Quite.
https://www.irishnews.com/news/northern ... y-3643156/
Maybe reconsider your reason for being there then.nableezy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:22 pmYeah, but I get a laugh out of it.yasslay wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:01 pmTo Nableezy, you need to learn to stop engaging with people who clearly hate you. They're wind-up merchants and will do anything to bait/annoy you to get a laugh out of it. It's the best thing you can do. Also, avoid discussing your on-wiki activities in relation to the I/P area - it's bound to receive relentless scrutiny from some members here as we've seen recently.
The laughs are here my guy. Im laughing at Starship whatever, Charlie or Chuck, or any of the "wind-up merchants" here. That should have been obvious to anybody reading but YMMV.Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:39 pmMaybe reconsider your reason for being there then.nableezy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:22 pmYeah, but I get a laugh out of it.yasslay wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:01 pmTo Nableezy, you need to learn to stop engaging with people who clearly hate you. They're wind-up merchants and will do anything to bait/annoy you to get a laugh out of it. It's the best thing you can do. Also, avoid discussing your on-wiki activities in relation to the I/P area - it's bound to receive relentless scrutiny from some members here as we've seen recently.
British soldiers got a laugh out of luring the IRA into an ambush in deepest darkest Kilkenny.
And to be fair, it's funny as fuck seeing their jawbones and ribs go flying under a hail of 7.62 when you know these are the bastards responsible for planting bombs in shops.
But for obvious reasons, these guys weren't chosen to assemble the dossiers used by the peace negotiatiors.
OK. But to think this place isn't read by those you're engaged with on Wikipedia is a tad naive, no?nableezy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:42 pmThe laughs are here my guy. That should have been obvious to anybody reading but YMMV.Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:39 pmMaybe reconsider your reason for being there then.nableezy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:22 pmYeah, but I get a laugh out of it.yasslay wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:01 pmTo Nableezy, you need to learn to stop engaging with people who clearly hate you. They're wind-up merchants and will do anything to bait/annoy you to get a laugh out of it. It's the best thing you can do. Also, avoid discussing your on-wiki activities in relation to the I/P area - it's bound to receive relentless scrutiny from some members here as we've seen recently.
British soldiers got a laugh out of luring the IRA into an ambush in deepest darkest Kilkenny.
And to be fair, it's funny as fuck seeing their jawbones and ribs go flying under a hail of 7.62 when you know these are the bastards responsible for planting bombs in shops.
But for obvious reasons, these guys weren't chosen to assemble the dossiers used by the peace negotiatiors.
I didn't say that? Why would I care? Listen, I saw this so Im curious as to when you were going to start with this making me crack thing.Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:45 pmOK. But to think this place isn't read by those you're engaged with on Wikipedia is a tad naive, no?nableezy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:42 pmThe laughs are here my guy. That should have been obvious to anybody reading but YMMV.Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:39 pmMaybe reconsider your reason for being there then.nableezy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:22 pmYeah, but I get a laugh out of it.yasslay wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:01 pmTo Nableezy, you need to learn to stop engaging with people who clearly hate you. They're wind-up merchants and will do anything to bait/annoy you to get a laugh out of it. It's the best thing you can do. Also, avoid discussing your on-wiki activities in relation to the I/P area - it's bound to receive relentless scrutiny from some members here as we've seen recently.
British soldiers got a laugh out of luring the IRA into an ambush in deepest darkest Kilkenny.
And to be fair, it's funny as fuck seeing their jawbones and ribs go flying under a hail of 7.62 when you know these are the bastards responsible for planting bombs in shops.
But for obvious reasons, these guys weren't chosen to assemble the dossiers used by the peace negotiatiors.
Yo, I'm the one talking about the IRA. You lost me at baby killers. Yes I am glad the peace accord has mostly held. Getting back to my original point, I'd be less.troubled and less sanctioned if I had followed a wiki-friend's advice and gotten tf out of Eastern Europe topics. Less troubled and less sanctioned isn't necessarily always the goal is what I was trying to tell you. Would Nableezy have fewer headaches if he edited about let's say versions of Doom? Probably, but maybe he thinks it is important to represent. And for the record there is no sign of any peace accord anywhere on the horizon in GazaKraken wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:39 pmMaybe reconsider your reason for being there then.nableezy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:22 pmYeah, but I get a laugh out of it.yasslay wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 9:01 pmTo Nableezy, you need to learn to stop engaging with people who clearly hate you. They're wind-up merchants and will do anything to bait/annoy you to get a laugh out of it. It's the best thing you can do. Also, avoid discussing your on-wiki activities in relation to the I/P area - it's bound to receive relentless scrutiny from some members here as we've seen recently.
