Users/EdgarWai

InfoInfo
Search:    

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments


  1. Edgar's Workspace
    1. Pages that I edit
    2. Groups and Issues that I follow
    3. Self Disclosures
      1. Editing Guidelines that I follow
      2. Notes on the Ethics of Discussion
      3. Notes on Protocols in a Discussion
    4. Notes on Constructive Discussion
      1. Principles and Perspective
      2. Common Habits to Avoid
      3. Tools for Collaboration
    5. Dry Runs of Constructive Discussion
      1. Dry Run: "Identity/Talk"
  2. About Edgar
    1. Acknowledgement
    2. Activities
    3. History
    4. Stories
      1. 3-Pack Salsa
    5. Topics of Interest
  3. Comments


Edgar's Workspace

This is where I create drafts for pages/contents for DavisWiki before I figure out their relevance, content, organization, and destination. If you know that the following content already exists, or does not belong in DavisWiki, please let me know by using the comments section.

Pages that I edit

Page: November 18, 2011 UC Davis Police Response to Occupy UC Davis

Page: Importance of Using Your RealName


Groups and Issues that I follow

Group: Agnostic and Atheist Student Association

Group: I am Happy Project

Issue: Dental service billing fraud


Self Disclosures

Editing Guidelines that I follow

The following is a self-disclosure of editing guidelines that I follow. They do not necessarily represent the view of other editors. Some editors have openly opposed any effort to declare guidelines. I am listing them and providing the reasons because some problems on Davis Wiki was caused by the lack of guideline(s). It would be best if the entire community share the same guideline. When that does not happen, it is best if each editor disclose their own guidelines. If you want to make comments please use the comments section, because if you edit here directly you may unintentionally distort my meaning. If you do make an edit in this section due to convenience, I will relocate it to the comments section.

Changes to informative text should be made only if the result is correct.
Explanation: An example of informative text is the phone number of a business.

Changes to explanatory text should improve its clarity.
Explanation: The text in an explanatory section should not misunderstand the message it tries to explain.

The author of a personal section may decide what stays inside those sections
Explanation: Examples of personal sections include the body of a comment, and the non-comment section on an editor's users page.
This is done to avoid potentially changing the meaning of the text.


Notes on the Ethics of Discussion

Ethics is a set of practices aimed to maintain fair interactions. In a discussion, ethics is a set of practices that protects the participants from false accusations and vindictive tactics. In general, ethics are self-enforced. If you are told that a practice is unethical and you agree with the reasoning, then you simply forbid yourself from doing so because you intend to be ethical. The following are some unethical tactics that people intentionally or unintentionally use in discussions. By knowing that these tactics exist, you may be able to avoid them to in your practice.

Failure to Clear an Accusation
Example: Mary accuses John. John explains. Mary finds that her accusation is ungrounded, but does not clear her accusation.
Explanation: An Accuser should be ready to clear their accusation on someone when the Accused provide a satisfactory explanation.

Failure to Address a Claim after trying to Mirror the Claim
Example: Mary claims that John made a mistake. John responses by claiming that Mary made a mistake. Mary explains herself. John accepts Mary's explanation, but does not address the original question.
Explanation: John should address the original question.

Prior Unethical Treatment as Permission to be Unethical
Example: Mary asks John a question. John refuses to answer because he doesn't want to be proved wrong. Both Mary and John know that this is unethical. Now John asks Mary a question. Mary, seeing how John was unethical, also refuses to answer.
Explanation: A person's ethical standard is not relative to who they interact with. Mary should uphold her own ethics regardless what John does.

Persistent use of words with different meaning to the audience
Example: Mary accuses John of hitting her, without explaining that the word "hitting" means something a third person audience would not expect.
Explanation: In a fair accusation, the Accuser should either use words that the accused finds fair, or define the meaning of the problematic words if it could be misunderstood by a third party.
Prevention: Every time the Accuser uses a problematic word, the Accused should highlight the problem and ask the Accuser to acknowledge its meaning.


Notes on Protocols in a Discussion

The following are concepts that explains of some protocols in a discussion. When these protocols are violated, usually the violator simply did not know of such concepts.

Concept: Person who brought up an issue should be the one to confirm when the issue is resolved
Example: Mary brings up an issue. John replies and believes that the issue is resolved. Mary explains why the issue is not resolved. John refuses to accept Mary's explanation and accuses Mary for ignoring his explanation.
Explanation: John is not in Mary's perspective to decide if the issue is resolved. John is not in a position to decide for Mary what is relevant to her inquiry. John should explain to Mary the relevance, and Mary should explain to John the irrelevance.

Concept: Achieving fairness by voicing underrepresented or unrepresented viewpoint
Example: Mary saw that an Article's content is biased toward one viewpoint and wrote her viewpoint to make the article more fair. John read it and accused Mary for being biased to her viewpoint.
Explanation: The fairness that Mary was trying to achieve was a collaborative effort. Mary supported fairness by offering her view that was missing from the Article. Mary is not trying to be fair by speaking for John's view. Mary is trying to make the Article fair by voicing her view.


Notes on Constructive Discussion

I think that this content belongs to a Wiki Community\Constructive Discussions. I intend to declare these features in future discussion to test their validity before creating that page. I want to make sure that I can adhere to the following first so that I could prove to myself at least that the information could be helpful.

Principles and Perspective

Constructive discussion is a discussion that involves all stakeholder to solve a problem in a way that addresses the needs of each stakeholder with humility. It differs from a debate in that the participants do not take sides. It differs from a trial in that the participants are not fault finding. The use of constructive discussion is based on these principles:

  1. No one is omniscient: No single individual knows everything, or knows the best way to do everything for everyone all the time.

