User talk:Wik/Jimbo discussion

First, quoting from before...

I'm just as solid a contributor as the others and they are reverting me just as much as I revert them, obviously. And that your claim is wrong that I "refuse to even try" can be seen above on this very page, where I had a talk with Eloquence, which he ended. I have never refused to answer any question on a talk page, and I have always explained my position. What more do you want? User:Wik

The core problem that is driving the revert wars, in my view, is your unreasonable and uncooperative behavior. When you are criticized you hide behind claims about POV crusaders and vandals, but that's a straw man argument. No one is saying that reverting POV crusaders and vandals is wrong, or something that you should stop. If every revert war that you were involved in was against people like that, no one would be complaining at all. (Well, no one other than POV crusaders and vandals, of course.)

But that is manifestly not what has been going on. You fix your mind on a particular wording on an article, and that's it. Sometimes (often) you're right, but other times you are clearly not right. And you don't even try. (I know you claim to try, but that's not true, or if it is true that you try a little bit, it isn't nearly enough.)

Edits can be placed along a spectrum from good to bad as measured by a number of qualities, and the proper response to different kinds of edits is different. If something is just plain stupid or wrong or totally indefensible, then a revert is perhaps the only possibility. Compromise between sense and nonsense is not really possible, as you've eloquently argued.

But if an edit is just suboptimal in some fashion, it's important to improve it while respecting what the other person was trying to say. In virtually all the revert wars that you've been involved in, the person on the other side 'has a reasonable point' which, if you were more respectful of others, you could work to incorporate into a revised version that is mutually satisfactory. Instead, you just revert.

What I'm asking you to do is to adjust (dramatically) your "line" of edit qualities that you revert versus revise. What I'm telling you, and what the entire community is telling you, is that you've got it wrong. You revert things unreasonably. You revert when you should revise.

One of the struggles we have had so far is that I don't really want to talk about the specific content of a specific article, because I really want to focus on your behavior, as opposed to specific controversies. But you've pointed out, validly I think, that for you to really understand me, it may be necessary to work through one or more specific examples, so that I can show you what I think you should have done differently. Maybe that's true, although I think you could easily guess in virtually every case what I will have to say, just based on the general principles that I've outlined above.

A revert is a slap in the face. An initial revert says to the other person "You spent your time making these changes, and I found nothing in them of merit, nothing at all. I can find nothing here worth preserving." A re-revert is not a slap in the face in the same way, it is a statement that "Hey, I stand by my edits, please modify what I wrote if you like, but don't treat it as if I said nothing."

Now, as described, there is nothing above that says that all reverts are bad, just as not every slap in the face is bad. If a vandal writes obscenity on a page, or inserts some ridiculous nonsense... if a POV pusher writes something that's transparent advocacy, with no merit at all... in these cases, it is absolutely right to revert, because there's no compromise between "Thomas Jefferson was the 3rd President of the United States" and "fuck fuck fuckity fuck".

I write all this because I want to move you beyond the defense of "well, I'm just crusading for NPOV". Yes, crusading for NPOV is good. Yes, reverting vandals is good. Yes, reverting blatant propaganda is sometimes the only thing to do. And yes, we have to evaluate each case given the totality of the circumstances.

So, let's talk Atlantium for a minute. That's just one example, and it may not be the best one, but it will do for the moment. Several people wanted the article to say "claims" and you wanted it to say "pretends". And you set about to systematically enforce your viewpoint with reverts. On the talk page, and your user page, people (Erik, in particular) asked you to work towards a compromise, and you simply refused. You offered no compromise wording, and dismissed every other possible compromise.

But, was compromise really impossible? You (strangly, and wrongly I think) seemed to think that the word 'claims' suggested that there is a genuine controversy. But, that's fine, even though I think you're wrong about that, clearly I think your issue needs to be dealt with. It's a fair point, anyway. Others think that your choice "pretends" was too value-laden. I think that's right, but more important, it is also something that you should have acknowledged as not being simply the sort of insanity to which there is no possible answer but a revert, but also a valid issue that needs to be dealt with.

I don't know what the ultimate solution might be, but I can think of a dozen possibilities off the top of my head. You're a good writer, so I'm sure you can as well. What we're seeking is a wording which does illustrate that their claim to be a state is mere rherotic to make a political point of some kind, while at the same time not involving the value-judgment feeling of the word 'pretends'.

If you were simply in an edit war with the founder of that website, then the totality of the circumstance would not require you to go to a lot of effort to compromise. But that's not what happened. What happened was that the other side of your edit war included a number of regular contributors, the sort of people who are not prone to POV writing, and who are well-known for their ability to work towards compromise. You ought to have accorded their objections to your wording more respect by not simply reverting them over and over.

(This is exacerbated by the standing threat on your user page. Your user page doesn't say "pages to keep an eye on because of potential POV problems" -- a wording which would suggest a willingness to compromise on revisions, so long as they are NPOV -- it says "pages to revert" -- a wording which suggests an unwillingness to work with others, period. And given your ongoing social troubles relating to reverting, it's pretty clearly open defiance, right? Isn't that the point of the page?)

