Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Awesome plan, are there any requirements for membership? If not, count me in. DryGrain 17:28, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Only requirement is that you don't revert more than 1 time. Perl 20:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. Count me in. Bogdan 21:41, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, just what Wikipedia needs. Count me in too. Ludraman 14:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes this is a great idea. Perl 15:45, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Lets do something

even if it is only to clarify our policy, or improve our meta-page, I'd like to see us do somthing... harmoniously~! One way to ensure harmony is to talk about it here and make certain of concensus before action (which is what I'm trying to do). :D Sam Spade 19:24, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Brainstorming here....How about highlighting articles that have evolved nicely through harmonious editing? Especially articles were people had big differences about the content, but they worked them out well and produced a strong article. So in this case, the article itself isn't the example, it's the article's history. OR We could analyse cases of harmonius and un-harmonous editing and write up case studies about what causes harmony to break down and how it has been prevented in some cases. ike9898
Here's an article that has evolved nicely through harmonious editing - Aztec
There's a team of four editors User:Nanahuatzin,User:Madman2001, User:Pietdesomeres and User:richardshusr (me)
We've done a lot of great work and there's been no bickering once we forged a working relationship
--Richard 04:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Or how about every now and then selecting a page that needs improvment and making it the harmonious editing club's current project. We all contribute and harmoniously edit the selected article. Not only does the article get improved by loads but we provide an example of how harmonious editing works. Ludraman 19:57, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This could be done by looking at Article Improvement Drive or a Collaboration of the Week.
--Richard 04:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I see some really good suggestions above, and also some good questions below ;). Probably the best thing we can do is to move into pages w NPOV dispute headers and work in a co-ordinated manner to improve the article, as well as the social dynamics of the editors. While we may not necessarilly always agree w one another, or work as some sort of bloc vote or present a uniform POV, we can set a good example by discussing things rationally with one another (as well as other editors!) and being cautious and careful of other editors opinions and feelings when creating concensus. Maybe we should have a section of our meta page to announce pages in need of help, where harmonious editors are encouraged to edit/keep an eye on? I definitely don't think we should have more than say... 3 at a time listed, but when the pages are resolved, and the dispute removed... we can place the name of the page in a "hall of fame" or whatever, where the harmony can be commemorated. Heck, maybe we could even have a header put in the talk of the respective pages pointing out the "officially documented" harmony which had occured there, or maybe a written synopsis (also at the top of the talk) describing in short what the problem was, and how we solved it. Anyhow, great to see the interest! Sam Spade 20:10, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So what is the function of this thing anyway? Would members be called in as sort of unofficial mediators, or would we swoop in when we saw fit, or what? How would we encourage harmony? Meelar 20:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Any way you can - think outside the box! Ludraman 20:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You describe something very similar to the Wikipedia:Office of Members' Advocates, and while we don't want to in any way usurp their position, I highly reccomend harmonious editors to consider joining there as well (nothing wrong w multiple memberships :)As far as co-ordinating how we might harmoniously swoop, see above ;) Sam Spade 20:13, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] as long as the above are going to be the final and only bylaws of this club

  • J-V Heiskanen (as long as the above are going to be the final and only bylaws of this club)
I see no reason why our bylaws would remain unchanged, altho clearly we would need some great amount of consensus before doing so. I would like to hear from any and all regarding this subject, to see if there is consensus that bylaws shall be changed (with consensus) or if things are to remain as is. It would seem to me that this club is only at its humblest beginings, and that changes must and will be an inevitable part of our growth. What say you, good sirs (and madam's? ;) Sam Spade 20:08, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If the club structure can be kept simple that will encourage people to join. Do there have to be a lot of rules? Surely when members intervene in particular situations they can discuss their interventions on the talk page of the relevant article, otherwise if we don't adopt many rules it is easier for us to discuss things in an informal manner. Of course there may be limits and bylaws might help to define those limits. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 06:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You clearly misunderstand my intent, I don't want a constricting net of rules to choke us with, I wanted some structure and plans to get things done. A list of (say 3?) pages for us to focus on for example, as I mentioned above. I agree strongly that this club should remain loose and general in its goodnatured aproach to editing, but I do think having a coordinated effort and some planning would be especially effective, wouldn't you? Sam Spade 08:20, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Page(s) in Need of Harmony

In line with discussion above, I created a section on the main page, and placed Talk:Nazism and socialism/Nazism and socialism there. This page is potentially fated for deletion, but might very well stick around. In any case it is a mess of intense POV and surlyness. As I said above I don't expect us to necessarilly agree on what to do, but rather to promote harmony, wikiquette, etc.. Thanks for any assitance, and I will of course keep an eye out for any questions you post here. Cheers, Sam Spade 20:15, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm gonna add another one, talk:Heteronormativity Heteronormativity, and I suggest we cap it at 3 at time, until one settles down and we can remove it. Sam Spade 23:35, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Let it be known that...

