| Revision as of 20:09, 20 February 2011 editEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 editsm →Civility← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:01, 20 February 2011 edit undoEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 editsm →Civility: tweakingNext edit → | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
| ::* Instead, ] defended ] as if he had been victimized or attacked. | ::* Instead, ] defended ] as if he had been victimized or attacked. | ||
| ::* Instead, you and I were somehow cast in roles as instigators or trouble-makers; and ] reasoned that we were wrongly confrontational because ] had not edited the article in the past day. | ::* Instead, you and I were somehow cast in roles as instigators or trouble-makers; and ] reasoned that we were wrongly confrontational because ] had not edited the article in the past day. | ||
| ::The explicit short diffs you and I posted were ignored; and only ]'s aggrieved ] was believed.<p>It would have been pointless to try to clarify. I still don't understand how this played out as it did.<p>Shortly thereafter, the article was locked. In sum, the baiting tactic was successful; and ] did orchestrate the result he wanted.<p>For all of us, these edits have a real life context. On television, we all watched horses and camels galloping into crowds in Egypt. |
::The explicit short diffs you and I posted were ignored; and only ]'s aggrieved ] was believed.<p>It would have been pointless to try to clarify. I still don't understand how this played out as it did.<p>Shortly thereafter, the article was locked. In sum, the baiting tactic was successful; and ] did orchestrate the result he wanted.<p>For all of us, these edits have a real life context. On television, we all watched horses and camels galloping into crowds in Egypt. This initial provocation and violent street clashes were intended to exacerbate the situation so that pro-Mubarik forces would have an excuse to clear the streets of Cairo and Alexandria. Several news commentators explained that this mirrored a strategy which had been successful in Egypt for 30 years. The contours of a pattern which unfolded on television and a pattern emerging in our small article were not dissimilar. | ||
| ::I hope these shared thoughts will help create a better perspective when something like this happens again in the future -- not with ] nor perhaps in this article. Do you see what I mean? <p>] is characteristically generous. The "uncivil" edits of ] are construed as being a mistake which followed from misunderstanding that ]. |
::I hope these shared thoughts will help create a better perspective when something like this happens again in the future -- not with ] nor perhaps in this article. Do you see what I mean? <p>In the Wikiquette thread, ] is characteristically generous. The "uncivil" edits of ] are construed as being a unwanted mistake which followed from misunderstanding that ]. We can only hope that ] got it just about right; but we will never know.<p>In any case, the fact remains that ] did employ a low-cost, high-yield tactic which has been seen before in our wiki-venues. We have every reason to anticipate encountering it again.<p>I am writing this because, in retrospect, I regret that I simply didn't know how to be more supportive, more constructive, more effective in a timely fashion. I will strive to do better in the future. --] (]) 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:01, 20 February 2011
 Archives |
Wikisource
John Smith's -- I was vexed by what I read about you and me here. In the context this short diff creates, a meaningful way to demonstrate "good faith and editorial integrity" is by enhancing and highlighting "all contents and references associated with that Remin Ribao article."
This also happens to be consistent with core wiki-policies.
Perhaps you did not know that the January 8, 1953 article has been uploaded to Chinese Wikisource and to Japanese Wikisource?
- 琉球群岛人民反对美国占领的斗争 "Ryukyu Islands, the struggle of peoples against U.S. occupation," 人民日報 (People's Daily), January 8, 1953.
I will try to figure out how to add an appropriate English translation to the English Wikisource. Perhaps it can be easily accomplished. We'll see. --Tenmei (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The first step in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Locked article
I'm very sorry that Senkaku Islands dispute was locked -- not because of a short-term problem with the current version of the article, but because of the unintended consequences.
Even if this action does succeed in mitigating some kind of short-term dispute, I anticipate longer-term problems as a result of Nihonjoe's decision. I tried to explain at User talk:Nihonjoe#Locking of Senkaku Islands dispute; but the effort was not well received:
- diff . . User talk:Nihonjoe; 04:07 . . (-33,990) . . Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 411729997 by Nihonjoe; rv edit war spllover from Senkaku Islands, please keep your discussion on THAT talk page, not here.)
