokh 13:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, you said on the talk page you wouldn't edit-war, then you did! What up with that? —Jemmy_tc 13:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)