British soldiers got a laugh out of luring the IRA into an ambush in deepest darkest Kilkenny.
And to be fair, it's funny as fuck seeing their jawbones and ribs go flying under a hail of 7.62 when you know these are the bastards responsible for planting bombs in shops.
But for obvious reasons, these guys weren't chosen to assemble the dossiers used by the peace negotiatiors.
Which was what I was getting at in the middle of this post.
Don't use me to troll Nableezy, CrowKraken wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:55 amWhich was what I was getting at in the middle of this post.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13385&start=50#p344531
People trying to represent and even getting a kick out of the battle (and to reference his link, losing it so hard they see grand Admin conspiracies against them) is a big part of the problem.
I dont know what I am supposed to be trying to represent, and your caricature of what I wrote about Wikipedia's inability to properly deal with people who push propaganda in to Wikipedia articles but do so politely as a "grand Admin conspirac[y] against [me]" does not in any way resemble what I actually wrote.
You'd have to ask Erin what she meant by that.
It seems to be a fair reading. This is what was said....
.....as as interpretation of your words here....The fact Nableezy also seems to think there is some grand Administrator conspiracy or just mass incompetence to ensure his life as a Wikipedia editor is torture while his opponents can supposedly do whatever they like, is just yet more proof this guy is not and probably never has been a Wikipedia editor in any meaningful sense, and Wikipedia's well known inability expel [to? sic] toxic and combative editors if they simply master the relatively easy task of content editing and are prepared to do it for hour after hour, day after day, is the easiest explanation for his personal experience.
....seems reasonable to me.Wikipedia has this fundamental weakness of not being able to deal with people who edit in such a way. It is clearly tendentious to anybody without blinders on, but our admins feel obliged to keep those blinders on to remain uninvolved. I wish WP had a way of dealing with it short of an actual arbitration case, but alas I have not found one yet.
That you think the first passage is a reasonable interpretation of the second passage explains a lot about your writing.Kraken wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 6:58 pmThis is what was said.........as as interpretation of your words here....The fact Nableezy also seems to think there is some grand Administrator conspiracy or just mass incompetence to ensure his life as a Wikipedia editor is torture while his opponents can supposedly do whatever they like, is just yet more proof this guy is not and probably never has been a Wikipedia editor in any meaningful sense, and Wikipedia's well known inability expel [to? sic] toxic and combative editors if they simply master the relatively easy task of content editing and are prepared to do it for hour after hour, day after day, is the easiest explanation for his personal experience.....seems reasonable to me.Wikipedia has this fundamental weakness of not being able to deal with people who edit in such a way. It is clearly tendentious to anybody without blinders on, but our admins feel obliged to keep those blinders on to remain uninvolved. I wish WP had a way of dealing with it short of an actual arbitration case, but alas I have not found one yet.
No kidding! So you just made something up to fill the gap. And the funny thing is, "the reference to blinders and uninvolved" is the core of the whole passage, the whole point. If you didn't understand that, you didn't understand any of it. I'm guessing you didn't understand it because you don't actually edit Wikipedia so you don't understand the dynamics between admins, editors, and "involved."I'm unclear what is meant by the reference to blinders and uninvolved.
Well I thought that was implicit in the reply.... but if not, consider it asked.
Can't speak for Nableezy but I can explain what I understand it to mean:Wikipedia has this fundamental weakness of not being able to deal with people who edit [Wikipedia articles to] twist the lead into an IDF press release. It is clearly tendentious to anybody without blinders on, but our admins feel obliged to keep those blinders on to remain uninvolved.
The edit there I was complaining about was this. Among the IDF press release-esque changes there are a. the occupation of Gaza ended in 2005 (there's an argument for that, but it is Israel's argument and the UN and the ICRC, and most human rights organizations and academics, say that Gaza remains occupied), that "Israel provides the Gaza Strip water, food, and electricity from its own supplies during times of peace" (that ignores that Israel as occupying power is obliged to provide for the humanitarian needs of the population of Gaza, and was added to reframe the order to cut off all water, food and fuel to Gaza early in the war as something that was being suspended as it was not a time of peace, and for that matter Israel sold water to Gaza, not simply "provide" it).Kraken wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 7:24 pmOr more generally, what is actually being said in this (rearranged for a hopefully accurate logical rendering) statement?