  2. No one is perfect: No one is perfectly compassionate, rational, and always behave at their highest ethical self.

  3. Every problem has a solution: Sometimes the solution requires a lot of creativity.

  4. No one is responsible for the solution: No single person is obligated to solve the problem alone.

In a constructive discussion, the participants should understand that they are discussing because in their local community, no one knows a solution that would satisfy all of the stakeholders. They understand that facts and creativity are keys to solving the problems, and when creativity is involved, the question is not whether a problem has a solution, but how it can be solved. Due to the high level of creativity involved, the participants should maintain their humbleness that the very reason they face this problem right now, is that no one in human history had completely solved this problem, thus they are still seeing it in their community. Therefore as far as the timeline is concerned, there is no reason to be frustrated when a solution is not reached. It has not been solved for thousands of years. Human history can wait a year or two. If the solution comes, it is good; if not, it is okay also.

Common Habits to Avoid

The following are features that tend to polarize participants of a constructive discussion. Sometimes I find myself using them out of habit, but I intend to correct my habit.

Rhetorical Questions
Example: "If a shovel is all you have, wouldn't you be digging a hole also?"
Plain form: "A person with just a shovel can only dig holes."
Explanation: I think a rhetorical question offends people because questions usually implies freedom of choice, but a rhetorical question denies that freedom. The person receiving a rhetorical question does not perceive it as plain information, but a restrictive force of their freedom of thoughts. I think that people learned this habit from debates (roughly speaking, debates are not constructive discussions but polarizing discussions). I think that this habit can be undo by acknowledging that at any moment, the best solution of a problem might still be outside the participant's horizon of ideas. Therefore, creativity, open-mindedness, and vision of the big picture that includes the well-being of all stakeholders must be constantly maintained. A focus on creativity naturally prevents a participant from using rhetorical question.

Asking questions that the recipient cannot answer
Example 1: A person is being asked for the details of an incident that is illegal for that person to disclose or to comment on the incident.
Example 2: ([WWW]This is one of my comments where I asked for a rubric for evaluating chancellors.)
Explanation: The recipient of this type of question could feel that the discussion becomes unfair because the question implies that the discussion could only continue if that information requested is conjured, but that information either does not exist, unattainable, or cannot be disclosed by the recipient.

Figurative descriptions
Example: (I will look for an example.)
Explanation: The recipient may not share the same neutral imagery. The solution is the use the plain form of the statement and keep it simple.

Sarcasm
Example: ???
Explanation: When a person is offended by an innocent sarcastic remark not intended to humiliate, the giver should recognize that they might not have demonstrated enough the seriousness of the topic to the recipient of the sarcasm. In general each participant should try to see the needs of each stakeholder as serious as their own needs, or come to a common understanding of the priority of the needs of each stakeholder. A correct, shared perspective of the priorities is necessary for the understanding and continual support of a decision.

Jargon
Example: ???
Explanation: When the participants do not share the same understanding of the jargon, using it could cause unnecessary misunderstanding. When the participants do share the same jargon, but the bystander does not, the bystander is prevented from giving creative input for the solution.

Judgmental Remarks
Example 1: (Sometimes comes in the form of criticizing a fellow participant of having myopic view of the situation, or in the form of over generalization.)
Example 2: When the explanation expressed by a participant is repeated labelled as an 'excuse'.
Explanation: A judgmental remark is one that assumes the intention, or the role of the recipient. The participants should confirm and catalog the variation in roles and concerns of the stakeholders.

Using 'You' in a hypothetical scenario
Example: If you have three fires to fight and you could only attend to two. Are you incompetent for letting the third one burn? ([WWW]Ref)
Plain form: If a firefighter faces three fires but only have resources to extinguish two, knowing that one is left burning is not enough to say that the firefighter is incompetent.
Explanation: An involuntary recast of a recipient's role could be seen as a dismissal or attack on their identity. Worse, if the role is objectionable to the recipient, it could be seen as an act of ridicule.

Voting
Explanation: Voting should be avoided as a mean to reach a decision when possible because the existence of a voting process tends to make participants take sides. Sometimes, conflicts that usually lead to a settlement by voting can be resolved by a rotation schedule. For example, if 60% of the participants wants to go to restaurant A and 40% wants to go to restaurant B, a possible solution could be to go to A six out of ten times and to B four out of ten times. This way, the minority may still have a chance to show the majority why they like B. If the group used majority rule all the time, the group would never go to B (i.e. the minority group would never get to go to B).

Scrambled Timeline
Example: Links to a reaction of an event is not organized correctly chronologically.
Explanation: Keeping events arranged is important because the order of events could show whether a certain viewpoint is gathering strength or losing strength over time. For example, if the accused provided a convincing explanation that caused the accusations to die down, but a heated reaction is inserted after that explanation, it may inadvertently mislead the reader that the accusers stand firm despite the successful explanation, and make the reader believe that the explanation is unsatisfactory.

Tools for Collaboration

The following are tools and actions that tend to help to keep a discussion focused:

Decision Matrix
A decision matrix is a structure that organizes possible proper reactions on a grid indexed by defining factors.
Example Problem: When should I wear a coat?
Example Defining Factors: Is it hot or cold? Do you have a coat?

Explanation: To reach a correct solution usually requires a correct assessment of the situation, and a correct perception of priority given a specific facts of the reality. Sometimes, the process of fact finding and solution creation occurs in parallel (i.e. people are trying to make a decision while facts are still being gathered). A decision matrix helps this concurrent process by separating the two activities, and focuses the participants on the importance of facts.

Stakeholders list
A stakeholders list is an explicit list of major stakeholders affected by the decision, and their primary concerns.
Example Problem: How should DavisWiki handle accusations against local businesses?
Example Stakeholders:

Explanation: A stakeholders list is an explicit reminder that the purpose of the discussion is not to 'take side'. Everyone involved in the discussion has a responsibility to find a solution that meets the needs of all stakeholders. Creation of a Stakeholders list is a way to account for the variation in the participants, and a way to check if any stakeholder is missing from the discussion. Missing stakeholders should be invited to the discussion to make sure the basis of the discussion correctly accounts for the needs from the actual perspectives of the stakeholders.

