→74.198.164.71: Add link to guideline... |
→74.198.164.71: > Correction |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:There's a new consensus forming: to erase your user page entirely and to possibly block you. You seem to have a case of [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|selective hearing]]. You do not make the rules: the community does. I am one who has gone straight to the side of this new consensus because you want it your way only. It's [[WP:POINT|disruptive]] and totally unnecessary for you to keep adding these links. [[User:Doc9871|<font color="#000000" size="2">'''Doc'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Doc9871|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]] 04:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC) |
:There's a new consensus forming: to erase your user page entirely and to possibly block you. You seem to have a case of [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|selective hearing]]. You do not make the rules: the community does. I am one who has gone straight to the side of this new consensus because you want it your way only. It's [[WP:POINT|disruptive]] and totally unnecessary for you to keep adding these links. [[User:Doc9871|<font color="#000000" size="2">'''Doc'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Doc9871|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]] 04:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:: Some piece of advice: If you are caught in an ANI or editing conflict where people form consensus against your stance, it is best to interpret this consensus as broadly as possible, and evade any actions that would make it appear that you are going against consensus. In this case the consensus was that the page was promotional, so the best course of action is to evade any edits that might even remotely appear to be promotional. If your first edit to the page after its protection expires is to reinsert part of the removed content, people will consider this to be [[WP:TE|tedious editing]], where a user ignores or tries to search the border of the consensus or rules. |
|||
:: As Doc correctly points out, there is now talk to remove the page altogether, possibly accompanied with a block on your account. I would note that your history of creating the Dynamic Legal Solutions page 8 (!) times under different names doesn't exactly speak in your advantage in regards to the advertising issue, so i would '''strongly''' suggest you move clear from anything that could be seen as (self) promotion. [[User:Excirial|<font color="191970">'''Excirial''']]</font><sup> ([[User talk:Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contact me</font>]],[[Special:Contributions/Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contribs</font>]])</sup> 18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:04, 26 March 2011
I'm sorry that you are disenchanted
I'm sorry you're unhappy. As to the Angry Video Game Nerd thing, I did my best. It was a close decision, but these things have to be resolved somehow, and somebody has to do it, and ultimately a decision has to be made one way or the other. Both camps had reasonable arguments.
I guess it's like... well, you're a lawyer. I'm not, but doesn't it work in court kind of like that sometimes? Sure, sometimes the plaintiff or defendant has a weak case and it's easy, but sometimes both have reasonable cases, and one side or the other walks away feeling burned, I guess.
Granted, I'm not a judge. I'm just a random mook. But that's what we have. I actually would support the idea of Content Judges (or Juries), like ArbCom but for deciding issues of content. But we don't have the manpower for that, I guess. I would be willing to support this idea, but not work very hard for it, simply because I don't think it'd fly. It's very hard to push through major changes on the Wikipedia. You basically have to have a significant supermajority, which is very hard to get.
As to the idea of a stay, to some extent this has merit. In fact, we do have, at WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD the concept that absent a decision or clear consensus the existing state of an entity is retained.
However, there are problems with this, in that the existing state of an entity may be arrived at more or less randomly. That is, for example, a person may make a change to an article, and no one quite notices or objects right away. This then become the default state, which then can be hard to change, even if quite a few people later object. This is necessary for the Wikipedia to function, but isn't necessarily guaranteed to produce the "best" version.
And as to "best" version - WP:WRONGVERSION, many more people here are from the software engineering world rather than the legal word, and are more familiar with WP:WRONGVERSION than with legal concepts such as the stay.
Anyway, once a considered decision is made, this overrides the existing-state rule, I guess. And there quite simply is no person to grant stays, there simply is no mechanism for this.
And as I say, there really quite simply isn't any mechanism even for appeal. There should be. There is for deletion decisions ([WP:DRV]]) but not for RfC decision. Of course, RfC and most of our conflict resolution mechanisms are based on the idea that problems will usually be resolved, not by decision, but by sitting around and hashing things out until (most) everyone is convinced one way or the other. Again, the software engineering / scientist model rather than the legal model of advocacy and contention.
Of course, this is often a chimera, which is why legal cases aren't decided by the plaintiff and defendant and judge and jury sitting around a table and working things through until everyone is reasonably satisfied.
I would be willing to help you in an appeal, as I think you have reasonable grounds. I mean, after all, in a court the judge can't bring in facts not brought up by the parties. (Maybe in European civil law they can, I don't know). However, 1) I don't know what mechanism would be used and 2) the point may not resound much with Wikipedians and you'd likely not succeed in my guess, although I could be wrong.
Anyway... I'm sorry if you're disenchanted with the Wikipedia. It can be contentious and disappointing. I think the hive-mind thing works quite well (usually) for creating articles but doesn't really scale too well to governance. So if you're taking a break, I hope you come back. If nothing else we need more conservatives. Herostratus (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
74.198.164.71
74.198.164.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Was that you, logged out? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- No it was not, but I reverted it back as I believe the issue is wrapped up. I appreciate that some feel it doesn't go far enough but the 3 people I cited tended to feel the removal of the phone numbers and the unindexing was the main need for the page. I tell a bit about myself and I have a link to a couple of those things, the consensus appears to be that's okay (particularly now that I can't be accused of getting any kind of marketable traffic as a result of it) Which of course was the main problem, when the 3 users I cited indicated they saw no problem with the links this was before noindex was placed there. Many users raised the problem and no index was put there. So the main argument against the links (that they are more than just saying a bit about me) was taken away with the unindex .Anber (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- There's a new consensus forming: to erase your user page entirely and to possibly block you. You seem to have a case of selective hearing. You do not make the rules: the community does. I am one who has gone straight to the side of this new consensus because you want it your way only. It's disruptive and totally unnecessary for you to keep adding these links. Doc talk 04:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Some piece of advice: If you are caught in an ANI or editing conflict where people form consensus against your stance, it is best to interpret this consensus as broadly as possible, and evade any actions that would make it appear that you are going against consensus. In this case the consensus was that the page was promotional, so the best course of action is to evade any edits that might even remotely appear to be promotional. If your first edit to the page after its protection expires is to reinsert part of the removed content, people will consider this to be tedious editing, where a user ignores or tries to search the border of the consensus or rules.
- As Doc correctly points out, there is now talk to remove the page altogether, possibly accompanied with a block on your account. I would note that your history of creating the Dynamic Legal Solutions page 8 (!) times under different names doesn't exactly speak in your advantage in regards to the advertising issue, so i would strongly suggest you move clear from anything that could be seen as (self) promotion. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)