User talk:Soul kitch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi, if you want to discuss the issues of conflict itself, perhaps Meta might be a better place to do that. Comments on the process of dealing with articles of banned users, such as the following, don't belong on a talk page of an article. Similarly, your views on conventions of Western law don't belong on a page devoted to discussing the actions of another user. I've moved your comments below so you can find a better place for them if you want to do that. See Wikipedia:Talk page for more on the uses of talk pages. Thanks. Angela. 23:09, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
[Soul_kitch] re:"makes enough people lose patience" - the convention in Western law and among most fields of psychology is that people are responsible for maintaining their own attitudes, including a patient attitude. Correctly, people don't make others lose patience. Instead, people through intent or neglect establish tolerances, and when those tolerances are exceeded, they often attribute blame to an outside cause rather than to an internal standard. Alleged offenses against an individual's patience are quite different from specific offenses against a well-described standard for behavior.Soul kitch 16:13, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] conflict analysis
This page is listed on the current conflicts page, suprise, suprise. The trend in the fray seems to be an abundance of ad hominum that generally developed into weakly constructive dialogue. It might be good for all involved to notice mutual recognition of interests that has come out of the process. In many cases, it is easier to build new, potentially controversial contributions in seperate articles. There is plenty to be written, based on historical evidence, about scientific error and flaws of scientific processes. Those ideas might develop best on a page that links here.
Otherwise, I note general weakness in knowledge (or employment) of neutral editorial language. Writers need some artistic flexibility, but for news writers, words like claim and points out are loaded. If there is any doubt, says is safer, and discussion can be about what was said, not about how the statement is characterized as a claim or explanation.
Efforts to take proprietary hold of a page seem to be popping up around the Wiki and we saw that here. Asking others not to contribute for a time probably does not reflect a prevailing opinion that all qualified contributors can be accomodated. Elsewhere, people "kidnapp" articles by suspected banned users, or are alleged to have protected a page to preserve an admins' prefered edits. I would take it as evidence that somebody cares about the wiki community process if, upon entering an edit that proves controversial, they volunatarily relocate the questioned prose to a talk page where it can be developed in a tedious concensus process. If longstanding sections of an article are called into question, we all know talk pages are an appropriate place to hash out differences. All across this wiki, I notice a paucity of draft copy being edited on talk pages, in favor of a hectic, often conflicted process that falters simply because of the asynchronysity of the medium as much as because of personal differences among contributors.
It often happens that a few graphs get added and become the topic of edit war before appropriate discussion emerges. Interventions to stop edit wars fail when they do not allow the apparent instigator a valid alternate and more readily available means to work out conflicts. Relocating contested text to an edit page, with line edits, may be the best way to keep things moving forward. This page suggests a few days work can hash out conflict that is not readily resolved in a few hours of editing. It is also worth remembering that everyone is working at a different pace, and might expect responses sooner than they might be forthcoming. If one makes a suggestion and lets it ride a day or so, debate might proceed in a more orderly manner. Soul kitch 22:15, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
from: Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004
[edit] Discussion
A person's effort in creating an article might be dedicated to a group or a cause, but Wikipedia's purpose is declared in a mission statement. Without getting tedious, the mission is to produce encyclopedic articles. The vote presents a false delima to me, because it presupposes the need for lists of victims, which might not be appropriate. Careful description of the types of violence, and of changes in the manner of violence would be much more informative to me than would be a list of victims names and vague circumstances surrounding their death. That seems more like raw material from which more analytic prose could develop. But lists of lists of lists have become part of the wiki landscape and need to be assimilated. For that reason, I voted for both seperate and combined lists. It makes it easiest for all involved to make maximum use of the information available in the format that best fits their interests, and best invites contributions to the encyclopedia. Soul kitch 23:00, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
- I suggest reviewing the content of writing on this page attributed to Soul_kitch, and basing conclusions on the merits of those comments, not on prejudices arising from what one does or does not know about another contributor. Soul kitch 15:18, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