Statement of Design Goals
This statement is similar to the stakeholders list but without the emphasis of the different types of stakeholders. The reason is that after sufficient discussion, each participant should share the same concerns, either by the inevitable sharing of roles (i.e. a participant fits several roles at the same time), or by the compassionate understanding of what is at stake from the perspective of each participant. Although the stakeholders list may look redundant as it contains half of the information, the stakeholders list should remain because it is the easier document for a bystander to check if their concerns are unrepresented. This statement should be written in a simple, readable format that addresses the concerns of the highest priorities. It is okay to completely drop the lower priorities at the early stage to keep the discussion simple, and return to them later because the list of Stakeholders holds the complete list of all concerns. Oftentimes this simplification step is necessary to assist a step-by-step construction of the solution under the understanding that: If the participants cannot solve a simplified version of the problem, they have no hope of solving the actual problem with all concerns accounted. The participants should consider the simplification not as a dismissal of the actual scope, but an intermediate step for constructing the solution. As such, the Statement of Design Goals builds on itself and advances in complexity over the course of discussion.

Statement of Accountability
This is a statement stating who should pay for the cost (including damage to business) incurred during an investigation or a discussion.
Example Scenario: I want say something bad about business X to warn fellow people about malpractice Y.
Example Accountability Statement (Absolutely certain): "I am hereby accuse X of malpractice Y. I declare that I am doing so in good faith. I am 100% responsible for any damage dealt to X if my accusation is found to be false."
Example Accountability Statement (Less certain): "I am worried by X's handling of incident Y and I question the intention of X. I hereby bring this issue to the public and ask for a fair investigation, after agreeing that X and I will share any damage to X's business and the cost of investigation 50:50."
Explanation: Constructive discussions are not conducted with a 'win-lose' mindset. However, oftentimes the discussion incurs a cost that needs to be covered. The stakeholders should have an agreement on how that cost should be handled. If there aren't enough facts at the beginning of the discussion, the participants could create a Decision Matrix to set the common ground on which party will handle what proportion of the cost.

Fact Lists, Timeline, Organization Charts, etc.
These are documents created along the discussion to keep track of the facts. This helps bystanders to check if any fact is missing or incorrect, that might affect the validity of the decision.

Task assignment chart
This is a chart for participants to declare what tasks they are doing so that participants would not unnecessarily duplicate tasks during fact finding or the deployment of the full or partial solution. This would avoid the situation when many concerned individuals flood the inbox of a stakeholder with messages with many similar but sometimes different questions. When the inbox is flooded, important questions may be overlooked.

Voluntary declarations of conduct
This is a statement that participants may voluntarily make when they enter the discussion. They may declare what bad habits of discussions they have that they intend to fix and ask for fellow participant's reminders if their conducts go out of hand. No participant should be forced to declare their conduct or take vow to speak the truth. The participants should take a stance to help fellow participants to work on the bad habits they want to work on, and forgive misconducts to focus on the issue. When a participant holds a piece of information that is a defining factor with respect to the decision matrix, fellow participants should first attempt to complete the decision matrix without pressuring the participant to disclose. Sometimes, it may turn out that the piece of information withheld is irrelevant for the subset of the decision matrix when other defining factors are verified. For example, in a discussion about a case of assault, it may be typical for fellow participants to ask for the gender of the victim. However, when the victim chooses not to disclose their gender, the discussion should continue with no assumption about the gender of the victim for the decision matrix. After further discussion, it may become obvious that the gender of the victim is irrelevant. In the case where the missing information matters, the participants should construct a solution with under the assumption that the value of the defining factor is 'unknown' and look for a common ground.

Dry Runs of Constructive Discussion

Importance and Apology
These dry runs are attempts to check if the concept of Constructive Discussion lacks important features to represent discussions in reality. To do this, I take controversial discussions here on DavisWiki to check if the most important contents of the discussion can be adequately represented by tools of constructive discussion. I understand the potential harm of re-examining history. I also recognize that forgetting the history is often inadequate to prevent a repeat of the same dynamics that causes a controversy. I believe that past controversies should re-examined, resolved, and properly communicated so that the same controversy will not exist in the future. I understand that there is variation in the cool-off period required for a participant to revisit history objectively. I also understand that the longer the cool-off period, the more crucial that the dynamics leading to the controversy be understood and resolved to prevent future participants from being trapped in the same hardship. If the potential damage to a participant's psychic is irreparable (i.e. infinite cool-off period) then it is paramount that the controversy be studied. I apologize and wish for forgiveness from those involved if I underestimate the cool-off period. I also wish for forgiveness for the delay in this study due to an overestimate of the cool-off period. Finally, I understand that sometimes it is offensive to suggest that certain problem can be prevented. I wish for forgiveness for this attempt to prevent future harm to the emotions of individuals and the spirit of a community.

Dry Run: "Identity/Talk"

The following is my attempt to see what would happen if the content of [WWW]Identity/Talk (Snapshot Dec29) is rehashed according to the guideline of "Constructive Discussion" above. The following is a summary of the discussion up to [WWW]2009-02-27.

Stakeholders List
The following list was constructed as I read the comments of the participants.

Type/Role Wants
Editors who have just joined or spoken Inclusiveness, Equality
Editors who want to promote human-to-human connections Realness
Editors who try to reduce hurtful edits Security

The issue being discussed
The following is inferred from the scope of the discussion. This requires some judgement (my judgement) on what the issue really is about.

Decision Matrix
These are the actions expressed or inferred by the comments so far:

The following are the major defining factors summarized based on the content of the comments.

The following is the decision matrix based on my interpretation of the comments.

This decision matrix shows how we could procedurally refine the stance to identify the specific differences and decide whether they are worth settling. At this point I don't think it is worth going through the history of that page to see how the matrix evolves in the discussion because it seems that a simpler way to proceed is to show one matrix that I believe to be the consensus, and ask if anyone disagrees. If no one disagrees, then the case should be closed, and the matrix should be properly displayed to prevent future misunderstanding.