IMO, this is a problem which didn't need to be a problem. I do not know how to be a force for good in this context, but I will think about it over the next few days. --Tenmei (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Please have a look:User talk:Midnightblueowl#Chinese New Left POV pushing , and this kind of WP:Disruptive editing has to be stopped before more damage is caused by him. Arilang 22:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Possible consensus forming on Remin Ribao sentence at Senkaku Islands dispute
With the input of some previously uninvolved editors, we've developed a compromise wording on the Remin Ribao article sentence at Senkaku Islands dispute. As one of the prior discussants in this issue, I'd appreciate your input in the very last section on talk as to whether you could accept the compromise we've cobbled together. The short argument is that 4 of us (including 2 uninvolved editors) that the article will be better if we clearly attribute that interpretation of the Remin Ribao article, in the sentence, ""The Japanese government and U.S. researchers have claimed that a 1953 article in The People's Daily, a daily newspaper which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), stated that the Senkaku Islands were a part of the Rykuyu Islands, and that this further implied that the Senkaku Islands were a part of Japanese territory" (keeping all of the current sources). I sincerely hope that you might be persuaded to accept this as a compromise that clearly includes the sentence, all of the sources, and doesn't state that the translation may be false, while also clearly indicating the that the translation is an act of interpretation. I'd love to hear your input. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Civility
I started a draft for WP:Wikiquette alerts#User:Bobthefish2. This overview was an attempt to mirror Qwyrxian's approach to the problem Bobthefish2 presents.
As you can see, I did try; but the result is awkward.
- The contributions history of Bobthefish2 shows that this is a single-purpose account created last September.
Bobthefish2 only contributes to Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. These articles are highly controversial.
In Bobthefish2's fourth talk page edit here, he mentions a perceived non-neutral POV "tone":
- This initial comment becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy during subsequent months.
Without collaborative editing experience in less controversy-laden articles, Bobthefish2 lacks the perspective others will have developed across a range of ordinary, non-controversial articles.
In this context, it seems noteworthy that John Smith's only wants help in persuading Bobthefish2 to give up deliberately provocative edits. I endorse John Smith's modest goals: Yes, "Bob needs to be told that he needs to stop prodding away at editors he doesn't agree with."
I see that Magog the Ogre and Fainites have added short comments. IMO, anything else from me could diminish the potential effect of their words.
Looking forward: I noticed that Fainites used the word "baiting"? This wiki-term is precisely on point. --Tenmei (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. John Smith's (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I had not overlooked or forgotten the diffs here and here which Oda Mari highlighted in the Wikiquette thread here. However, I didn't understand them as merely "uncivil."
IMO, they were effective baiting tactics; and I am still struggling to figure out how you or I could have responded to mitigate the harm. We swallowed the bait. We fell into the trap without realizing it was a trap.
IMO, your response was moderate, thoughtful, pragmatic. You highlighted projected plans to contrive an appearance of edit warring so that Senkaku Islands dispute would be locked. Also, you encouraged Bobthefish2 to stop in a sentence which included the word "hope." I endorsed your approach, especially the word "hope" .... However, our conventional, unremarkable response produced a counter-intuitive result:
- Instead, our diffs were re-framed as accusatory. I wondered: How did this happen? What could you or I have done to avert this perverse response?
- Instead, we were portrayed as conspiring against Bobthefish2
- Instead, Qwyrxian defended Bobthefish2 as if he had been victimized or attacked.
- Instead, you and I were somehow cast in roles as instigators or trouble-makers; and Qwyrxian reasoned that we were wrongly confrontational because Bobthefish2 had not edited the article in the past day.
- The explicit short diffs you and I posted were ignored; and only Bobthefish2's aggrieved "spin" was believed.
It would have been pointless to try to clarify. I still don't understand how this played out as it did.
Shortly thereafter, the article was locked. In sum, the baiting tactic was successful; and Bobthefish2 did orchestrate the result he wanted.
For all of us, these edits have a real life context. On television, we all watched horses and camels galloping into crowds in Egypt. This initial provocation and violent street clashes were intended to exacerbate the situation so that pro-Mubarik forces would have an excuse to clear the streets of Cairo and Alexandria. Several news commentators explained that this mirrored a strategy which had been successful in Egypt for 30 years. The contours of a pattern which unfolded on television and a pattern emerging in our small article were not dissimilar.
- I hope these shared thoughts will help create a better perspective when something like this happens again in the future -- not with Bobthefish2 nor perhaps in this article. Do you see what I mean?
In the Wikiquette thread, Qwyrxian is characteristically generous. The "uncivil" edits of Bobthefish2 are construed as being a unwanted mistake which followed from misunderstanding that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. We can only hope that Qwyrxian got it just about right; but we will never know.
In any case, the fact remains that Bobthefish2 did employ a low-cost, high-yield tactic which has been seen before in our wiki-venues. We have every reason to anticipate encountering it again.
I am writing this because, in retrospect, I regret that I simply didn't know how to be more supportive, more constructive, more effective in a timely fashion. I will strive to do better in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I had not overlooked or forgotten the diffs here and here which Oda Mari highlighted in the Wikiquette thread here. However, I didn't understand them as merely "uncivil."