Wikipedia has this fundamental weakness of not being able to deal with people who edit [Wikipedia articles to] twist the lead into an IDF press release. It is clearly tendentious to anybody without blinders on, but our admins feel obliged to keep those blinders on to remain uninvolved.
I perhaps wouldn't have said "I call bullshit", but my thoughts on the factual accuracy of this assessment of Wikipedia are similar.
Pretty sure I've been able to cope with Wikipedia working as intended fairly well.
I see I should have dealt with this before telling Kraken to fuck off. Sorry Nableezy.
See, that isn't what I said. And I don't think it's what Nableezy said either, but he can speak for himself. I am pretty sure this is creative misunderstanding on your part, but I will try one more time to get through to you.Kraken wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:23 pmThe role of an Administrator in a content dispute is clear and well understood. To deny this truth is to highlight that you are indeed the problem, not the system or the other editors. No Administrator would ever want to help someone who doesn't understand their role, but is strident to the point of rude in defending their misconception. Seemingly because the alternative, apportionment of blame for their failure on their own heads, is unpalatable.
This is the problem with allowing people to think Wikipedia is there to assist them in representing their interests. Wikipedia doesn't care about you. That's just one of many things about Wikipedia that people who are not on it for the right reasons have great difficulty coming to terms with. To the point of constructing elaborate and frankly tortured explanations for why it has some kind of fundamental structural flaw to explain their experience.
I’m just not sure why it is you think that you, random person who repeatedly has shown he can’t participate in either Wikipedia or this website productively, feel so confident in saying that I, having primarily edited the most contentious topic on Wikipedia for like 15 years or something, can’t handle editing on Wikipedia. Or that I don’t understand the role of administrators or that I think Wikipedia is there to represent my interests or any of the other fantasies you have about how I must think and feel. Nobody has constructed any elaborate or tortured explanations, that’s just your imagination. You seem to pretty obviously want to win an argument that you don’t even understand. But you don’t understand it, and I feel dumber for having tried to explain it to you.
I wanna say that you're godhead for being willing and able to slog in one of the worst back alleys of WP fighting one-on-three against zealots for so long. It's pretty impressive.nableezy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:53 amI’m just not sure why it is you think that you, random person who repeatedly has shown he can’t participate in either Wikipedia or this website productively, feel so confident in saying that I, having primarily edited the most contentious topic on Wikipedia for like 15 years or something, can’t handle editing on Wikipedia.
Your attack on an established member here is noted. Discuss issues and topics, don't attack, is our preferred approach.Starship Enterprise wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 3:04 amIs nableezy still pretending he's editing to represent both Israel and Palestine fairly instead of pushing a pro Palestine view
I don't know why he puts in the effort for this act because no one believes it
How WikipedianZoloft wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 4:40 amYour attack on an established member here is noted. Discuss issues and topics, don't attack, is our preferred approach.Starship Enterprise wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 3:04 amIs nableezy still pretending he's editing to represent both Israel and Palestine fairly instead of pushing a pro Palestine view
I don't know why he puts in the effort for this act because no one believes it
You claimed "it is indeed difficult to get admins to look at sources" and they "tend to view their role as tamping down the vehemence, not settling the content dispute."...and..."There is cowardice at play quite often in addition to the frequent unwillingness to do the work to understand what the dispute is about."Elinruby wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:06 amSee, that isn't what I said. And I don't think it's what Nableezy said either, but he can speak for himself. I am pretty sure this is creative misunderstanding on your part, but I will try one more time to get through to you.
Take Bucha massacre (T-H-L). Hot and cold running IPs are claiming that it is fake and/or staged. Lots and lots of sources exist but these are dismissed as "Western media" or just the Ukrainians lying again. Someone wants to use an NGO report from before all the autopsies were complete to prove that the death toll in the massacre is "only" fifty and the other 400 bodies with their hands tied behind their backs must have died of missile strikes or natural causes. Should that be allowed to stand?
I was in that discussion of the nature reality and I said I believed my lying eyes.
Creative misunderstanding it is.Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 9:00 amYou claimed "it is indeed difficult to get admins to look at sources" and they "tend to view their role as tamping down the vehemence, not settling the content dispute."...and..."There is cowardice at play quite often in addition to the frequent unwillingness to do the work to understand what the dispute is about."Elinruby wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:06 amSee, that isn't what I said. And I don't think it's what Nableezy said either, but he can speak for himself. I am pretty sure this is creative misunderstanding on your part, but I will try one more time to get through to you.