I am going to try and compile a list of disagreements that have been resolved through calm and amicable discussion on the talk page, and place it at Wikipedia:Harmonious Editing Hall of Fame (feel free to suggest a better name). I envision it as a counterpart of sorts to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever, and a place to point to as proof that friendly editing can produce quality results. Tuf-Kat 07:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Look at the history for south africa right before it went FA (over a year ago). Might be one for the hall of fame. -- ∞Dbroadwell 06:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help?

Is this group active? If so, maybe you can help at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks. Maurreen 08:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not only does it appear not active, the list includes some of Wikipedia's fiercest edit warriors. Ed Poor's creative idea could yet succeed but prospects seem dim now. VeryVerily 21:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The 3 of us evidently read it. I think 3 people can do a lot to promote harmony. Pedant 21:11, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

[edit] A dissident voice

I respectfully suggest that the last thing I should be doing is getting involved in these conflicts, which have well established roots outside this or any other wiki. The day-to-day tussle of wikidom is where the cultural strength of the Harmonious Editor can best be exercised; I will not waste my time on lost causes. --Minority Report 01:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there any lost causes, though short-term battles tend to blinker the people involved in the most contentious ones, so you do have to pick the right time to intervene. See, for example Terrorism. – Smyth\talk 8 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism on Alkivar (Can someone look into it!)

Criticism on Alkivar

(To prevent him from deleting my comments, I post it here!)

Seeing this article undergoing a lot of changes suddenly (on about 14 September 2005), I'm very angry to see one guy named Alkivar distorting and controlling information which he likes to listen only in the "Warez" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez) article. The following are what he did:

  1. Arbitrarily delete others additions/contributions at will without reasons
  2. Arbitrarily destroy/remove links to terms at will without reasons
  3. Arbitrarily delete arguments which don't suit his tastes without reasons (too many situations! Eg: Movie Piracy)
  4. Rewrite others work. (What he did was to change the wording of some statements to his liking, or simply rewrote the whole paragraph with his own liking word, without adding any new contents! What's the point of doing all these?)
  5. Distort others work (Since he discarded parts of information once in a while, it distorted the meaning of the whole statement or claim)
  6. Create many unnecessary edits (What's the real purpose of making more than 40 edits in one day! Why not just group all changes and edit once?)
  7. Suddenly edit a page many times at a short while (What's the real purpose of editing more than 10 times within about 20 minutes?)
  8. Leaving rude comments (eg "this is not written for a 14yr old..")

(I may be wrong, so you'd better see "history" to witness his acts!)

I'm so sorry to say Alkivar does little to the article (although he had some contributions, his arbitrary manner and disrespect of others' work aren't tolerated. He'd better spend time to enrich the contents, rather than "cleaning" and "re-organising" the article! A Wiki's article is people's article, not your article! Anyway, I may be wrong in interpreting the philosophy of Wiki and it is in fact ok to delete others' contributions. -- Someone, 14 September 2005.

[edit] My reply

See Talk:Warez#My_reply_to_"Someone".  ALKIVAR™ 19:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm removing myself from the club. So far all you have done is give Comaze (the most persistent and surreptitious deleter of sourced facts) an excuse to cause another war.HeadleyDown 04:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. This club has not been in contact with me at all. --Comaze 06:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harmonious adminship

I don't know if many people watch this, but I wondered what people thought about "harmonious adminship". I can think of a few possible scenarios: 1) There could be a Wikipedia:Harmonious adminship club, or 2) this page could discuss harmonious adminship a bit, or 3) the general ideas of harmonious editing already apply by common sense to administrative action as well, and no further explanation is needed. Anyone have thoughts? Friday (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think (3) is the case. I'm not familiar with how errant admin are treated or even what the line is between good and errant behaviour is, but I would hope that non-harmonious admins don't stay admins for long.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The admins ability to block users should be treated the same as a 3RR; anotherwords, don't do it more then three times in a day. Also, in the spirit of this club, only one block a day should be followed like WP:1RR. This would encourage admins that are members of this club to intervene rather than block. — Dzonatas 00:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Procedural question