- I routinely work here from new accounts. I don't daisy-chain any of my contributions here, for reasons articulated elsewhere - mostly privacy, but also for the well-being of the community. Identifying with my contributions tends to personally identify me, and while i contribute content to Wikipedia, I DO NOT CONTRIBUTE MY IDENTITY OR MY BYLINE. This is the primary reason sock-puppets are an effective privacy protection measure. The practice also encourages the community to criticize content rather than to challenge persons. It is a typical fundamental attribution error for others to assume my motives are primarily to tamper with votes. It might appear that way because that is how my preferences might potentially affect that commentator, but such a conclusion can only be made by discarding several more likely motivations, including the one I cordially shared in an effort to clarify my interests. Soul kitch 15:18, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- One Voice: I appreciate your frustration at the very narrow distinction, but I am avoiding taking a stance on any part of this debate in this context. I only want to ask you to join me in rejecting the use of the concept "trolling" in intellectual debate. Incredulity is a fair way of avoiding responding to a point that might appear overly tedious, but a focus on content keeps things on track. If you expressed amazement at an argument that you find incredulous, but avoided suggesting an untoward motive of the person who made the argument, you would leave yourself in a more defensable rhetorical position. Soul kitch 15:18, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC) {please protect these comments from identity-related attacks}
-
Sorry, "viajero" but Soul_kitch is a moniker used by a human with real concerns and real ideas, not by a "troll." The content of these comments is serious, pertains entirely to process and avoids altogether the subject of the controversy. Viajero might again choose to use this page to wage a campaign for preferred policies about identification of writers, or to limit the range of ideas to which Viajero feels a need to respond, but I encourage others here to repair the damage and restore my responses to a legitimate invitation to participate, protecting the page for its original purpose i.e. discussion of the best way to document West Mediteranian violence. My standing as a valid person can be assessed when whoever decides how much weight to give to one vote in an uncontrolled voting process. My purpose here is to respond to an invitation to participate, not to tamper with a voting process. If anyone declares my purpose to be otherwise, they are simply wrong and are doing me wrong by attempting to declare my motives. Now, back to the subject at hand, hopefully. Soul kitch 14:58, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This comment moved from erroneously titled page User:Soul Kitch (which isn't a real username - note the capital 'K') by User:Finlay McWalter. Nothing beyond my undoubted neatfreakery should be inferred from this.
Someone noted that Soul_Kitch is a new handle and lacks credibility because it is not associated with any article contributions. This note is to clarify that Soul_Kitch's purpose is not to lend credibilty to the handle, but rather to add credibility to Wikipedia. Such credibility is best estabilished by reviewing content, not be judging the character of contributors.
-
- i beleive the obsession, in this case, is with maintaining control of debate. this psuedonym (soul-kitch) came afoul of common, albeit sophomoric, wikipedia tactics that tend to condone attacks against unidentified users. use of the term 'troll' to identify writers who carefully mask their psuedonym is the primary feature of this uncollegial behavior, but it presents in a variety of forms, such as in angela injecting her personal opinion on talk pages to dictate when personal opinions are appropriate on talk pages. hopefully, skills of reasoned discussion, with attention to subject rather than to the participants, will prevail and those who base their reputations on being wiki vigilanties and as troll hunters will need to find a new cause around which to build their personal celebrity in this community. as for me, the only thing that will gain recognition here are the approaches for which i advocate and the content of articles i write. i'm off to find a new psuedonym.
end of content moved by User:Finlay McWalter
This user identity has been removed from service as a result of personal attacks by user:angela.
Angela's marginal use of her unique sense of what is appropriate serves mostly to make the Wikipedia a personal property of Angela. Users would do better to work out a personal sense of propriety with trusted freinds or with professional counselors, leaving Wikipedia for open discussion of topics at hand and for discussion of how best to present topics in an encyclopedia.
- That's a complete lie. I have not made personal attacks against you. In fact, I have never mentioned you anywhere on Wikipedia. Angela. 23:13, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
The allegation is that the attacks are motivated by personal dislike for a broad list of personalities, regardless how those personas are identified. The writer who was attacked by this deletionist partially avoided becoming the identified target of a personal attack by denying the attacker access to an identity with any appreciable profile to damage.