Take Bucha massacre (T-H-L). Hot and cold running IPs are claiming that it is fake and/or staged. Lots and lots of sources exist but these are dismissed as "Western media" or just the Ukrainians lying again. Someone wants to use an NGO report from before all the autopsies were complete to prove that the death toll in the massacre is "only" fifty and the other 400 bodies with their hands tied behind their backs must have died of missile strikes or natural causes. Should that be allowed to stand?
I was in that discussion of the nature reality and I said I believed my lying eyes.
Now you have presented a scenario where people are simply not going to believe you couldn't find a single Administrator willing to read the sources and issue blocks for tendentious misrepresentation etc. So either the scenario is not as you presented it, which is a common problem in contentious topics, or there is indeed something that you do that dissuaded Admins from assisting you.
Such as you're either not helping them to help you, or you're being rude to them (such as attributing cowardice to explain what you don't understand or won't accept about their role). Or you have a mistaken belief that they are supposed to make judgements about content rather than making judgements about editors making judgements about content.
I suspect it could be both misrepresentation and your behavior that explains your evident frustrations. That and the fact the behaviour of established editors in contentious topics in general (fanning the flames and freely engaging in BATTLE) just generally don't make wanting to help a very attractive proposition. Not for volunteers who are either completely uninterested in the dispute or are taking great efforts to ensure their personal view isn't evident. An approach to collaboration that many established editors happily choose to ignore, even though it is the advised approach in all cases, but especially in contentious disputes.
It's pretty clear what you think about the content dispute, and it seems to go far beyond what you can prove with sources and proper editorial judgement, verging into original research if not just blind assertion of the TRUTH. If that isn't the case, then you should probably take a step back and ask yourself what it is about what you're saying that would give someone that impression.
If your first instinct on being told something like that is to assume there is creative misunderstanding or even truth denial at work, you're definitely never going to be happy on Wikipedia. Accepting the fact other people are not obliged to see things the way you do, is a pretty key requirement of fitting in and getting along at Wikipedia. And if you fit in and get along, people will be far more inclined to help you.
Quite what it is people who claim there is a structural flaw about Wikipedia that gives preference to polite tendentious editors think Administrators are on Wikipedia to do, if not help good faith editors produce accurate and neutral content, is beyond me. Drop that blinkered view, and the rest comes into focus pretty easily. For most people anyway.
The others should be shown the door, and often are. But in far too may cases, precisely because Administrators fear the backlash, it's all too easy for established editors with an extremely poor attitude to survive simply because they don't do the more obviously bad things like edit warring or telling people to f off.
Or rather they do, but they do it within the established tolerances that allows them to do things that outsiders are swiftly blocked for. They are openly biased, quick to anger and routinely uncooperative. But they're smart enough to know Wikipedia allows all of this, to a certain extent, due to the dearth of truly model editors, who are usually not just easy to Admin for, but an absolute pleasure to.
And I am equally perplexed why you continue to ignore the wishes of the site Administrator here and avoid distracting speculation of this nature. Unless it is to show what kind of issues you would likely pose for an Administrator on Wikipedia trying to ensure productive editing in contentious topics.nableezy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:53 amI’m just not sure why it is you think that you, random person who repeatedly has shown he can’t participate in either Wikipedia or this website productively, feel so confident in saying that I, having primarily edited the most contentious topic on Wikipedia for like 15 years or something, can’t handle editing on Wikipedia.
Or that I don’t understand the role of administrators or that I think Wikipedia is there to represent my interests or any of the other fantasies you have about how I must think and feel. Nobody has constructed any elaborate or tortured explanations, that’s just your imagination. You seem to pretty obviously want to win an argument that you don’t even understand. But you don’t understand it, and I feel dumber for having tried to explain it to you.
Perhaps if you spent more time explaining and less time expecting, Administrators would not be so reluctant to get involved and relatively simple disputes would not balloon into massive multi venue debates requiring multiple trips to noticebaords to get satisfaction.Elinruby wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 9:50 amCreative misunderstanding it is.
I was tempted to read and respond to this wall of text, since it is fascinating to watch you tie yourself into knots to defend Wikipedia admins en masse.
