|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Forum:Unpleasant experience of rational wiki
I'm not sure if I can be bothered with RW any more after this. I had no intention of engaging with @Paravant who was being a dick and pretending Rational Wiki doesn't have a lower standard of notability and looser processes compared to Wikipedia. Such a misguided position so far detached from the facts I felt it didn't warrant a real response. What happened next only goes to back up this position.
After not paying my respects to the establishment, he decided to delete all my uploaded images, first claiming ignorance of their context which was fully established and cited within the relevant articles, then when I reuploaded them with improved context, he took exception to the lack of licensing information, deleting them again immediately. Uploading once again with full description, images, citations and licensing rationale he informed an administrator and had me blocked from the site for a few hours and of course deleted the images again.
I believe he was fully aware of the rationale in every case and was purely being vindictive. As you can see, the threat of a higher rights user who is unable to accept the reality of site processes and is willing to lie and abuse this power - makes RW an unwelcoming place for me to contribute. Before I call it quits, I would ask if this kind of behavior is typical of RW users, or whether it is worth me sticking things out despite this? Deku-shrub (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I hate to break it to you, but maybe riling up an RW moderator wasn't the best of ideas? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:54, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Here's what you missed: having a different standard is not equal to having a low standard. We have standards that are a little subjective, and quite stringent in their way. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Waaaaah, I didn't get to do what I want so I'm taking my ball and going home." Seriously, fair use of images is not different between Wiki and RW. They are covered by the same use standard to not get sued. The rules are up, and case standards are in history with LogicMaster vs. Reality, and you can whine about it if you like. If you feel like this is unfair the Coop is there for these issues. Making a forum whine and thread to LANCB is about as useless as it comes if you want anything actually done. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I think how Deku-shrub has been treated is pretty shitty, as are the unpleasant responses in this thread. Don't be in such a hurry to drive away new editors.
To answer Deku-shrub's questions: yes, unfortunately this kind of shitty attitude is quite common at RW; and yes, I think you should stick around in spite of it. ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- While copyright concerns are a legitimate reason to delete something, I don't know enough about this situation to form an opinion as to whether it was justified. I will say, as a newcomer myself, a number of people here are insufferable. People who should not have moderator powers, have them (and no, I don't mean Paravant, altho he's prickly). (I've had such powers, starting back in ye olde days of CompuServe, and have quit when I determined that other sysops were behaving unfairly.) A willingness to work, and to do so intelligently with copious documentation, is unwelcome if a viewpoint is sufficiently heterodox here. In my initial excitement I had tweeted that anyone with time on their hands should consider helping out here with the many under-sourced articles. I would not make that recommendation again. The asshole quotient is too high and too many don't know good faith exchanges from a pile of shit. So -- especially in light of the tone of some of the comments in this very thread -- I'm inclined to sympathize with Deku-shrub in general, but am agnostic on whether he posed a serious copyright risk ---Mona- (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- There are 7 mods....a lot are inactive. Maybe you can explain what you mean by the mod statements? Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- She probably doesn't know the difference between sysop and mod on a wiki and is whining about me, among others.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- The mods are
electedusers who try to make sure things don't get too out of hand with as little action as possible to do so (or so they believe). A SYSOP is a trusted editor that has access to special pages and more tools to edit. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)- I know that!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- The problem I had with Mona is the she would make a biased or minor edit, it'd get reverted, and rather than go to the talk page and discuss her edit BEFORE putting it back in, she'd re-enter her edit and insist that she was right and ignore other people when they told her why her edit was wrong. CorruptUser (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- That is a valid problem and a great strategy to avoid edit wars. Also, the
electedmod Paravant is pretty good, I am skeptical of their accused prickliness. Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- That is a valid problem and a great strategy to avoid edit wars. Also, the
- The problem I had with Mona is the she would make a biased or minor edit, it'd get reverted, and rather than go to the talk page and discuss her edit BEFORE putting it back in, she'd re-enter her edit and insist that she was right and ignore other people when they told her why her edit was wrong. CorruptUser (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I know that!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- The mods are
- She probably doesn't know the difference between sysop and mod on a wiki and is whining about me, among others.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- There are 7 mods....a lot are inactive. Maybe you can explain what you mean by the mod statements? Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I think you should stick around. While I won't comment on any specifics or judge on right or wrong here (not that I even could), I'm convinced your intention is to make meaningful additions to RW. And under the assumption that both parties feel that they've clearly acted correctly, then I imagine that the both of you fully support that "this" is brought into the eye of the larger community. And in most of these infected anus-goiters of conflict, there's generally atleast one more sysop lurking than posting. Meaning: we all don't just dive in and take sides, for better or worse. So take your time with most conflicts and maybe you manage to rally (or alienate) one or more undecided contributors. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd love for you to stay, I think we need to cover these sorts of topics and overall you are doing good. But if your attitude to how Rw works is "it's the less quality controlled wikipedia" and when told otherwise start to say nonsense, then you are going to find some of us hostile to you.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps they might want to read the Mission Statement? Also,