Suppose I want to be part ofthe HEC. I write something. Someone reverts. Obviously, I do not revert: I leave a note in the talk page. It languishes for several days. I leave a note on the user talk page, pointing them to the talk page note. It gets no reply. What should I do? The article is currently in what I believe is a version which is not as good as mine, but the user has not made a reply for a while, and it is not obvious if they ever will. I would appreciate anyone's opinion, as this problem has came up in practice (Else-wiki, true), and I would like to know what is best. Thanks MosheZadka 09:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and revert. It may be that they're no longer paying any attention, or it may be that it's the only way to get their attention. Continuing with a revert-get reverted-post to talk page-languish-revert cycle is okay, I think, if plenty of time is given for people to respond. As you said it was on the order of "several days", and I think that's a reasonable amount to humour someone who's being unresponsive. Hopefully they'll start responding and the harmonious editing can begin.
Does anyone have any dissent from this point of view?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 06:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I consider myself a follower of WP:1RR, but there are exceptions I allow myself. A case like the above would be one of them. The spirit of the rule is easy: don't edit war. Making a good faith effort to explain yourself instead of just reverting is key. Friday (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary

There are 2 new guidelines that are related to the harmonious editing club. WP:0RR and WP:ROWN are somewhat similar but in my interpretation the 0RR is more harmonious because it encourages the preservation of information and viewpoints, though WP:ROWN does include at least a part of 0RR within it. zen master T 02:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does anyone pay attention to this?

Does anyone really use this anymore? I think it'd be useful to try to get people to pay attention to this and discourage edit warring. I'd particularly like to encourage people to apply harmonious principles to the use of admin functions. We shouldn't be afraid to point out to each other when we ought to step back and let somebody else handle a situation. To encourage people who say they're on board with this to actually do it, we should remove anyone from the list who's no longer actively interested in harmonious editing. Friday (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shall we take back the Talk page?

Fully half of this talk page's length has been colonised by edit-warring editors who don't have very much to do with this club. I just removed an entire section (which you can see here) which one of them presented to prove that their opponent is biased—which is, if I'm not mistaken, the natural state of every editor—even after being told that we are not some kind of arbitration body and asked to stop repeatedly. As such, I propose that everything about NLP be archived and any further discussion of it by these disruptive editors be ignored as trolling.

What does the existing membership say to that? — Saxifrage ✎ 07:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A straw poll, for convenience:

  1. Support — Saxifrage ✎ 07:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. support William M. Connolley 17:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Yep, sounds good. Friday (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - not that I'm in the club, but I read regularly and was on the verge of suggesting a similar move. AnAn 22:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strongly Support. I think it's legitimate to discuss what is and is not harmonous. I am not opposed, in general, to a discussion of a specific edit or set of edits. But there comes a point where I run out good faith in my attempts to suspend disbelieve that inability to understand is not actually a willful refusal to understand, that is, trolling. And the discusion below has pushed me to that point. Regards, Ben Aveling 15:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. The best way to take back the talk page is to introduce positive subjects rather than dwell on the past. So in that spirit I've offered something below. Durova 18:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:No angry mastodons

Here's my contribution to the project, gleaned from experiences answering dozens of RfC requests. It's an essay about de-escalating conflicts before they develop to the grievance procedure stage. Tweak it, use it, spread it around. Cheers, Durova 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it! It's very well written, and (for me at least) will serve as an excellent complement to Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Thanks for your contribution. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HEC category

With so many editors that have joined HEC, would it be more wise to use a add-on catagory instead of a sign-up sheet? The user could add the catagory to their user page. That would also create a doube-link reference. — Dzonatas 17:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removals