But right off the bat you took "it is indeed difficult to get admins to look at sources but it can be done" and turned it into "it is indeed difficult to get them to look at sources" and apparently all the rest of this is speculation about how I am either lying or too inept to edit, which... demonstrated to me that there was no point in continuing. You also overlooked the part about a plethora of gold:star sources being available but dismissed. But I guess you think I don't really know what an RS is, shrug. I don't even have to read your post, it's so utterly predictable
Quite a few admins were watching the page at the beginning, yes. There were as I recall admin actions I approved of. However this was all happening on multiple talk pages and noticeboards. They were probably also exhausted towards the end. I chose Bucha as an example because most people have heard of it, and the archive is rather short. Have at it if you don't believe me.
The three quotes are about Azov Brigade, one of the subordinate arguments over the Holocaust in Poland, and Azov Brigade respectively. I don't actually blame anyone for not wanting to engage on this stuff. But not doing so leaves relatively powerless editors a choice between ignoring distortions of the truth or trying to fix them, which has been a fatal mistake for some people. The guy who suggested natural causes was eventually topic banned, yes, and it only took eleven or twelve trips to the noticeboards.
Now fuck off and stop misquoting people.
Starship Enterprise wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 8:00 amHow WikipedianZoloft wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 4:40 amYour attack on an established member here is noted. Discuss issues and topics, don't attack, is our preferred approach.Starship Enterprise wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 3:04 amIs nableezy still pretending he's editing to represent both Israel and Palestine fairly instead of pushing a pro Palestine view
I don't know why he puts in the effort for this act because no one believes it
Malik had a reasonable expectation that after all that he had done for the project that it would have his back. But then NoCal with sock number 726 was able to rile him up by calling him boy and the whole community that he had been a part of and helped for years and years just shrugged. If anything proved that Wikipedia doesn’t give a fuck about its editors, or at least was unable to understand the position of its minority editors, that was it.Randy from Boise wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 2:39 amThen again, I was impressed with Malik and he ended up getting smoked in the end, so tread lightly and keep your head on a swivel.
t
I was going to speculate about whether Drsmoo's account was going ot last any longer that Nishidani's. However, a scan of his last 500 contributions, which go back to October, suggest that this is a single purpose account. So "retire" and reincarnate looks like the most likely thing they will do.
A major victory for Team Palestine! I'm sure Drsmoo has prepped a sock in advance of this expected outcome.eppur si muove wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 2:12 pmI was going to speculate about whether Drsmoo's account was going ot last any longer that Nishidani's. However, a scan of his last 500 contributions, which go back to October, suggest that this is a single purpose account. So "retire" and reincarnate looks like the most likely thing they will do.
Never struck me as the type but who knows.eppur si muove wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 2:12 pmSo "retire" and reincarnate looks like the most likely thing they will do.
I wont deign to argue on Mr. Nableezy's (or Mr/s. Elinruby's) behalf, nor will I try to cast doubt on your motivations for taking this sort of position, but I don't think anyone here realistically believes that administrator misbehavior on WP (including a tendency to favor one side's propaganda over another's) is entirely due to "structural flaws." We've all been observing this stuff for a long, long time, and I think it's pretty clear that there are structural flaws, quite a few of them in fact. These flaws attract a certain type of person into the Wikipedia "user ecosystem" who wants to either exploit those flaws, or fix them, or both. (Or else just complain about them.) Many, if not most, of these people are smart, manipulative, and narcissistic. The more power and authority they get, the more tempted they are to place their own "personal stamp" on how things are run, and Wikipedia lets them do it — a "structural weakness" in itself — and if they're really successful at it, they can develop an outsized influence over the whole thing, which is often quite negative. (Or, if not strictly negative, tends to favor one side or agenda over others.)Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 10:21 amI'm confident I'm not the only one who thinks "fundamental structural weakness" is not the most likely explanation for your belief that Wikipedia Administrators are not doing what you think they're supposed to be doing in certain situations when you look to them for assistance.
On this I suspect we mostly agree, other than to say that "cultural" and "structural" in this context may not be as separate and/or conceptually distinct as you might think.Politeness is expected from everyone. It is not and never was the case that provoking someone to anger was meant to be a shortcut to effective dispute resolution. It's just a sad fact of Wikipedia, an actual structural flaw if you will, that being on Wikipedia for long enough to realise this is a literal cheat code for getting your way in a dispute by default, is readily exploited by people with the wrong mindset. Administrators do very little about that problem, for reasons that make perfect sense as cultural not structural issues.
