| Revision as of 20:15, 2 February 2012 editRFC bot (talk | contribs)216,124 edits Please comment on Talk:Human rights in Estonia.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:18, 4 February 2012 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 10d) to User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 19.Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives|auto=yes}} | {{archives|auto=yes}} | ||
| == Ludwigs2 == | |||
| And while I'm here. I am going to be very disappointed in this project if the arbitrators apply sanctions of any kind to Ludwigs2. I implore ''all'' arbitrators to truly familiarise yourselves with this mans character, and his mission here. I haven't stalked him so I can only go on my own experience with him. He's a person of insight and intelligence and high moral fiber. He's taking on the culture of offense here. This, of necessity, means he is constantly engaged in what I've been patronisingly calling bickering. I owe you an apology for that, Ludwigs. | |||
| I urge all arbitrators involving themselves in this case to follow Ludwigs2 through one of his controversies. --] (]) 13:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for the kind words. I just can't deal with this anymore, and I've said all I can stomach saying, so either they see it all for what it is or they don't. --] 22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm out of here too. I was thinking of just mooching off to some quiet backwater but can't face that either. The culture of insult and offense is everywhere. I'll be watching, though, to see what the arbs make of it all. It's interesting that these two cases, one dealing with offensive behaviour toward readers, based on ], and the other dealing with offensive behaviour between editors, based on ] should be running at the same time. I think these, because they address fundamental cultural change, are the two most important cases I've seen. | |||
| ::I feel let down by the arbitrators on that workshop, actually. I pointed out numerous obvious blatant lies and misrepresentations about me, and numerous instances of offensive behaviour toward me, and not a word was said. I'd have thought that if there was anywhere on the project where a person would find themselves being scolded for offensive behaviour, it would be at arbcom. That it was blithely ignored, week after week, leaves me very pessimistic about any possibility of arbcom even understanding what's at stake in these two cases. --] (]) 07:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ludwigs has insight and vision as no one else has on this project. While much of what goes on Misplaced Pages is in-the-moment reactive, Ludwigs sees and understands where this kind of project has to go to grow, and to grow in a healthy way, and I know he has tried to convey that. Ludwigs unlike many has the kind of integrity that dictates you stick your neck out, and lay out what you think in a constant and forthright way. That kind of behaviour is an antidote to much of what goes on here. Ludwigs and I have not always agreed on the small things, but on his insights of what Misplaced Pages is and where it could go , his vision is far greater than mine and most on this project, and there I agree completely. How disappointing and how sad all of this is. I guess one always hopes for vision and a larger understanding. (] (]) 13:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)) | |||
| ::::Well, I'll wait another day for a response on the case page, and if none is forthcoming I'll take the issue to Jimbo's talk page, and see if he can get them to answer my question. Anyone who wants to support me there is welcome (i'll post a link here) but let's not turn it into a circus. --] 19:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ok, I dropped a note on Jimbo's page, ]. anyone who wants to chime in… --] 19:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :As a hint as to the problem, I notice you have , but 19 talk page archives. ] (]) 21:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Try '''18,421 edits'''. Sheesh!(] (]) 21:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)) | |||
| :::::::The point John made was that there were 18,421 edits total but only 1840 of them were to actual articles. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's a valid point, but not as valid as it may look on first sight. It's a well known fact that content-focused editors have more edits in talk space and less edits article space than average, whereas the typical vandalism fighters have most of their edits in article space and user talk space. ] ] 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Oh, no it isn't! ] (]) 10:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Ah. Yes I see. Consider this. Misplaced Pages's policy and guidelines were written by editors. Nothing says the work on those policies is of less importance than writing articles. Further, at no place in Misplaced Pages is it explicitly or implicitly stated that spending time in discussion is ban able. That's an opinion.(] (]) 21:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)) | |||
| :That's correct and L2 isn't being banned for having an abnormal ratio. It's an example of the problem though, which is that L2 can't seem to let an issue die when he feels other editors are wrong, and when you keep going without having convinced enough other editors of your position you enter the ] realm (this is the crux of the issue right here). My personal opinion is that blocking/banning should be considered from a utilitarian point of view, or in other words, what is the net effect on the project? Has L2 contributed to the project via policy implementation in such a way that the positive effects of those policies outweigh the frustration he causes other editors? I don't believe so (though, as an aside, my first choice is restriction, not banning, but arbcom doesn't seem to agree). L2 is certainly here to improve the encyclopedia, I just think it would be better if he did so by actually editing the encyclopedia. Furthermore, he knew there was a good chance he was going to get banned and he knew it long enough ago to have adjusted his tactics. For what ever reason he didn't find it pertinant until now. Ultimately you have to know which battles you can win and which you can't, and considering all the policies in the way Ludwigs was ] from the start. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nofo, you're mistaken on two point: | |||