I have removed Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) from the member list. I find his editing to frequently be the opposite of harmonious, but I realize one personal opinion may not mean much. If it helps, the arbcom recently found that he has wheel warred multiple times. I believe this is a solid indication of his unharmonious behavior from unbiased source, so the removal seems justified to me. Friday (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this was a bonehead move on my part- Tony Sidaway put his name back on the list and was apparently somewhat insulted by the removal. I suppose the moral of the story is, anyone who says they're harmonious is in the club, whether anyone else agrees or not. Does that seem reasonable, or does anyone have a different opinion? To me, an organization like this is only useful if it encourages members to actually do what they say, but maybe there's a less controversial way of achieving this? Friday (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the incredible inherent irony of your attempt to start an edit war on a list designed to prevent edit wars, I wonder if you would mind if I removed you from the list? If the answer is yes, then I would urge you to redact your two uses of the word "apparently" in the comment above. -- JJay 01:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • On "wheel warring", the term was not in use on Wikipedia at the time the club was formed. Recently the administrator actions have become identified as an integral part of the editing of an administrator, and so undoing an administrator action by another administrator can be seen as "unharmonious editing". Needless to say I strive not to engage in any form of unharmonious editing, so the arbitration committee having identified some of my past actions as "wheel warring", I have modified my deployment of my administrator powers.
    Friday's action, taken on two occasions without bothering to inform me, strike me as very unfriendly. Surely the thing to do if you find a member of the club engaging in problematic editing is to ask him how he reconciles his actions with his membership. He might well have an informative response! --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If any editor in good faith were to remove my name and explain why they felt it was justified, I would not simply just put it back before discussing it on the talk page- such an action would clearly contradict the spirit and letter of the HEC. If someone honestly feels I'm not being harmonious, I want to improve, not just say "yes I am". If the "apparently" in my comment above is the cause of any ill will, let me be clear: This was a bonehead move on my part. My intent was to make the club actually mean something, but the perceived unfriendliness alone shows that I went about it the wrong way. Anyway, I addressed the issue of removing people for unharmonious behavior previously on this talk page, and nobody commented. I am curious whether folks think this would ever be a reasonable thing to do. To my way of thinking, the HEC has an interest in keeping blatantly unharmonious editors off of the membership list, but maybe I'm way off base here. Friday (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was a bonehead move on your part. The first step should have been to contact Tony directly first and, perhaps, the second step would have been to mention the issue here on the Talk Page. I don't know of any rules of this club that provide for removing a member involuntarily. My guess is that, if you want to be a harmonous editor, you should be a member of this club. If you feel a need to learn how to be a more harmonious editor, you should be a member of this club. It's not as if people run around with an HEC badge that makes HEC look bad when they act in a way that is in conflict with HEC principles. (In contrast, members of WP:Esperanza does and this has been the cause of disharmony in that group.)
--Richard 18:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have talked to Tony about his behavior, on his talk page, several times, as have many other editors. Altho, it was never to my knowledge discussed specifically in the context of the HEC - it hadn't occurred to me that such a thing was important. However, since I see no consensus here for removal of editors from the club, this probably doesn't matter. I thought I'd remembered reading something long ago about members removing each other from the list for unharmonious behavior (the idea being the person gets put back after changing that behavior), but I can't find it now, maybe I'm thinking of something else. Friday (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
For what this is worth, I have been a member of Esperanza for almost two months although I don't include their little green icon in my signature. We just got a request to boot a member for violating Esperanza principles. Problem is: Although our charter says that people can be booted, we have no mechanism to do so because Esperanza kind of blew up a month ago over issues like hierarchy. Esperanza's Advisory Council took a wikibreak and the rest of Esperanza continues to operate without them for now. There had been talk of having a Code of Conduct which all members would have to agree to abide by on pain of being booted out. That may yet come back but, for now, there is no enforceable Code of Conduct. The proposed Code of Conduct wasn't that bad. Except for one little quibble I would have been willing to sign up for it but this bit about booting members is a bit heavy-handed in my opinion.
Just sharing the experience with you guys so you can decide for yourselves how you want to structure HEC.
--Richard 14:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concordia