I don't want to suggest a particular wording, because any potential wording I might suggest is likely to be problematic to one side or the other. It might take a few iterations to find a compromise, of course. Instead, I hope that you'll just concede the tiniest point, like "Yeah, man, I guess I could have tried harder to respect Erik and Ed and the others, and tried to find a different wording than 'pretend' but which still got my point across."

Jimbo Wales 14:14, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Jimbo. I'm sorry I could not reply earlier - I got into a fight with a vandal in the course of which RickK thought he had to block me. In this connection I should clarify that the reversion ceasefire, which I will heed from now on, does not apply to my user and talk pages, which I will continue to defend against unwanted spam or other vandalism.

Now, as to the location of this discussion, I think that whenever a discussion gets split into too many threads, it will become unwieldy no matter what, and it's better to have it all on one wiki page instead of in a mailing list tree, where you can usually only view one message at a time. And here we can, like on any wiki talk page, refactor earlier discussion, delete obsolete branches, summarize things we have agreed on, etc. while the full discussion remains present in the history. I don't consider the mailing list "equally open to everyone" - why do you think many people never post there? Because, for one thing, if you want to keep your privacy you may need to get a special throwaway email address for the purpose. And the result is that a cabal builds among those who do post regularly there. Important things are being discussed there which should be discussed among everyone. I still remember when I wondered months ago why Lir had been unbanned, I was told that "the people on the list supported it", as if they had special authority.

I have to disagree about my "unreasonable behavior". First of all, the bulk of the problem is in fact with POV crusaders, and it is not true that no one is saying that reverting them is wrong. People criticize me all the time for reverting without even looking at what the dispute is about. It is also not true that I fix my mind on a particular wording. I may think that a particular wording is best, but am open to other suggestions as long as they're NPOV and factually correct. If I think the other side has a reasonable point that can be incorporated into a mutually satisfactory version, then I do that and won't just revert, but often I don't think that's the case.

As to your point about "initial reverts", it is far from always me who is doing the initial revert. Often I add or rewrite something and the other side starts reverting to the previous version. Let's take Atlantium, indeed. I started NPOVing the article, for example, by changing "claims" into "pretends" - that wasn't a revert (it never said "pretends" before). The other side started reverting while calling my edits "nonsense" or "troll vandalisation". I never said I wouldn't accept any other wording, I just said I won't accept the other side's wording for reasons I explained on the talk page. I also discussed legitimate concerns there, obviously not treating them as "insanity" (which I would not bother to reply to). Still, the disagreement remains. I consider "pretends" to be perfectly apt here, and while I could imagine other wordings none of them would be more likely to be accepted by the other side. Now what is supposed to happen? If there were some authority to decide this I wouldn't bother reverting it until then. But if there's just no prospect of this ever getting settled, of course both sides will keep reverting.

I agree that there were several people who disagreed with me who aren't regular POV pushers, but then, others agreed with me; there was no consensus either way and I don't think we decide things by simple majority vote here. And the other side didn't accord my objections to their wording any more respect either, they simply reverted over and over. Which is why my user page says "pages to revert" - those cases are simply deadlocked, discussion has failed, and the other side reverts as much as I do. I don't think it's a question of trying harder - sometimes, and this is the bottom line here, you can't reach agreement short of renouncing what you really think and just giving in to what you are convinced is wrong. --Wik 00:56, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

If everything you say here were true of your behavior, then we have nothing more to discuss. But it's manifestly and transparently not true, so I'm not really sure what to do or say. Your rhetoric of co-operativeness is one thing, your behavior is quite different.

I'm really speechless here. You seem to lack a certain quality of introspection and ability at self-criticism that is going to be necessary in order to get things moving in a positive direction. You seem unwilling to even try.

All I am asking you to is to get rid of that 'pages to revert' page and give up reverting altogether. You aren't the right person for the job of defender, it's just wrong for you. If you don't see why, after my repeated explanations, then please ask me some questions, and I'll try to explain. But, really, you should just trust me, that's not the right approach.

You are a good contributor, on average, but you're a very very bad judge of when things are deadlocked. The pages you mention could all be improved, and there are a hundred creative ways to do it. Your standing threat to revert is just an obstacle, and one which -- quite frankly -- I think you should be banned for. (But this is not up to me, of course, as I've given up that power.)

So, if there's something that you're not good at, that is getting you in a lot of hot water, then you should abandon it. You could try to learn a better way, you could try to see that there are creative alternatives, but if you can't, if you really really can't see it, then please just stop. Step back. Go work on other pages, and let these go.

I think I could teach you some creative ways, but I have to be honest -- I'm deeply suspicious of your refusal to take this to private email. I don't think you really care to have a heartfelt conversation, I think you just want to grandstand.

Jimbo Wales 01:13, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is quite some irony here. You say what I say is "manifestly and transparently not true". You are speechless. Now, whoever is right here, that sounds like we have an irreconcilable difference here, haven't we? And that is precisely what happens with those disputed articles! I often think what someone wants to say in an article is "manifestly and transparently not true". Yet at the same time you argue that such deadlocks don't have to happen. But unless you blame every single case on my supposed unreasonableness, they manifestly do happen. And of course they happen in other cases too where I am not involved. You don't seem to be willing to consider that there's a fault in the system rather than in users like me.