This is a matrix based on my understanding on what the best action is for each type of situation so that concerns on inclusiveness, equality, realness, and security are met.

Explanation of the defining factors:
Columns:
A. RealName - These are editors with a RealName that is in fact their name (Assuming that somehow we know that it is them).
B. PseudoNym - These are editors with a PseudoNym with legitimate reasons to hide their real name, and includes those that actually provide their real name on their user page.
C. PseudoNym(Vindictive) - These are editors who chose to use a PseudoNym with the purpose to slander, cause harm or disruption. This category includes (Assuming that somehow we know their intention).
Rows:
1. Non-Vindictive Edits - This includes all edits that are more or less intended to be truthful (Assuming that somehow we know their intention).
2. Vindictive Edits - This are edits that are intended to cause harm in either a dishonest or overly-harmful manner (Assuming that we can tell).
In most of these categories, reasonable judgement is needed to identify the current situation. The method to identify the situation is a related but independent issue. We first confirm that there are different categories and confirm our intention, then we can talk about what to do when we see an editor with a PseudoNym knowing that the editor could be category B or C.

Explanation of the intention assigned to each combination:
A1, B1 - We welcome both RealName and PseudoNym users who intend to help DavisWiki
C1 - We explain to editors with vindictive PseudoNym that they should consider changing their PseudoNym even if they are making good edits otherwise.
Row2 - We explain to all editors who make vindictive edits that there messages are hurtful for the community, and explain .

Explanation on how the concerns are addressed:
Inclusiveness is addressed by welcoming both RealName and PseudoNym editors.
Equality is addressed by treating RealName and PseudoNym editors the same (decisions in Column A are the same as in Column B).
Realness is addressed by explaining to Vindictive PseudoNym users that that we prefer RealName when possible.
Security is addressed equally by explaining to all editors that vindictive editing is harmful for the community.

Discerning methods:
According to the decision matrix above, two discerning methods are needed. One to tell when an editor is PseudoNym or Vindictive PseudoNym. One to tell whether an editor is making a vindictive edit. Currently, discerning these differences is up to the fellow editors. Each fellow editor may decide if an editor has a Vindictive PseudoNym or is behaving vindictively. Each fellow editor may initiate communication to welcome or explain. Although each editor may have a different perception due to differences in their subjective discerning methods, knowing that they share the same underlying intention would help identify the actual disagreement.

About Edgar

http://skylet.net/images/2012-03-03%20-%202039%20-%20Edgar.png

Ideals
To build a culture that can sustain peace.
Principles
To always strive for solutions that resolves all concerns,
To be content when there is nothing to solve.
Methodology
To envision with goodwill, to accept without prejudice,
To think with creativity, to act with sincerity.
Contact Info
<edgar.wai AT gmail DOT com>

Acknowledgement

Edgar thanks:

Activities

Current

Inactive

History

Stories

3-Pack Salsa

"Do you believe it?"

The cashier asked me. I was at the check out at Grocery Outlet. The question came out of the blue. She was talking about the 3-pack salsa that I decided to get tonight. On the lids of the salsa it read, "All Profits To Charity." I thought:

a) Sure, why else would they print it on the lid?
b) No way, what a marketing lie.
c) ...

If the cashier didn't mention it, I wouldn't even notice that there were meaningful words printed on the lids. But I am not surprised that I didn't notice. I don't usually pay attention to the surrounding. In any case, I have never heard of a company that would donate all profits to charity. It must be some play of words.

"Nope."

I said. The claim might be so misleading that they could not put them on the shelves of regular stores, but end up at Grocery Outlet, where goods with defective packaging could still be sold. As I put it in my bag I knew that I wanted to find out whether the claim was true. If it really was a lie, I would not want to buy more from that company.

When I got home I goggled and wiki'ed it. Surprisingly there was no review exposing what I thought was a false advertisement. Instead, all reviews pointed to the claim being legitimate. But reviews are just what people say. What is the evidence? On a blog expressing similar skepticism, someone referred to its IRS 990 form that is public. I wish I understand more of the accounting terms, but at least there was a list of the exact grass-root organizations and clubs and the amount that the company had donated. I couldn't tell for certain, but as far as I knew, the evidence pointed to the claim being true. The company really did donate all to charity.

Amidst the shadow of greedy corporations, there is hope.

The next time I see the cashier, I want to buy a 3-pack for her, and tell her:

"I was wrong. It is true."

Comments:
Was this a newman company? Daubert
Yes. —EW

Topics of Interest

Comments

Note: You must be logged in to add comments



2009-12-08 21:34:24   Hey there Edgar. You were my TA in 157B. Anyway, it's good to see you've been recognized for being such an awesome TA. —WilliamLewis


2009-12-09 09:55:14   What kind of game are you trying to design? —CraigFergus


2011-11-22 01:03:56   amateur radio? Have you heard of the HAM repeater in LA? —StevenDaubert

There is a ham repeater in LA that is pretty popular for some reason Daubert


2011-11-25 12:23:36   Edgar, thanks you for your contributions to November 18, 2011 UC Davis Police Response to Occupy UC Davis. I wish you well in you information quest. I replied to your comments there. —BruceHansen


2011-11-26 06:52:03   As of right now nearing 100,000 people have signed the petition, so much more people than edited that wiki page. I think the Nov18 page is complicated enough without a survey. I'm not quite sure where you can put anything like that on the wiki to a good effect. Perhaps on the Katehi's page would be a better location. —RobRoy


2011-11-26 11:15:46   It feels terrible to speak against the decision of 70K (now 100K) neighbors. By terrible I meant the feeling you get when your heart is carved out. At this moment, the police and the chancellor no longer have a fair channel to communicate. Everything they say would sound like an excuse. There is something not right about this. During a protest, I think the university faces these concerns (ordered alphabetically): o Diversion of police that is scheduled for other tasks
o Diversion of resources and staff that were schedule for other tasks
o Non-protester safety and health
o Paying overtime for police and other resources
o Potential lawsuits for any wrong doing
o Property damage
o Protesters safety and health