It seems to me that Concordia (WP:CCD) is very inline with HEC's purpose. 'Concordia is an organization of editors on Wikipedia that strive to encourage civility and fair treatment among all editors in the Wikipedian community, from the WikiGnome to the Wikiholic. The project was designed to have a friendly and helpful environment to support any unfortunate Wikipedians that have become victims of incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect. Concordia also aims to continually preserve the five pillars the define Wikipedia's character and Wikipedia's guidelines for civility. The word Concordia has many meanings, from the Latin word for "harmony" (literally "with (one) heart") to the Roman goddess of harmony and concord.' And many of the things that we had been talked about how to implement, have been implemented ... feedback? -- ∞Wirelain 23:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, my point tp bringing it up is to propose adding thier Civility Noticeboard WP:CN to the guidelines template for civility point. (#5) it did not exist atht he time of writing. Objections? -- ∞Wirelain 00:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I object strongly to any association between Harmonious Edit Club and Concordia. Concordia's organisation and modus operandi are fundamentally different from the Harmonious Editing Club's. --Tony Sidaway 01:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Tony, your statement does not give enough information for me to evaluate whether it is accurate or not. Can you expand on your assertion so that I can evaluate it without having to read through all of Concordia's stuff and all of the HEC stuff making cross-comparisons? Thanx. --Richard 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
And to reply to myself, digging in the history of the group shows a significant amount of instability ... so, consider it withdrawn. -- ∞Wirelain 04:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. What I mean is that it's one of these Esperanza-style groups. HEC members are basically trying (with a varying amount of success) to improve their own behavior, and to do so through self-restraint and subscription to a common code. Esperanza, Corncordia and all these other groups tend to be more activist, and seek to set up parallel structures within Wikipedia (Esperanza through a viral membership recruiting system and coaching potential administrators, Concordia through a parallel system of civility warnings and conduct forums). Both have a hierarchical membership and some kind of internal discipline system. For reasons I won't go into here, not all members of Harmonious Editing Club are comfortable with the existence of such parallel organisations on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 11:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, joining such immense calaborative groups isn't really a good idea and in some cases detrimental to the project. If a user requires the membership of an unstable organization such as Esperanza simply to regulate behavior, then perhaps wikipedia is not the best place to mingle. In most cases, esperanza only serves to involve editors in nonsense that is totally unrelated to the encyclopedia [1] [2] [3]. If that is really the case, then perhaps resigning one's self to simply editting would be a plausible course of action. -ZeroTalk 11:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to “Play” Wikipedia?

Can someone point me to advice on how to use the Talk Page to summon up the silent majority of editors to change an article, overcoming the power of the dominant editor(s)? What is “power” in Wikipedia anyway? I’m confused. So far I’ve found the following links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_of_wisdom http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MPOV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR Dhammapal 08:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So... grasshopper, what's your problem? I have left some suggestions on your Talk Page which include the standard welcome message and a pointer to dispute resolution which it appears you have read. Why are you still confused?
You wish to summon up the silent majority of editors to change an article, overcoming the power of the dominant editor(s)? I have visited the Buddha article and read through the last few entries on the talk page and it appears that, much to your chagrin, nobody has responded positively to your appeals. Perhaps the silent majority is voting against you by remaining silent despite your numerous appeals. Listen to the silence, grasshopper. It may be trying to talk to you.
However, if you feel that there is either unwarranted apathy and inaction or even, Buddha forbid, a cabal conspiring against you, you have available to you the mechanisms outlined in the Wikipedia article on dispute resolution.
Start by leaving a message on the other editor's talk page. Open a dialog with him/her and try to resolve the dispute amicably. If that fails, consider asking for help from the Mediation Cabal.
You can also issue a request for comment or start a publicized survey.
If all that fails, you can escalate to the Mediation Committee but you should really think twice before proceeding to this level or to the next one Arbitration Committee.
The fault is not in our stars, dear Brutus, but in ourselves. (Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare)
I've read your concerns and perhaps what you need is a good night's sleep and a weekend away from Wikipedia to consider whether your issues are as important as you seem to think they are right now.
My father once told me that Buddha taught that it takes two to create an offense: one to offend and the other to take offense. Are you taking offense needlessly when you could shed the offense and become more Buddha-like in your response?
What is power in Wikipedia anyway? Ah, defining power in Wikipedia is an elusive thing. Jimbo Wales has absolute power and any power he delegates is power. Admins and bureaucrats also have power but it can be taken away if abused.
Other than the power that flows from Jimbo, power in Wikipedia is primarily based on moral suasion. That is, power is attained by convincing others that your approach is the right approach. Usually but not always, the winning approach is the one which involves harmonious editing and inclusion of all POVs based on verifiable [WP:RS|reliable sources]].
I wish I had an appropriate Zen koan to lay on you, grasshopper. However, lacking an appropriate one, I give you this bit of Western-style advice instead: Don't tilt at windmills. Don't spit in the wind. Chill.
You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Desiderata, Max Ehrman, 1927
--Richard 09:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I’m back calmer (and less argumentative) from a weekend break from Wikipedia as suggested by Richard. Amazing how interpretation of words can change. I did find that using the Talk Page to invite any non-dominant editor third party (in this case Richard himself got involved!) to remove and move a section has worked so far. Any other tips appreciated. Thanks for listening. Dhammapal 12:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Good for you... the way of harmony is always superior to the way of disharmony.
But, I'm disappointed that you never once asked why I kept calling you "grasshopper".
So, I'll tell you anyways...
Back in the 1970s, there was a show called "Kung Fu" starring David Carradine. Kung Fu follows the adventures of a Shaolin monk, Kwai Chang Caine, in the American Old West.
In just about every show, there is a flashback to the time when Kwai Chang Caine is a novice under blind Master Po who keeps calling him by his nickname "grasshopper" and giving him sage advice like "Do not let your emotions control you".
That's why I kept calling you "grasshopper". I hoped that you would see the humor in it and not take offense.
--Richard 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I’ve messed up trying to challenge the scientific establishment regarding materialistic views of evolution (The Buddha warned me that conjecture about the origin of the world would drive me crazy). I’ve come up with a new Wikipedia acronym that I would use to describe how to resolve a dispute.