| ::#It's not a question of my thinking that other editors are wrong; it's a question of other editors refusing to discuss matters. a day of discussion after my first post to Muhammad and we could have avoided all of this; but I got tag-teamed by editors telling me the issue was not up for discussion, ever. apparently they get to be stubborn and I don't, go figure. | |||
| ::#I've had editors trying to get me banned ever since I got involved with the Race and Intelligence arbitration - Mathsci is the prime example if you need one. (actually, it goes back to ScienceApologist, who spent a lot of time trying to smear my reputation, but that's a different story). it was just a matter of time before they succeeded. I though maybe ArbCom would be a bit more reasonable than the editors doing their best to stab me in the back, and that maybe I could segue that into something productive; I was wrong. | |||
| :::If you're suggesting I should have backed off and left an apparent system of anti-islamic editing in place on the project - that would have been better for me, but worse for the encyclopedia. Sorry, but I'm an idealist; I'm going to discuss issues like that when I run across them, because doing otherwise would be irresponsible. --] 23:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is, indeed, what I am suggesting. Look at it from the consequentialist perspective: if you had done that then you wouldn't be at risk of being banned right now which would mean that you would be able to contribute to the project, though I still do not buy the "anti-Islamic" characterization. The fact of the matter is that you have a lot to offer but your idealism isn't doing you any favors. Even if you're right, if you're not around to change things then it doesn't really matter at the end of the day, does it? O | |||
| ::::Re:users trying to get you banned: I'm certainly not trying to get you banned and I have nothing against you personally, I'm sure that each arbiter on the case feels the same way. I can't speak as to the motivation of Matchsci, but the fact of the matter is that you can't "create" evidence on WP. If the arbiters ban you it will be because of a preponderance of the evidence, not because Mathsci really wants it. Seriously, think about that. I'm also familiar with your history with SA, having read the talk pages, and I could probably agree with you on that one. He was an eccentric (though very smart) editor and had the tendency to butt heads with ''similar'' people :). | |||
| ::::Re: a lack of discussion: you are a hard man to satisfy. I think if I read one more word of discussion on the Muhammad talk I might just shoot my computer. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Almost half of your edits are to talk space. I'm not sure why you would be going after another editor on this issue. Why don't we assume we all edit to our interests and leave it at that!(] (]) 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)) | |||
| :::::Well, I suppose we'll have to put that down to the difference between you and me. I never let an injustice stand because the outcome is personally inconvenient. The way out of this discussion (as I said many, many times on the talk page) was to convince me that no injustice was being done; had they tried to do that, the problem never would have developed. but that wasn't on their game card. And no, I'm not a hard man to satisfy: I could think of several ways to resolve this to my satisfaction, and I even suggested two of them, but when you have people like Tarc and Resolute who are dead set against ''any discussion whatsoever'', there's not a whole lot of effort put into trying to satisfy me. You and I disagree, but we discuss: if it were between the two of us we'd have reached an agreement. the 'no not ever' crowd gets in the way. | |||
| :::::With respect to 'not making up evidence', try reading the diffs entered into evidence. for example, Tarc diffed me saying this:<blockquote>The cause of the disturbances on both Pregnancy and Muhammad was not that I think the images have no value and other editors think they have value. On the contrary, I suspect that I have roughly the same opinion of the value of those images as any proponent (I don't happen to think it's a bad image). The problem is that the proponents evaluate conventional mores and Muslim culture as worthless; so worthless in fact that there are frequent assertions that such opinions are not even allowed to be ''voiced'' much less considered.</blockquote>under the heading ''Accuses others of bigotry/prejudice/intolerance''. There's no accusation there, simply the observation that they repeatedly said that Muslims opinions on the images were not to be considered. Mathsci does this habitually: he'll mass up a long list of more or less random diffs and give them nasty-sounding labels, counting on the fact that people will read the labels but not try to see if the diffs really match what the labels say. it's not so much about manufacturing ''evidence'' but about carefully cultivating a vision that creates emotional outrage; basically FOX News tactics without even the minimal pragmatic constraints that FOX has to satisfy. it's disgusting from a human perspective; fascinating from an academic one. Not that everyone does it, of course - you don't, for instance - but it only takes a few doing it loudly to create a really poisonous atmosphere in which facts are effectively irrelevant. pure lynch mob stuff… --] 00:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :oh, this is just another line. consider: | |||