How am I a bad judge on when things are deadlocked? They manifestly are. What more can I do than explain my position and consider that of the other side? If that doesn't lead to agreement, things are deadlocked. It would be extremely dishonest to ban me and then pretend to have a consensus on Atlantium, just because I am gone and the others who agreed with me rather give up than revert.

I already said that I will rather accept a ban than "give up reverting altogether" under the current policies. I thought you wanted to discuss those policies, but here you are not really saying anything new.

I am myself suspicious on why you want to take this to private email. What could you tell me there that you can't tell me here? We can have a heartfelt conversation here, but it doesn't help if you expect me to exercise "self-criticism" which I can't give you in email any more than here because I don't see what I am doing wrong. It is your job to make that case. You made some criticism, I replied. If you think I'm wrong please be more specific as to how what I said is not true. That I discussed Atlantium, for example, is evident both on the article talk page and on my user talk page. I'm honestly at a loss here - what more should I have done? --Wik 02:30, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I have offered equally to take it to a public mailing list. But my reason for asking about private email is not about anything I can tell you there that I can't tell you here, but more about what I perceive as grandstanding behavior on your part. You're here campaigning for your defense rather than digging into what I am talking about.

You continue to avoid addressing the central question that I continue to ask. Is it really true that there was absolutely no compromise possible between "pretends" and "claims" on the Atlanteum page? I want you to talk to me about that, because it seems obvious to me that there is a nearly infinite variety of possible wordings that have a good chance of being acceptable to you and the other side, and the typical pattern is that you refuse to compromise at all.

Again, the biggest problem I have is your list of pages to be reverted daily. This list implies that you've given up on trying to compromise, and no matter what changes anyone makes, you will revert. If you changed the title of the page to something like "Pages to be monitored daily for possible POV problems" I would have no complaint, because that title implies that you accept the possibility that change is possible, that there is the hope of a compromise. Instead, knowing full well that the community is annoyed by your excessive reverting behavior, you post that list with that title. That's just a "fuck you" to everybody else, why do you do that?

I request, again, that we take this to email. Public, private, anywhere you like, but email would be much better for me. I find threading a discussion in this medium to be tedious. Jimbo Wales 15:18, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am not grandstanding. I would tell you exactly the same in email. I do believe there is no compromise possible between the two sides on Atlantium; this isn't about fixed wordings, I said already I'm open to other wordings, but that doesn't change the basic difference in the interpretation of NPOV. The other side thinks "claims" is indisputably factual while "pretends" is inherently POV. But I think NPOV applies to the overall tenor of the article, and the "claims" version is misleading, as the reader will assign a certain seriousness to any "claim" mentioned in an encyclopaedia. This dispute is similar to the one that raged about the Mother Teresa article, in which Eloquence (one of those "who are well-known for their ability to work towards compromise" in your view) had a quite nasty edit war with Jtdirl. The problem there was that Eloquence added a lot of negative criticism of Teresa, which was all attributed and therefore factually correct, but had the result that the article as a whole gave an overly negative impression of Teresa. Likewise, the Atlantium article gives a wrong impression if the preposterousness of the whole thing is not made clear. Due to its utter insignificance there isn't any criticism that could be attributed to anyone, so the article has to provide its own if it has to exist at all.

As to the list, it is called what it is because there are others who are reverting without being interested in any discussion (and they know it). I wouldn't need the list if blatant POV pushers and trolls could be unceremoniously banned. On Atlantium for example, I don't think Eloquence or the others who intervened there care much about it either way; the real problem there is Gene Poole, who will continue to revert anything towards his POV version. On articles like Erika Steinbach, Nico and Jor will keep pushing their Nazi POVs. Then there are some users like Cantus who made me their enemy ever since I harmlessly corrected some error they made. There's an astonishing number of people who just can't deal with that. Again, a revert war has two sides. How can you be annoyed at me and not at the other side? Because I'm a single user, and my opponents are manifold? That's simply because I do more edits in general, more than a dozen of those POV pushers together. My relative reversion rate is certainly less than theirs. --Wik 19:09, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

It appears to me that Jimbo values Wik as a Wikipedian and wishes to help him become a better Wikipedian rather than losing him to a ban. I think that sometimes in the long view, it is worthwhile to stop the world for a few weeks or a month, ignore all the decay and entropy that you perceive going on in articles all around you, and focus on finding a solution to a few articles. If, for example, you decided that your new challenge were to find a way to solve the Atlantium article, and that you were going to explore new solutions and work harder until it happened, what a great accomplishment you would have at the end! It would be a personal accomplishment, and a team accomplishment between you and the other editors, who would end up your collaborators instead of your adversaries. Yes, you have to try harder and harder. You have to find the new solution. You have to let Wikipedia change you while you change it. This is what makes Wikipedia so great, and why it can change the world, one person at a time. Tom (hawstom) 17:48, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)