IOICGYTRTB (If only I could get you to READ THIS BOOK)

Dhammapal 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read the exchange at Talk:Evolution#Proposed link: "Mental_Evolution" and the trouble is not that they've not read the book or that they're blinded by science. Rather, you ran afoul of Wikipedia's No original research and Reliable sources policies by making a "novel" link between things. Essentially, someone reputable has to publish something that says the connection between that book and evolution is valid, or the book and author themselves have to be reputable sources. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
As I said I messed up. I have posted an apology and will try to practice restraint in the future. I posted a dubious online link when really I wanted them to read Capra’s book which is not online.
IOICGYTRTB has general applications too. Disputes occur when people are reading different books. Dhammapal 09:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
If your motives were to use the encyclopedia to promote something, yeah, that's not so good. It's certainly forgiveable though, especially when you're so contrite! Good job on being honest, and I hope you have a good time of editing Wikipedia in the future. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Richard. 1 ½ months after I let the Buddha article go a third party came in and performed major edits which after some argument have survived. So the resident editors can be overcome, just not instantly but with patience.Dhammapal 09:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preventing new edit war

A user has recently deleted material from the article Western Culture. I am not familiar with edit wars, but i like to revert his edits, (see Talk:Western_culture#Recent_Deletions).--Daanschr 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

He is continuing his behaviour at present.--Daanschr 14:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading that Talk page section, it sounds like you're both engaging in productive discussion. What exactly is the trouble? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I also read the Talk page section. You two are doing the right thing by discussing the issue. If you wish to revert some of his changes, you might make the changes in a sandbox and then post the proposed text in the Talk page to get agreement. If you are having trouble keeping your cool, it might be useful to read WP:1RR.
--Richard 05:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Staying Cool when the editing gets hot

I found this article: Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Dhammapal 08:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. -ZeroTalk 22:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverting only once

I think it is a great idea, reverting only once. I would like to join the HEC, but first see if I am strong enough to resist myself. — Xiutwel (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

New member here, but long time (unwitting) follower of the credo (I'm a strict 1RR person, and I've tried my hand at third party mediation before, Talk:Tsushima Basin is one that's currently ongoing, any feedback or advice is welcome). I thought it might be an idea to help publicise the club if we created a userbox. Given the current controversy, and probable eventual acceptance of the German Solution, I've created the userbox in my onw user space. To use just add {{user:Daduzi/HEC}} to get the following:

HEC This user is a member of the Harmonious Editing Club.




The image isn't very clear but is Gorbachev and Reagan signing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. It was the best image that I could think of to signify competing parties coming together to reach agreement and create something valuable, but if anyone can come up with a better one feel free to edit the userbox (found at user:Daduzi/userboxes/Harmonious Editing Club accordingly. --Daduzi talk 10:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

For now it will work, but we need to have a design competition thrown up on the main page, and a straw poll to decide. I really want a cool userbox for this! Maybe I'll design one. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)
I propose a new wikitalk for the logo: Wikipedia talk:HEC logo User:Rursus 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Very nice. Obviously, has similarities to the Kindness Campaign logo, but that's ok. Addhoc 14:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Grumble, mumble ... darn! Nothing said about the origin ... just behold the pic as an example, kind of. User:Rursus 08:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PETA

Can some of you look at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? We've got a lot of edit warring and POV pushing going on. Comments on the talk page from outside, harmonious viewpoints to try to extinguish the flames would be helpful. — Omegatron 20:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juan Martin

I am trying to contribute to an article about Juan Martin,a celebrated English born spanish flamenco guitarist.