| :* Misplaced Pages is not mandatory, so how much I edit is irrelevant | |||
| :* I prefer to talk about disagreements, and 50% of the edits I make in article space are reverted - that guarantees I'm going to spend more time in talk discussing than editing | |||
| :* I do a lot of work on policy | |||
| :* I keep having editors drag me through extensive ANI procedures. easily 60% of my edits to the project are me trying to defending myself against some idiotic charge. | |||
| : You want me to edit more, get your friends to stop trying to screw me every time I make a post. wouldn't that be nice? but whatever, believe whatever makes you sleep better at night. --] 21:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you work in contentious areas, as Ludwigs2 does, having lots of edits to talk pages is normal. ] (]) 00:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Something i've aways wondered == | |||
| What does your user name mean exactly? Why the "2" and why the "S", if you don't mind me asking? ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm a student of Wittgenstein and a fan of Beethoven. two Ludwigs: Ludwigs2. Which reveals more about my viewpoint than you might realize… {{=)}} --] 22:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah very cool! Mine is just boring chemistry :) ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 22:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here's the ] of all time. ] (]) 22:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Philos == | |||
| I'll respond to what you wrote above, I don't have time to read/write a lot right now but I wanted to start a dialogue on another, semi-related topic (and if you get banned I'd love to exchange emails and continue communicating in the future, if you're interested, of course). | |||
| From what you wrote in regards to idealism, it appears to me as though you have a certain deontological leaning, though other schools of thought could also lead to similar conclusions. Is this the case? If so, is part of your desire to engage in long dialogue borne of a "duty bound" perspective at all, or is it more personal? | |||
| Also, if you don't mind me asking, you said that you teach; and I'm guessing based on what I've read that you're in the philosophy department, though I could also see something like anthropology. What's your background? Really no big deal if you'd like to remain totally anonymous, I'm just curious. | |||
| :I'm a social scientist. leave it at that: it's a small world in academia. | |||
| :I wouldn't call myself a deontologist. As I said, I'm a student of Wittgenstein, and you should read Wittgenstein's commentary on rules and rule following. I mean, I respect the deontological move - the effort to shift moral understanding away from any substantive ontological grounding onto formal principles - but deontologists tend to recreate formal principles as a sort of 'abstract' ontos in ways I find discouraging. My 'idealism' is actually a kind of pragmatism. For instance, in the Muhammad case - as I've said many many times - it strikes me as idiotic to insult a major religion without any real gain to the encyclopedia. Doing so is not pragmatic: it creates a situation of constant hostility and strife requiring the investment of time and energy of multiple editors on both sides, and an ever-growing risk to the reputation of the encyclopedia. Removing the images would have very little impact on the article ''content'', and it would take far less energy to maintain the state of the article, and far less hostility all around. | |||
| :In a nutshell, being ethical is ''almost always'' the pragmatic thing to do, because ethical treatment of others eliminates many areas of interpersonal conflict which consume so much time and energy. | |||
| :Rules are often a help, but they can also get in the way when they get used to protect unethical behavior. More generally, any rule or principle creates a locus of potential instability: it's a hook that people's thoughts get snagged on, which can interfere with their ability to be ethical (e.g., the frequent protestations that it doesn't matter if Muslims are offended, we have to follow the ''rule'' of NOTCENSORED). | |||
| :And none this is relevant to my 'desire to engage in long dialogue'. I'm just long-winded; I can't order pizza in less than three paragraphs, with at least two similes and an oblique reference to the classics. shoot me now, I'm obviously evil; though you may have to get in line behind the pizza parlor guy. {{=)}} --] 02:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Mentorship == | |||
| Franamax, one of the most reasonable people in this discussion, has I hope you'll consider that offer. --] (]) 08:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | == Please comment on ] == | ||
| Line 91: | Line 13: | ||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 20:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC) | Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 20:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ==Please comment on ]== | == Please comment on ] == | ||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC) | Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:18, 4 February 2012
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Please comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Human rights in Estonia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Human rights in Estonia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)