Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:47, 11 June 2010

Welcome!

Please sign your messages here using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Archives: A discussion about a fallacious block.

At the risk of breaking Godwin's Law...

... to follow up on your Hitler analogy here: not quite. It's more like saying that if you encounter another failed artist who rode to power on a wave of nationalist and racialist resentment, and he's demanding the Sudetenland, you might in the back of your mind think twice about appeasing him. It may be that the similarities between him and Hitler are just a coincidence, that this second dictator really does want peace in our time, and that you've failed to assume good faith. But it's not unreasonable to notice a certain pattern, and arguably not unreasonable to act on it. MastCell  23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, sure, except for it not being at all like that. If I had violated some rules of editing, or standards of conduct, or been anything other than polite, respectful, and trying to discuss toward a NPOV compromise, then perhaps your extension of the analogy would apply. If you read the base rate fallacy page that I linked to that comment, you'll see what I mean in that noticing a particular pattern in the guilty does not say anything about how often that pattern means people ARE guilty. This is basic logic (but unfortunately a named fallacy because the mental error is so commonly made). I encourage you to not be one of the people making this error. WavePart (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the theoretical case you're making. But be honest with me: have you used other named accounts to edit Misplaced Pages in the past? MastCell  00:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already said many times I am a clean start user. WavePart (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing that admission. That might have avoided this whole situation. Would you consider disclosing the identity of your previous account to a functionary, who can then verify that there are no problems with it being banned or blocked or something? A trusted current or former arb, or a checkuser or other person who is identified to the Foundation to handle private information responsibly. The Wordsmith 01:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd prefer not per privacy. This would only be necessary for an admin position, which I do not seek. (As far as I'm aware, there is no basis for assuming it's required practice in any other case, nor should it be.) For the record I was not under any bans or blocks. WavePart (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Also for the record, I could have just as easily pretended to be a newb rather than admitting to being a clean start. I assure you I'm smart enough to be able to pretend to know nothing. Penalizing for simple honesty obviously makes no sense. It makes more sense to simultaneously encourage honesty and allow privacy, and I will do what I can to defend those principles. WavePart (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty. The reason I asked you to disclose it to a functionary is that those people are trusted by the Wikimedia Foundation to handle private information with care. If you don't want to, though, I accept that. It would just make me feel better if someone confirmed that you're a good user, not a banned one. The Wordsmith 01:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As a person who generally acts as a privacy advocate. I'm not prone to trusting people with my private information (even if vouched for by a foundation) when I can just as easily not have to extend that trust. The fact that there are many people who feel similarly is probably why policy does not require this. In addition, nothing about my article editing behavior should indicate to you that I am even worthy of a ban, so there should be no ground for your ongoing concern. It continues to concern me that you approach other editors (or just me?) with a "you should prove you're not a problem" attitude. This is not a good trait to have in any authority figure. Perhaps you need a few people to assume you're guilty of something you didn't do a few times, and then you'll change your mind after a little experience. WavePart (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)