I have cited verifiable sources for my information,however my edits are constantly reverted. any ideas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Mart%C3%ADn

Ukbn2 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The user reverting you is called Yandman and in his edit history has commented "we will examine ukbn2's claims before changing this article". Essentially, I would suggest going along with this, propose a change on the talk page including references, give him a day or so to comment and then make the changes. Have a look at WP:BRD and I'll add the page to my watchlist. Addhoc 17:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for this response! Initially my quotes were common knowledge but not verifiable -i have now verified this from a book written by someone who is regarded as the most knowledgable person about flamenco guitar in the world, but this edit got reverted as well. I dont want to break any wiki rules. thanks

Ukbn2 18:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as it happens, Ukbn2 is not the well intentioned Wikipedian he appears to be. His technique is to partially cite material, suggest that other users shouldn't argue, but should find references, then accuse anyone who disagrees of trolling. Approach with caution. Addhoc 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

I can't seem to miss that you missed one of the most inflamous articles on Wikipedia - Kosovo. There's currently an Arbitration on it and I don't think that any other article has been reverted as that much. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me

I am close to joining this WikiProject, but I can't ever seem to obey the 1RR rule. I am heavily pushed at Duklja, Travunia and Zahumlje - and to an extent at Pagania by User:Afrika paprika (please see User_talk:Afrika paprika). --HolyRomanEmperor 21:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HEC userbox

Was/is there one? Could somebody make one? Anchoress 06:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Neeeevermind... I looked thru the ToC but not hard enough, obviously. Anchoress 06:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on dispute resolution to avoid reverts

Could you make a suggestion the best way to engage in dispute resolution. I'm trying to clean up an article, and have spent hours on it checking references and writing toward NPOV. Unfortunately I have been reverted on a number of occasions by a single editor. I am now reluctant to work on the page because I fear that it will be just reverted again. This editor has now stated that he will revert my contribution on a daily basis. I want to encourage this other user to use the "fact", "request_quote" and "dubious" tags rather than blanket reverting. Any advice in the situation would be most appreciated. --Comaze 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

I note a few edit warriors on the HEC membership list. No, I'm not giving names, that'd be mean. Still, it's very ironic. Maybe someone should go over the list of names and remove edit warriors :) >Radiant< 16:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

 ;) -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club#Removals... Addhoc 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

I created an image for the club, using it as logo is at the club members discretion, just thought a good userbox would attract a lot of users to the club, and may help spread our word. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 07:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Harmonious Editing Club
Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club
 This user is a member of the Harmonious Editing Club.

{{User:Netmonger/HEC}} will get you the userbox ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 15:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I appreciate your work Netmonger but it reminds me of the cult of Esperanza. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of Esperanza, but haven't quite followed what it is about. Which feature in the logo reminds you of Esperanza? And why do you call Esperanza a cult? ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 15:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HEC in other languages?

Coming from Wikipedia in Spanish I wonder if you're aware of a club like yours in other languages. I've seen quite some stubs back there with enormous discussions and I believe there could be use of a club like this one. --alex_mayorga 22:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Club member reverting in bad practice

What should be done if one of the club members is reverting edits in a manner that is contrary to Help:Revert?