electedParavant doesn't seem to be one to generally cause trouble. Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)- I've done my fair share of drama in my 4 years, though I'd like to believe part of switching to Paravant was getting beyond that and being more focused. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going to suffer reverts from certain users. I will virtually always undo their reverts of me. They are unreasonable and do not discuss in good faith. On the other hand, when I make significant changes not involving those users I make note of them on the talk page. If people do not engage me there I will undo reverts. On multiple talk pages I've requested feedback and gotten little to none -- just reverts. I won't put up with that and will continue to undo. That's how I roll and if it is unacceptable, well, I don't know what else I can say. And Arisboch is quite correct. He is one the insufferables I have in mind. If your primary experience of him is outside of issues touching on Israel you may not feel that way, but that is my primary experience of him and he's a grade-A jerk -- who is as rational, reasonable and civil as Donald Trump.---Mona- (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cry me a Nile and an Euphrates.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- "I'm not going to suffer reverts from certain users." I question your "philosophy". Heres the talk page included for now (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Paravant doesn't seem to be one to generally cause trouble" He and I have made peace and I don't wish to relitigate that contretemps. I will only say that I experienced him as peevish, dismissive and impatient when someone (me) who knows a great deal about extremely contentious topics rattles cages and thereby generates a flurry of edits, reversion and arguments on talk pages. But as I say, we've worked that out.---Mona- (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- "I question your "philosophy"." It's not a philosophy, its a policy. Once I've determined someone is a pseudo-inquirer or a related type of bad faith interlocutor, I do not generally engage them. But you are free to question what you will.---Mona- (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is what I am talking about (I assume that Avenger and I are the others, even though I find Avenger fairly annoying). You will undo the reverts before discussing with anyone. If I were to enter into the Steven Hawking entry about how he is running an underground puppy fighting tournament without providing sufficient citation, and then Arisboch reverts me, and I undo the revert before going to the talk page and discussing with others, I am the one causing an edit war, not Arisboch. Please, use the talk pages before undoing a revert (and no, stating a reason and undoing a revert before anyone can discuss does not mean "we agree with you"). CorruptUser (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh and if you are adding responses to your own comment
- please
- don't do this
- Keep it on the same indent.CorruptUser (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- don't do this
- please
- Oh and if you are adding responses to your own comment
- This is what I am talking about (I assume that Avenger and I are the others, even though I find Avenger fairly annoying). You will undo the reverts before discussing with anyone. If I were to enter into the Steven Hawking entry about how he is running an underground puppy fighting tournament without providing sufficient citation, and then Arisboch reverts me, and I undo the revert before going to the talk page and discussing with others, I am the one causing an edit war, not Arisboch. Please, use the talk pages before undoing a revert (and no, stating a reason and undoing a revert before anyone can discuss does not mean "we agree with you"). CorruptUser (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- "I question your "philosophy"." It's not a philosophy, its a policy. Once I've determined someone is a pseudo-inquirer or a related type of bad faith interlocutor, I do not generally engage them. But you are free to question what you will.---Mona- (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Paravant doesn't seem to be one to generally cause trouble" He and I have made peace and I don't wish to relitigate that contretemps. I will only say that I experienced him as peevish, dismissive and impatient when someone (me) who knows a great deal about extremely contentious topics rattles cages and thereby generates a flurry of edits, reversion and arguments on talk pages. But as I say, we've worked that out.---Mona- (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going to suffer reverts from certain users. I will virtually always undo their reverts of me. They are unreasonable and do not discuss in good faith. On the other hand, when I make significant changes not involving those users I make note of them on the talk page. If people do not engage me there I will undo reverts. On multiple talk pages I've requested feedback and gotten little to none -- just reverts. I won't put up with that and will continue to undo. That's how I roll and if it is unacceptable, well, I don't know what else I can say. And Arisboch is quite correct. He is one the insufferables I have in mind. If your primary experience of him is outside of issues touching on Israel you may not feel that way, but that is my primary experience of him and he's a grade-A jerk -- who is as rational, reasonable and civil as Donald Trump.---Mona- (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've done my fair share of drama in my 4 years, though I'd like to believe part of switching to Paravant was getting beyond that and being more focused. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Leaving Mona versus RationalWiki aside and back to the post by Deku-shrub. I certainly think you should come back and hope that you will. It can seem at times that this place is populated by a clique of insufferable clots, and unpleasant behaviour between editors is by no means uncommon. There is though a ton of great content that you will not find elsewhere and the mission of the wiki remains important. That alone makes it worthwhile for me and I hope for others. There are plenty of other interwebs places where folks are actually nice to each other - pop over to one of those for some feel good therapy :)--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)