The chancellor has to make decisions that balances the concerns of many stakeholders. The way I understood the event, the chancellor agreed to let students camp over night on Thursday night, but on Friday night, the chancellor couldn't let them continue in the weekend because there won't be enough staff to protect them or to protect the campus from them. I am not saying that the protesters were expected to damage anything, but I don't think it is sensible for the chancellor to place no additional staff. I believe that the chancellor asked the protesters to remove the camp by 3pm was done in good faith. By 3:30pm, the tents were not removed, not because they took longer than expected to remove, but that the remaining protesters had no intention to remove them. (If this is wrong, could someone correct me?) At this point, I think it is fair to say that the protesters did not cooperate in good-faith. Why is it so important to stay there in the weekend? Why not just return on Monday? Were they looking for an opportunity to escalate the situation.

Comparing the videos during Nov18 and those afterwards, it is true that those afterward look much more peaceful. But this should not erase the fact that on Nov18, the protesters did not act in good faith when they decided to stay.

With this said, I tend to agree that the police was using excess force. In my personal opinion, the police are responsible for these (ordered alphabetically):
o Every time they dispatch to do something, the other locations are not covered, they may not be able to response to other events, that they do not know if the protesters, or any outsiders may use that opportunity to do something bad. Therefore, when the police shows up, they are not there to negotiate. They must act as quickly as they can so that the campus does not remain vulnerable.
o If they call for mutual aid from the City of Davis, then the security of the City is also jeopardized. The potential threat is not just from the protesters that we could see.
o The possession of their equipment, the ones they own or the ones they borrowed.
o The safety of fellow officers.
o The safety of the protesters.
o The safety of the surrounding students

By the time the police showed up, the negotiation phase was already over. The protesters had already refused to comply.

In any case, I think pepper spraying was a wrong decision. I don't know who made the decision. And according to the references, it wasn't even lawful. I have no clue how that happened. I also don't understand the following:

1) Lt. Pike showed the pepperspray to the crowd, but not to the protesters he was about to shoot. To me that meant that he was not trying to warn the protesters, but to warn the surrounding students. But to be fair, he had already talked to the student and even got consent to use pepperspray on them:

Pike: [garbled ]... That pepper spray gun... [garbled] [pats Willee on the back again and starts walking back to the rest of the police]
Willee: No, that's fine. That's fine. You're shooting us for sitting here.

I believe what Willee meant was, "It is so wrong that you shoot us for sitting here. You know that you will pay for what you do right?" It was a warning from Willee to Pike. So in this case, both of them had warned each other and could expect what was going to happen.

2) Just before Pike was going to spray, the police officers outside the circle tried to pick up the students, but Pike waved them away. What I want to know is this: Did the UC Davis police try to pick up the sitting students?

3) Many people had comment on Pike's emotional expression when he was spraying the protesters. I want to know, what expression was he supposed to have?

Could we adhere to the concept that people are innocent until proven otherwise, and hold off the judgement until we have facts? Suppose the police had done what they did in good faith, but made terrible mistakes, who is left to protect the police? —EdgarWai


2011-11-29 23:25:46   There is already a legislative proposals section on the budget page — did you notice that? —CovertProfessor


2011-11-30 01:37:55   Edgar, just letting you know since it's on this page: Willee was actually Case. —BruceHansen


2011-12-25 17:18:10   Remove the underscores. Also, do you really see this as just a business review site? —JabberWokky


2011-12-27 09:47:34   I don't quite understand your last edit to the Identity/Talk page. Who said something about the number of incoming links? (It's a fair point, but I don't see who you are responding to). And why are you referencing JW in your comments? I just feel like you're responding to something that I missed. —CovertProfessor

2011-12-27 10:47:23   I'm utterly confused as well. Is JW referring to me? I doubt I'm the primary linker to that page, and I don't think I wrote most of it (although some of my stuff elsewhere may have been incorporated). —JabberWokky

2011-12-27 12:16:51   I ask because what you wrote makes it look like I'm against pseudonyms, when I've been a long term supporter of them; you seem to be misrepresenting my position. Note that I'm against aggressive anonymous accounts ("FuckYouNeustrom" springs to mind), or role accounts (where multiple people are using a single account and/or implying a greater jurisdiction), but those are fairly specific and different than the position you seem to be implying on my behalf. You also imply that I'm the only one who links there, when I believe I'm fairly far down in the list of people who use that entry when welcoming people. —JabberWokky


2011-12-28 14:08:54   Edgar, there's a stigma attached to a lot of topics having to deal with sexual assault and/or domestic violence. For an example, click that Enterprise link from my comment. Read the article, then go down through the comments. Victims aren't just concerned about the accuser; the fear of judgement and potentially retaliation from bystanders or the general public is huge. Again, read those comments on the Enterprise article. Think about what victims already went through, and then to get a response like that when you reach for help...it's devastating. Absolutely devastating. There's a whole lot of good (and safety) in anonymity. —EdWins


2011-12-28 15:04:28   The signup page is for Wiki Spot and applies to thousands of wikis with radically different cultures, not just Davis Wiki. —JabberWokky


2012-01-02 11:59:03   You say that you want to learn about editing the wiki, but you're missing the first step: listening. You already suggested having editors clean up the chronology for others; I explained why I thought that was a bad idea, but rather than responding to that, you asked again. More importantly, when I said my primary reasons for stopping editing the page were that editors are fried and it's winter break, you re-interpreted that in terms of a general rule, even though I said it wasn't, and then show that you didn't really listen to what I'd said in any case because you continue to edit the Talk page! Well, *I* am fried, and I don't have the patience to continue the conversation right now. Perhaps someone else does, but again, I'd ask you to let it go for now. —CovertProfessor

