Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.

Difference between revisions of "User talk:IBobi"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
(Deleting discussions)
(Deleting discussions)
Line 14: Line 14:
 
::As of right now, IB is moving from just being in violation of our advertising policy and consensus policies. You are in [[Wikitravel:How to handle unwanted edits]] territory.  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 17:59, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
 
::As of right now, IB is moving from just being in violation of our advertising policy and consensus policies. You are in [[Wikitravel:How to handle unwanted edits]] territory.  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 17:59, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
  
:::I believe it is within my rights as a member of this community to edit or revert edits as I see fit, is it not? Can you see that the absence of a policy forbidding fork discussion is detrimental to this site? So be it: let's write a policy. Here's my draft:
+
:::"I believe it is within my rights as a member of this community to edit or revert edits as I see fit, is it not?" Can you see that the absence of a policy forbidding fork discussion is detrimental to this site? So be it: let's write a policy. Here's my draft:
  
 
::::"Discussions of forking the content of this Project are inappropriate and detrimental to Wikitravel. Anyone wishing to participate in such discussions is of course welcome to do so offline; but Wikitravel is under no obligation to provide a forum for self-destructive behavior."
 
::::"Discussions of forking the content of this Project are inappropriate and detrimental to Wikitravel. Anyone wishing to participate in such discussions is of course welcome to do so offline; but Wikitravel is under no obligation to provide a forum for self-destructive behavior."
Line 21: Line 21:
  
 
: (edit conflicted) [[User:IBobi|IBobi]] - I won't pursue this issue further, but please understand that deleting a good faith discussion, rather than responding and providing counter-arguments, is something that will be extremely poorly received within any wiki community.  Again, using the example of Wikivoyage, using Wikitravel as a platform for discussing that fork was in poor taste, but attempts to censor those discussions would have been far worse than simply politely asking the individuals involved to raise their concerns in a more appropriate venue. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 18:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
 
: (edit conflicted) [[User:IBobi|IBobi]] - I won't pursue this issue further, but please understand that deleting a good faith discussion, rather than responding and providing counter-arguments, is something that will be extremely poorly received within any wiki community.  Again, using the example of Wikivoyage, using Wikitravel as a platform for discussing that fork was in poor taste, but attempts to censor those discussions would have been far worse than simply politely asking the individuals involved to raise their concerns in a more appropriate venue. -- [[User:Wrh2|Ryan]] &bull; ([[User talk:Wrh2|talk]]) &bull; 18:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
::''"I believe it is within my rights as a member of this community to edit or revert edits as I see fit, is it not?"''. It is not. Reverting edits is not done as people see fit, it is done to preserve the integrity of our policies and rules. You are violating those rules, and [[Wikitravel:Edit war]], which I suppose you did not read, directly responds to your current behavior. You are also reinforcing long-standing beliefs that Internet Brands will continue to disrespect the social norms and rules of the communities off which it makes its money.
 +
 +
::Also, I think I told you privately at one point that I'm not likely to give you too much help, largely because I have found your comments on Shared arrogant, ignorant, and off-putting. In that same discussion I suggested you should heed Ryan's advice, as it is and will be spot-on, and more polite than my own. You have drawn way more attention to this fork through [[Wikitravel:How_to_handle_unwanted_edits#Repeat_offenses|repeated]] [[Wikitravel:How_to_handle_unwanted_edits#Defiance_of_policy|defiance of policy]].  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 18:22, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Revision as of 22:26, 2 July 2012

Eratic readings since crash at 5. Juni 2012

Please show at the German Travellers' pub-Site -- Knut 84.58.160.100 04:37, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

Deleting discussions

Regarding [1], while I understand why you are removing discussions, the existing site policies are strongly aligned towards preventing any appearance of censorship - see Wikitravel:Using talk pages (talk page conversations are not deleted) - and most users of this site will have very strong opinions on the matter and see attempts to make exceptions to site policy as an abuse of power. Many of us felt it was inappropriate to use Wikitravel as a platform for discussions of forking when the Wikivoyage fork happened, and many will also feel it's inappropriate to use Wikitravel as a platform for a discussion of a fork now, but in both cases I think attempts to censor those discussions are greater wrongs and would ask that you restore the discussions you have deleted, perhaps adding a note that you feel that this is not the proper venue for such discussion to occur. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:38, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Thank you, Ryan, that is a very reasonable proposition. However, as I have noted at Peter's Talk page, the discussion itself, in this particular case, serves the same destructive purpose to the community, as would touting a fork. You cannot discuss touting a fork without bringing attention to it, which is the point in the first place. Those who are attempting to discuss this are actively seeking to subvert the very site that allows them the platform upon which to discuss it. Perhaps there is no written policy that says "don't try to use Wikitravel to destroy Wikitravel," but that is only because it is self-evident.
In the case of Wikivoyage, absolutely that should not have been discussed here either. Two wrongs do not make a right, and there is no reason a prior grievous error should be used to justify another. I am acting in the best interest of this project, and I stand behind this action. If anyone has a resoned argument to refute that, fine. But we are not going to shoot ourselves in the face simply because explicit policy does not exist to tell us that would be a bad idea.--IBobi 17:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
If you want to remove the links to the WM travel site discussion, I could agree to that. But outright censorship of others comments (like mine regarding how this should be discussed elsewhere not here!), is not just a real violation of our project's policies, it is counterproductive. I know well enough from experience that IB is best at alienating the communities whose sites they buy, rather than encouraging their growth. But really, continued edit warring, censorship, and other abuse is not the best way to present your argument that editors should stay here, if another fork emerges. Which is really what you should be doing, and doing fast.
As of right now, IB is moving from just being in violation of our advertising policy and consensus policies. You are in Wikitravel:How to handle unwanted edits territory. --Peter Talk 17:59, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
"I believe it is within my rights as a member of this community to edit or revert edits as I see fit, is it not?" Can you see that the absence of a policy forbidding fork discussion is detrimental to this site? So be it: let's write a policy. Here's my draft:
"Discussions of forking the content of this Project are inappropriate and detrimental to Wikitravel. Anyone wishing to participate in such discussions is of course welcome to do so offline; but Wikitravel is under no obligation to provide a forum for self-destructive behavior."
Something like that? Meantime, since the discussion at hand deals directly with the policy above, I move that it be tabled until such time as the passage or defeat of such policy is decided.--IBobi 18:10, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
(edit conflicted) IBobi - I won't pursue this issue further, but please understand that deleting a good faith discussion, rather than responding and providing counter-arguments, is something that will be extremely poorly received within any wiki community. Again, using the example of Wikivoyage, using Wikitravel as a platform for discussing that fork was in poor taste, but attempts to censor those discussions would have been far worse than simply politely asking the individuals involved to raise their concerns in a more appropriate venue. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
"I believe it is within my rights as a member of this community to edit or revert edits as I see fit, is it not?". It is not. Reverting edits is not done as people see fit, it is done to preserve the integrity of our policies and rules. You are violating those rules, and Wikitravel:Edit war, which I suppose you did not read, directly responds to your current behavior. You are also reinforcing long-standing beliefs that Internet Brands will continue to disrespect the social norms and rules of the communities off which it makes its money.
Also, I think I told you privately at one point that I'm not likely to give you too much help, largely because I have found your comments on Shared arrogant, ignorant, and off-putting. In that same discussion I suggested you should heed Ryan's advice, as it is and will be spot-on, and more polite than my own. You have drawn way more attention to this fork through repeated defiance of policy. --Peter Talk 18:22, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages