Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Random account 47 (talk | contribs) at 02:50, 19 January 2006 (→Ad hominem arguments do not belong in signatures section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Examples needed

I think more specific examples are needed. Talking about general social patterns does not show that the pattern exists here. (SEWilco 14:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC))

One assumes that should they be provided, the entire history of the alleged incidents shall also be provided. One fears, however, that a selective process whereby only the items that the bringer of this petition feels support his evanescent claims will be applied to the provision of any examples. Jim62sch 01:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I'm concerned what I'd need more from this particular user is a definition. Exactly what does this user mean by 'bullying'? The use of the term seems too vague, and more of a catch-all phrase for... okay, so maybe an example and and a definition. Right now it just feels too vague to endorse in any way. Specifics, man, specifics! --T-Boy 01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll see if I can work the definition in somewhere and provide some general examples of bullying as well as some examples from Misplaced Pages (using "User A" and "User B"), and other outside complaints of bullying. I actually thought I was only one of a few people with this complaint, but a quick search in Google for Misplaced Pages bullying shows that not only is this complaint not new, it's getting pretty common. Considering it seems to be getting worse and worse, it seems Jimbo needs a lot more convincing before accepting this as a major problem he has to deal with. While the petition should be all he needs to take action, in my opinion--since perception is very important, he seems to be more concerned about "whining" and what he calls a "trollfest" of people complaining about abusive and bullying administrators , though, to his credit, he is aware of the problem, but is likely not aware of the pervasiveness of the problem and the damage it does to Misplaced Pages . There's quite a lot of material out there and I'll try to work it in. --Ben 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There is one type of bullying that I have seen repeatedly in my very short experience on Misplaced Pages. An editor, or a small group of editors attempts to put together some document that will give voice to a concerns felt by that editor or editors. Then a group of counter-editors, who oppose giving voice to the particular concerns, edits the document in a hostile fashion. Votes might be taken, rejected tags added, pages moved. The end result is that the voice becomes smothered, and the concerns treated with disrespect or contempt. --BostonMA 02:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ownership

Jimmy Wales does not own Misplaced Pages. Jimmy is Misplaced Pages founder and chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees. The Wikimedia Foundation is a public charity that owns the Misplaced Pages trademarks and many of the servers that run Misplaced Pages. Authors own their original text. --mav 05:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I changed it to "man in charge" since that's probably the most understandable and accurate. Thanks. --Ben 01:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments do not belong in signatures section

Guettarda: I think that courtesy would indicate that signatories be permitted to express their voice without the clutter of ad hominem arguments. I also consider it rather rude that you made edits to a section that said "do not edit this section unless you wish to be considered a signatory", when you are a signatory to another section. Please explain. --BostonMA 01:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling comments "ad hominems" is prejudicial and amounts to an attack on people who are making comments. It is, thus, an unacceptable header for a section. Guettarda 01:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I created a "comments" section and moved the comments there. zen master T 01:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda:Thank you for responding on talk. I disagree that calling a comment "ad hominem" is prejudicial and amounts to an attack on the person making the comment. Perhaps we have differing understandings of ad hominem. My understanding of an ad hominem is that it is a comment that relates only to the person making a statement and not to the statement itself. 172's statements, do not appear to be address the content of the petition, but merely the person of one of the signatories. What do you view as an ad hominem argument? --BostonMA 02:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think, ad hominem or not, since Silverback is accusing 172 specifically of being bully, 172 has a right to defend himself if he thinks the accusation is frivolous. He may have done it in an ad hominem kind of way by counterattacking. The ad hominems against the petition would be what is explained by Kevin Baas on the main page--this is a little different because Silverback is accusing 172 and there are a couple of other things involved. I think I see what both of you are saying.

That's why I've asked people to keep it impersonal and not use your signature to air specific grievances they have. I've told Silverback on his talk page (I didn't have the note up not to do this when he signed), but he hasn't responded yet. Plus, each time I've removed both Silverback's comment about 172 and 172's response, which would resolve 172's objection, someone has reverted it (and Guettarda, you did that this time.)

Let's just leave it as a "comments" section now and (hopefully soon) Silverback will remove his comment about 172 and 172 will remove his objection to Silverback's comment about him. --Ben 02:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)