* When you asked me to stop, I thought you were asking me to stop editing the article, which I did. Please feel free not to reply on my explanation on the Talk page until you are ready. I listened to your reason, but it did not make sense to me. On the Talk page, I explained that your reason was equivalent to asking fellow editors not to fix typos. If someone tells me a reason and that reason does not make sense, I have the responsibility to give feedback. Otherwise no one will know that there is miscommunication. My reply was necessary to confirm the miscommunication. Again, please feel free to reply it later. Also please feel free to make changes (reverts) when you are ready. I just want to see the reason of the reverts if you do. I have an explanation about your comment on general rule when you are ready to revisit it. Please understand that I have already stopped editing, and I did not impose any deadline. You have the full control of the pace of this conversation. It is up to you to decide when you want to reply. Please reply only when you are ready. I would also appreciate if you would specify when a group term like "editors" includes yourself. When you replied earlier, I assumed that you were ready and was outside of that group because you were able to reply. Please recognize that you have the control of the flow. Sorry for the confusion. —EdgarWai


2012-01-02 19:42:17   Rearranging a section is not the same as fixing a typo. It's a larger change that chains the structure and layout of the page. Consider that in regards to the previous request, and maybe it would make sense to want more editors coming in after the holiday break with fresh thoughts and ideas on how to proceed. The fact that no one has asked other people not to fix typos, but you were asked to take a break on some of the editing, should be proof that it's not the same type of editing. Nor at least, not in the eyes of other editors (even if it is for you.) Speaking of typos, a few in my comment (curses on autocorrect sometimes) I'm commenting via a smartphone. —EdWins

ES: May I confirm that you are talking about the items in the current "Timeline" section of the Nov18 page? I am asking this because most of the links there were [WWW]already in chronological order. It is not a typical section with text intertwined. Please also check the "Scrambled Timeline" section in the Talk page, which showed that before I started changing (back in Nov before the break), I asked about it, and in the way I interpreted the responses, I got unanimous support chronological order. When JW said 'horrified', I believed that he was referring to BH's suggestion. Please confirm whether we are talking about the same context. —EdgarWai


2012-02-16 22:22:38   I deleted the talk page, as it seemed to have degraded into theoretical discussions that nobody was really reading or responding to. —JabberWokky I agree that it should be deleted but not for the reason you stated. If you are in such a hurry to turn off the light that you don't have time to ask if someone is still in the room, you should just ask the person in the room to turn off the light when they leave. They way you decided to delete the page like [WWW]this is shocking to me. You may be used to doing it this way because you are familiar with the norms of Wiki, but I would make a note not to do it especially when a new editor is involved. —EW


2012-02-17 07:37:39   You "summarized" your long-winded digressions on the pepper spray page by shortening yours and by deleting the replies that others had made. Some of those replies are no longer relevant, but some of them still are. Deleting others' replies is hardly the action of someone who claims to show both sides. What, are others supposed to figure out how to reply again? It was torturous enough having to reply to you the first time. —CovertProfessor


I have several replies. In my opinion:

  1. It is not polite to other editors to raise a bunch of concerns, decide later that it's made a mess, and then delete their responses to you. You've left your own comments on the page while hiding others comments in links; it's not even clear what is being linked to, or why anyone ought to bother to click on the "...". Regardless of what your intention was, that was what you did. This is not your own personal page, where it is appropriate to collapse discussions so that you can conduct your own personal analysis. You could just copy whichever bits you like to a word processor on your own computer. Also, another way of dealing with the mess that you initiated is to create a separate page, as was done with Crying Girl Con Artist/Discussion. You would then move entire discussions, not just parts of the discussion.

  2. You say you are aiming to list the most important questions. You've already shown yourself not to be very good at understanding the viewpoints of others. [WWW]Here is an example where you give a long list of reasons why people would sign a petition against Katehi, yet most of these are insulting, and, I would argue, you fail to identify the reasons that most people would sign. (I added my own reason later. Of course, that's not on the page anymore, since you deleted it). In short, I am not confident that you can understand what others take to be the most important questions.

  3. For similar reasons, I am not confident of your ability to determine what factors are relevant to resolving facts. Indeed, I would question the suggestion that the answers can be resolved in an objective way at all, by anyone. People have differing values about the issues surrounding the pepper spraying, and the wiki is not a place where those values can be sorted out.

To summarize, I suggest you stick to presenting your own view of things and not try to present the viewpoints of others, or not try to present an unbiased resolution of facts, since you have shown yourself (in the edit I have linked to and other edits) not to be very good at it, and since it's not clear that the wiki is the appropriate place for this sort of analysis. If you really want to perform an analysis of the events, then I encourage you to do it elsewhere. What you are proposing goes beyond cleaning up the page or including alternate viewpoints, both of which would be fine.
CovertProfessor


2012-02-19 19:23:13   Hi Edgar, I have been keeping an eye in your page because I thought you brought some interesting points to the table regarding the UCD Pepper Spray Incident. However, now I am wondering where you get all the time to write so much about your thought processes and opinions. Is there a way that you can make your valuable contribution to the wiki that I think you want to make without so much verbage? I'm pretty sure I (we) would still understand and respect your points. Just an idea or 3...


2012-02-20 19:08:31   I agree that Davis Wiki is not suitable for long posts — thus, my suggestion to move the discussion onto another page, as has been done with Crying Girl Con Artist/Discussion and other discussions that got too long.

I disagree that the content you deleted was either summarized or unimportant. I am not going to respond to your longwinded post with a longwinded reply, because the simple fact is this: I am one of the people whose comments were deleted. I am saying that you did not accurately summarize my views, and while you may think that what I said was unimportant or not relevant, I disagree. The wiki is meant to reflect the diverse views of its community.

If you feel that your views are not addressed adequately, then please add them. But do not attempt to summarize; again, you've shown that you do not do this well. You seem to think that you are seeing things objectively, without taking any position on the matter, but it is obvious to others (at least, obvious to me) that you do at least have certain biases about how the issues should be resolved. Again, that's fine, as long as you don't impose your viewpoint on the rest of the page.