Reverts that were: of edits that were not vandalism; unexplained; removed content that was simply disagreeing with one side of an issue on a page about a "controversy"? -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure the edits haven't been explained? From what I can see William M. Connolley has explained his actions. Addhoc 23:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
He explained some of the reverts in discussion...on a disagreement with the content level. The other reverts were not explained beyond "poorly written" and a dislike for the source (he erroneously claimed the source in question "keep coming up" on the Spam project). Regardless of that, consider that the following "Do's and Dont's" were violated or ignored with his reverts:
  1. Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute.
  2. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end."
  3. Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly.
  4. ...it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely.
  5. Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate.
  6. Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
  7. If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
  8. If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
That would be all 5 of the "dont's" and 3 of the 4 "do's" (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on the 4th, that he took the reverts 'seriously' even though this seems to be a pattern for years that has been before the arbitration board). THAT reflects on the Harmonious Editing Club since he is a member. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 02:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm pleased that you acknowledge that William M. Connolley has given some explanation for his reverts. As it happens, I consider the advice you list to be very sensible. You could also have a look at WP:EW for more advice. Given that you and several other editors, including Uncle Ed, are involved in good faith discussion on how to improve the Global warming controversy article, I don't think my involvement would be of any benefit. Addhoc 18:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tony seems fond of spamming pages with the rules. OTOH I've clearly reverted several pages more than once per day. I would throw myself out of the club, except I stay as an aspiration. But the officials may remove me if they wish, I wont complain, its a fair cop guv. Incidentally, I'm admitting to the excess reverts, but deny the "bad practice" William M. Connolley 19:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another example of Mr. Connolley's editing practices: Edit performed at 11:07, February 21, 2007...Before a Dr C edit and After a Dr C edit. Reason: "rv; its not great but its better than the alternative...". Explanation or discussion by Mr. Connolley: None. Last posting on the Talk page about any edit: 04:16, February 20, 2007.
Clearly there is no effort to follow any of the aforementioned "do's and dont's", is not an 'outlier' from Mr. Connolley's style of edits.
Recent example of "harmony" in edits: Where: Here

Wrote: "You're not very good at reading. I didn't say they are indep. Indeed its true that they share some data, though I disagree with your characterisation of it. McK doesn't have a reconstruction of his own - he has a very early thing McI did, but no longer pushes, and it has never been publsihed in any proper journal as such William M. Connolley 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)"

Wrote: "Haseler, can you please stop ranting about sticking to the point, especially since I am...William M. Connolley 11:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)"

Citing example after example would overwhelm your page, but if you want more they are easily and readily available. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the comeback trail

Hi, everybody. My name is Ed and I'm a disruptive contributor. ("Hi, Ed!")

I'm looking for a lot of advice and support. I want to change the way I have been contributing to certain areas at Wikipedia (such as the Intelligent Design, climate change and Communism articles.) I used to think I was being "neutral", but others tell me I'm a POV-pusher or that I'm undermining the consensus.

I can easily recognize things like reverting too much. If I revert more than once, that's going to start an edit war. I think I've eliminated that bad habit pretty well. It's content that I need help with.

It's ironic that I myself originally proposed this club but then went off the deep end myself and had to be . *Sigh* It actually took that much to wake me up.

We all have our blind spots, perhaps, and I'm sorry I caused so much trouble. As Cat Stevens sings, "It's hard. But it's harder to ignore it." Please, someone help me open my eyes. Thanks. :-) --Uncle Ed 12:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility?

I’ve been accused of incivility, here about this. What might’ve been a better approach? SmokeyJoe 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly stay on subject, in an AfD don't start talking about whether WP:N should be a policy / guideline / essay / deleted, if you want to comment visit WT:N. Secondly, don't start making personal comments, if an editor is being impossible, then file an RfC. Lastly, have some faith in the community, the article clearly isn't going to be deleted - there's a consensus to keep. Addhoc 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I believe the WikiProject Spam project page denigrates civility

I'm trying to convince members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam that they have a problem with the language of their project page, most egregiously:

spammers love to take advantage of the fact that Wikipedians assume good faith, luring us into discussing their links with them "on the merits" as if they had nothing but the good of Wikipedia at heart.

As a Wikipedian you're supposed to assume good faith until you've got reason not to, right? There are some other problems with the language on the project page, which, to me, has a troubling tone. I've laid out my case at length on that project's talk page, but I'm not getting a consensus that the language has to be changed.

I really think that contributions to that discussion from other Wikipedians would help those project members think about the issue. I admit the discussion on that page is a bit long, but it really isn't terribly confusing. Here's a link for anyone interested: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Proposed changes in the tone of the project page.

I'd rather convince the members of that project that they should be following WP:ASG and WP:CIV, but if I can't convince them, I don't think I have any choice but to go to some higher authority. Their project is featured on the Community page, after all. And, as I explain in the discussion, I've had experience with some really rude people associated with that project. If more editors apply some gentle persuasion, maybe we can change their minds without having to get some authority to tell them what to do. They're a valuable project and I don't want to hurt their morale.Noroton 06:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!!!

Guys, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion is a mess. Maybe we can do something there, don't you think? --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 13:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/r/Wikipedia_talk%7EHarmonious_editing_club_bca8.html"