User talk:Zarove

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: Hello

<<I noticed on the Acharya S tlak page I seem to be the other side ofthe coin to Acharyas Follwors. I was wonderign why.>>

<<So, I thoguth Id ask.>>

<<Am I relaly that bad? As all I do is revert when they whitewash her.>>

<<And, can I rlelay be banned for htis? As all I am doing is tryign to prevent bias. I know they claim this, but I havent gone otu fo my way to discredit her. Just add valid critisisms.>>

<<Anyway, thanks. Hope you mdessge me back.>>

Sorry for not answering for so long, but I've been forced by my class load to take a long wikivacation. I also had developed a need to detox for a while - masochist that I am, I'm involved in several disputes (hopefully as a voice of moderation...). The Acharya S dispute is only one of those. I do enjoy being in the thick of things, but it can get poisonious after a while. I'm hoping to get back on the Acharya case over Christmas break.

Are you "really that bad"? Hmm. I wouldn't say that you are as bad as Acharya's followers, but I would say that you are in the general catagory of "radical POV warrior". This is just an informal label, like "troll", so you can't be banned for that, per se. But, as a radical POV warrior, you are likely to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you can be banned for. Banning is only used as a last resort though. In order to do that, first, two people would have to make an attempt to settle the matter peacefully, probably through your talk page. If that doesn't work, then the matter would have to be brought up on Requests for Comment, and there would have to be a consensus against you (roughly defined as a 2/3rds vote). If you loose on RfC, there are several options available, with banning being the strongest. In order for a ban to happen, the matter would have to be brought before the Arbitration Committee and they would have to find against you. You'd have to tick off a lot of people to get banned, but it could happen.

One way to violate Wikipedia policies is to violate the 3 Revert Rule. The thing to remember about 3RR is that it is not a privilege but an electric fence. It is designed to stop edit wars. Even if you don't break 3RR, just getting involved in endless edit wars is probably enough to make you persona non gratia. In itself, probably not enough to get you banned, but will definitely cause people to look for reasons to. Reverting actual vandalism is one thing. But what you call "whitewashing" is not vandalism. From the point of view of the pro-Acharyas, they are making a good faith attempt to improve the article. If you asked them, they would probably also say that they are attempting to prevent bias.

Some philosophy: Call it post-modernism if you wish, but, from what I've seen on the Wikipedia, it is also true. There is no such thing as "unbiased". IIRC, there have been studies done that show people having an emotional reaction to a string of nonsense syllables. If you think you are unbiased, that only means that you are so sure of your position that you think any right-thinking person would have to agree with you - if they think otherwise, then they must be "biased", or worse, outright "wrong".

Many Wikipedias agree with this "no such thing as unbiased" philosophy. Because of this, the Wikipedia does not try to be unbiased. It doesn't even try to be objective. (Which is a slightly different thing. It is possible to be biased and still be factual.) Instead, it tries to maintain a neutral point of view - which means that, ideally, the Wikipedia never states something as fact. It only reports what others say about a subject, and then gives attribution. Of course, there are all sorts of ways to introduce bias, even while keeping NPOV. Hopefully, what will happen is that the opposing POVs will work out a compromise that, while not completely without bias, is not outrageously slanted one way or the other.

What can you do to help a compromise be worked out? To be blunt, keep out of the way. From what I seen, if you try to talk with the pro-Archaryans yourself, things will rapidly degrade into a shouting match. Let the moderates do the talking. Sure, the pro-Archaryans are nuts, but we Wiki-veterans are used to dealing with nuts. Occasionally, this happens when we look in the mirror :-). I don't mean you should drop out of the discussion entirely. You can help by keeping the moderates honest. Speak up if you think they are giving away too much. Or if you find new evidence that supports your POV, then bring it to the moderates' attention. (In my experience, radical POV warriors do serve the vital service of data gathering, being so motivated and all, so they aren't all bad. But it might be a good idea to let the moderates decide how to intergrate this new information into the article.) Basically, the moderates are your friends. Don't alienate them. Hopefully your opponents will alienate them. In which case, the moderates might be a bit more open to slanting the article your way. (And be honest with yourself - I want an article that says "Archrya is a nut". You want an article that says "Archrya is a nut". The only question is, what can we get away with?)

What if there are no moderates editing the article, only pro-Archaryans? Might be a good idea to take a break from the article. You can always undo the damage later, after they've gotten bored and gone home. Take the time to create a user page. Edit other articles that have nothing to do with this one. (You're already doing that, but do more of it!) Make friends. Get yourself established as a Wikipedian in good standing, so it won't be so easy to get you banned.

After all, why do you care so much about Archarya? IMO, she just barely merits mention on the 'pedia at all. Her book is so out there that nobody who is sane will take her seriously. Criticizing her only brings her more attention. The worst thing you could do against her is ignore her. Look at her "offical" critics: two fundies and a Christ-as-a-Myth guy who is only marignally more sane than her. Everybody who is somebody is staying out of it because it isn't worth their time. You don't see any serious biblical scholars going after her. So why are you so involved? I'm personally involved because I sorta like bashing heads together (I love it when two wrongs make a right - call me a millitant moderate), plus I hardly count as "somebody". How did you first hear about Archarya? Why do you care?

Well, that's my two cents. Hope your head isn't too sore :-). crazyeddie 22:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

New article creation has been limited to logged-in members. So you have to be logged in to make new articles. Why you can't log in, I don't know. crazyeddie 15:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the problem you can't log in, or is it that you don't stay logged in? crazyeddie 15:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conduct of discussions

You must keep discussions to page content, not bring in personalities. You have been cut a great deal of slack in the past, but there is no reason why that need continue. Charles Matthews 14:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)