I am going to revert the discussion, and then move it to another page. —CovertProfessor


2012-02-22 07:38:45   Edgar, are you aware that you've written nearly 7,000 words for that discussion page? 6,912, in fact. Most of it seems to be trying to create a systematic analysis of every possible reason for any argument against your viewpoint and rebutting it before anyone can make it. You're running into two problems here. The first is that very few people are going to have the patience to engage on this scope on the wiki. I enjoy a lively discussion, but I don't want to have to read or write a book just to jump in. It feels like work trying to read through your comments. The second problem is that nobody likes being dismissed with a straw man. Your repeated approach of trying to categorize every possible response to you really does amount to that: you're creating straw man arguments and rejecting them.

"The less you talk the more you're listened to" - Abigail Van Buren (aka Dear Abbey)

We have an include (basically a tag you can add to a page) for discussion like this on the wiki:

icon.png The comments for this entry overwhelmingly reflect a single or small minority of individuals. They are repeatedly posting comments that make similar points or are adding long essays that overwhelm the voice of others. Keep this in mind when reading the comments.

TomGarberson

2012-02-23 01:44:39   yeah, people tend to misconstrue my meaning all the time, it got to the point of where I had to explain my rationale / thought process to avoid undue blarghing —StevenDaubert


CP added [WWW]a warning to my workspace. I deleted it for two independently sufficient reasons: 1) That edit was done inside my workspace. 2) The added text was redundant to the passage. In the scenario, When Mary acknowledges John's alert, she is also acknowledging that John's explanation. If Mary had any problem with John's explanation, they are resolved at the same time. If you want to comment on it please do so here. —EW


2012-02-24 11:01:53   "Fairness" not about having all sides of an argument voiced. If there was an article about how child abuse was bad, would it be "unfair" because it didn't include the arguments for child abuse? No. —MeggoWaffle


2012-02-24 12:41:46   Ditto for what JW and ES have said. The wiki is for the whole community. You methods are not welcoming a community discussion they are frustrating. —jsbmeb


2012-03-03 08:45:51   You appear to be operating from the starting assumption that there are circumstances in which using pepper spray on seated protesters is justifiable. Most of the people who signed the petition probably do not share that assumption.

Edgar, the thing that's bothering others is that you seem to be instructing everyone else here. You're going on at spectacular length about how people should think, how they should interact, and how they should edit. That may not be your intent, but that's how it comes across. —TomGarberson


I was just reading this over this morning (several times) and have to agree with TG. I don't think it's your attempt but it definitely has that feel. —Users/PeterBoulay


2012-03-03 10:19:25   "In some of these interactions, I am the victim of your action." Maybe we would get somewhere if you stopped seeing yourself this way. "Simply put, the party that does not promote cooperation is at fault." Wow. This statement is so problematic I don't even know where to begin. —MeggoWaffle


2012-03-03 13:32:23   EW, as our conversation has led from one thing to another, I must admit that I have lost the point of our discussion. So, let me summarize events from my point of view. I have no doubt left out some things; if so, that may be because I am just summarizing, and not trying to capture every nuance, or it may just be accidental on my part.

Awhile back, you came to the wiki presenting the reasons for which someone might sign the petition asking for the Chancellor's resignation. I took offense at that list because it seemed to me that all of your presented reasons were patently ridiculous, and so it seemed to me that you were implying that it would be ridiculous for anyone to sign the petition. What was most offensive about this to me was that you claimed to be neutral about the topic, even though the list of reasons you presented was anything but neutral. You later said that you were just trying to sort things out for yourself. It would have been helpful if you had been clearer about that from the beginning. You've also since specified a list of questions that you insist need to be answered for a reasonable person to have signed the petition. But again, I cannot accept this list, as it suggests things such as one must have a replacement in mind in order to think the Chancellor should resign. That is a highly contentious claim, and, I would say, a false claim. If someone is incompetent, then they are fired; you do not wait until you have a replacement. You may indeed get a worse person. If so, that is unfortunate, so you do your best to hire the best person you can. But you continue to declare that people must answer the questions you have outlined in order to have good reason to sign the petition. You cannot seem to see that this is *your* list and *your* reasons. Fine, you use the reasons that you like. It's when you try to declare that your reasons are objective that I take offense. And when you insist on lengthy replies that comply to your specifications, I refuse to continue, because I don't find these conversations productive and I refuse to adhere to the rules of conversation that someone else has dictated to me. Note that I am not the only one who has objected to your setting rules for how communications should proceed — see above.

Setting those incidents aside, awhile later you deleted others' responses to you from the page. I objected to your deletions. You then quibbled about what "delete" meant, even though I had used it in a perfectly ordinary way. You then accused me of acting unethically by changing meaning of the term "delete," even though you were the one who had changed the meaning of the term. You insisted on my retraction. You then, from my perspective, added insult to injury by writing a little blurb on your page about people who act unethically in conversation. When I objected to that, you spoke of the order of the edits that you had made, even though that was completely irrelevant to my objection about your little blurb. You again demanded a retraction. Not wanting to get bogged down in discussion that was dictated by your rules, I decided to simply point out that you continue to insist that your way is the right way and that everything should be done your way, even though you are the one who has blundered onto this wiki with little appreciation or respect for the way things are already done. You asked me to clarify, and so I did. You then began to quibble about the word "insist" and redefined that term as well. At this point the conversation has really degenerated into ridiculousness, as far as I am concerned.