I dont even think it is a tendency to favor one sides propaganda over the others. I think it is an unwillingness to get dragged into the content, where the propagandizing actually happens, lest they be accused of making decisions based on their personal opinions. Like, and this is going a ways back, but once upon a time a user changed the article on Katzrin (T-H-L), an Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights, from saying that it was the largest settlement, which it was and is, to saying it was the largest town, which it never has been as Majdal Shams (T-H-L) is and always has been larger. And nothing happened. Like it isnt debatable, that was placing a lie in an encyclopedia article, and it was done with very obvious intentions, to not call Katzrin a settlement. And whatever on that, that can be argued if it should be primarily be called a settlement or a town. But it cannot be argued that it was the largest town. Dan Murphy had my favorite rejoinder at what I thought was a surreal RSN discussion:Midsize Jake wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 9:09 pmI don't think anyone here realistically believes that administrator misbehavior on WP (including a tendency to favor one side's propaganda over another's) is entirely due to "structural flaws."
But I couldnt convince anybody that this blatant misuse of Wikipedia, including placing lies in articles, merited any sanction at all. And with the exception of the two former admins in that AE thread, the admins involved are all solid IMO. But the system basically makes them close their eyes and say "content dispute" when somebody brings up anything about the actual content.The argument is being deployed by someone who edits exclusively with an ideological agenda (that is, you). The people on the other side of this are ideologically opposed but they're right. This is isn't a debatable issue, or even one of nuance. The math is the fricking math. The reason this horseshit argument is being used is because you actually think the pro-settlement argument for keeping the Golan heights is strengthened somehow by skewing the content of an encyclopedia article ...
Meh. I am not in the heads of the admins in question so maybe calling them cowards is a bit much, but when the admins won't admin the alternative for editors is living with distortions of the truth, or outright falsehood, or getting sanctioned for not dropping the matter.Midsize Jake wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 10:25 pmWell, I didn't mean to suggest that was the only problem, or even the main problem. Also, to be fair to the Wikipedians (at least in this case), nobody wants to be called an "anti-semite," even if it's just your pseudonym that's being so accused. So as long as supporters of the current Israeli/Zionist government use that particular tactic to the extreme extent they've been using it recently, that's going to create a chilling effect on discussions and also intimidate people who might otherwise agree to involve themselves in some sort of constructive way.
Stuff like that is obviously not going to be true for 99% of topic areas, though there are certainly other cases where people try to take advantage of, if not simply manufacture, various existing pretenses for fighting over things.
(Voiceover: And Kraken continues to escalate in his campaign to prove that Wikipedia is Just Fine) I feel like i am talking to Cullen328. Did you get banned at Sucks or something?Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 7:12 amJust notting here for the record that there is a difference between not getting involved and not placing as harsh a sanction that you want. Also, choosing to deal with a dispute via methods other than user sanctions.
If an Administrator has simply failed to act at all on someone who they admit had misrepresented a source, then sure, they're probably a coward. But there are mandated methods of dealing with that. If they're not working for you, chances really are that it is more likely to be something to do with your approach or that specific Admin (or a structural flaw in Admin management), rather than any structural flaw with the dispute resolution system in general or something specific to I/P.
One of the most interesting things about Wikipedia of course is that it often surprises you (and Administrators are likely to be more aware of this than users who aren't) how heated some people will get about the most seemingly uncontroversial of topics. What matters is how you deal with someone who is emotional and chooses only to see matters through their own eyes. To take one side in a content dispute even there, probably ensures a small issue becomes a long running problem. Editors have the luxury (if they were never interested in the first place) of walking away. Administrators do to. It's a feature, not a bug. You want more, pay more.
Been a minute since I’ve been active here, but I read this post and had to log in to give you kudos. War and violence and racism are a bigger enemy than any group of humans could possibly hope to be.Ron Lybonly wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:56 pmWikipedia shouldn't give a pass to people pushing pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian points of view; Wikipedia has to stay neutral.
At the same time, I'm mindful there's an absolutely brutal war started by massive Hamas atrocities now followed by a punishing Israeli attack on Gaza that's causing massive civilian deaths.
So I understand how this may bring out the worst in otherwise nice, moral people on both sides.
That's what war does - War itself takes on a soul of its own and it's true evil. This evil soul seeks to infect all whom it touches with evil so evil can be further propagated.
Call me crazy but the more history I read and the more I see nowadays, the more I absolutely believe this.