So, where is this going? Nowhere, as far as I can tell. I am not going to apologize for what appear to me to be imagined slights. From my perspective, you have acted objectionably on more than one occasion, but I am not asking for an apology because it really doesn't matter to me. As far as I am concerned, this conversation is done. We can discuss other topics as they arise. But I would urge you to listen to what many people (not just me) are telling you — that the way you are interacting with others on this wiki is counter-productive and off-putting. Consider the possibility, however remote it might seem to you, that you are in fact not promoting communication and conflict resolution, but rather, prolonging it. Consider that others may have different values and different ways of addressing questions such as the resignation of the Chancellor. But now I am starting to repeat myself, so I will finish here. You need not respond. As I said, I think I am done with this particular conversational thread. —CovertProfessor


2012-03-03 14:37:05   I read your response to me early this morning and was so put off I immediately wrote a reply. Then I deleted and walked away for fear it would be a reply I would regret later. Now that I have had some more time to think about it, I will give one final contribution, after this I will not engage you any longer.
You said, "if you understand my perspective, could you continue the discussion? This is because I don't need to be the one discussing it."
To answer you: No. I will not continue a discussion just because I understand YOUR perspective. And, yes, exactly, you don't need to be the only one discussing it. But you are. And I frankly don't care about the topic enough to waste my energy on, before or now. The pepper spray incident is over, Katehi was not recalled. Move on.
If you were speaking to me during a personal conversation the way you have responded as you have on this page, I would think you were an incredible boor. I hope you aren't really like this.I understand this may not be the opinion of you of others, and I'm ok with that. But as I said, I'm done. —jsbmeb


2012-03-05 21:51:41   Two things:

  1. When I added the second link, the Davis Enterprise article lacked the explanation of the basis for the impending TRO.

  2. Links to the Davis Enterprise should be avoided as much as possible. Their paywall changes frequently and dead links are the result. If there is another source covering the same material, we should use it.

    WilliamLewis

  3. And I was thinking that Davis Enterprise links were so great. That was an important reason not to use DE links. —EW


2012-03-07 20:54:44   Why do you guys keep wasting your time talking to this guy? It's weird. Just ignore and revert when he says stupid shit. He will never understand you. —ScottMeehleib


2012-03-07 21:07:33   I'm sorry Edgar, but you are apparently seriously mentally ill and you need help. Perhaps severe obsessive compulsive disorder? It's probably best if you abstain from the wiki until you get it. Meds might help. —ScottMeehleib


2012-03-08 06:04:54   I prefer to sit on the sidelines rather than participate with a Monty Python skit in progress. But sometimes enough is enough. —ScottMeehleib


2012-03-08 07:04:31   You're rebutting a point of view that you clearly don't understand. The bulk of your discussion is irrelevant to the viewpoint of (most of) the people who signed the petition.

Signors' view: the administration should be held responsible for violating the public's trust when they authorized, or failed to prevent, or supported after the fact the use of chemical weapons on seated protesters.

  1. Subsequent actions aren't relevant. Beyond the spraying and the immediate aftermath, during which the administration supported the officers, nothing the administration has said or done is relevant. It might help save their image, but it doesn't change whether they acted unethically. Negotiations with the protesters after the fact are completely irrelevant.

  2. The relative culpability of the protesters is irrelevant. Even if they've acted badly, it does not absolve the administration of their responsibility, if any.

These things just aren't relevant to the position you're trying to rebut.

Of course the administration is going to put on a good face after the fact. Maybe they're being 100% ethical now, maybe not. Either way, they weren't ethical at the time of the spraying. It's the actions at the time of the spraying that people want them held responsible for. Your focus on subsequent actions shows you don't understand that viewpoint.

Maybe you think the administration can absolve themselves, and that's fine. Many people disagree. For for those people, the initial failure to act reasonably and protect their students is sufficient to warrant the removal of the administration. You're not talking about it in those terms, so you're not actually responding to their view. —TomGarberson


2012-03-11 16:39:53   You evidently feel that protesters camping overnight is justification for the pepper spray. I completely, 100% disagree. I don't care about it enough to try to change your mind, and even if I did, I'm guessing it would be a waste of time. You've demonstrated an absolute inability to comprehend my points and those of everyone else who's tried to engage with you. Some of the craziness keeps sucking me back in, but I'm going to do my best to disengage. —TomGarberson


2012-03-11 18:47:44   "Part of the reason is that I do have some principles and diligence to back up my conclusion." So that's your excuse? And the rest of the world is unprincipled and unwilling to seriously discuss things? No. You are discussing irrelevant minutæ ad nauseum. Most people would rather do other things with their time rather than play that game. It doesn't mean you've won the argument or even that you're more serious about it. It means you're waging a war of attrition. Though you have written many words, you've said remarkably little. Through your exhaustive dissection of strawman arguments, you've demonstrated that you don't understand what other people are arguing. And though you have written quite a bit about your reasoning, a careful reading of your arguments uncovers many assumptions that nearly everyone else in the world would take issue with.

This discussion, if it is to take place, needs to take place on a higher level. You're operating on a level barely above machine code (at least you're not using first order logic) while everyone else is writing pseudocode. It also needs to focus on the issues at hand. The unrequested (and frankly, unwelcome) digressions into your ideas about ethics and discourse is noise that most people are unwilling to deal with.

And just to say it in advance: I'm not going to get sucked in to this. Normally, I'm quite willing to respond to people who respond to my arguments. Your style of argumentation makes this infeasible. I do not have the time nor the patience when there are so many other things I have to do. —WilliamLewis


2012-03-11 19:03:53   Please stop arguing with people for the sake of arguing. This is a collaborative project to document Davis, not a discussion site. Please try to collaborate with your fellow editors. By necessity, this involves communication, but it does not require debate about non-content related topics. There is some social discussion here that promotes community bonding and even friendship, but you are not engaging in that either. Instead you are trying to manufacture and win arguments — something nobody else is doing, nor is it an activity that people are interesting in engaging you in. In short: please stop picking fights. —JabberWokky


2012-03-19 23:14:00   In response to your points, I refer you to the following principles:

I have relied on the principles of Cats, Brilliance, Correctness, and Apple Pie to counter your argument based on cooperation, diligence, and ethical culture. You have been out-principled, and I put more words in bold than you. You are, therefore, wrong. I expect a prompt apology for your false accusations.

Thank you and good day. —PrincipleJones

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.